Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 August

2024 August

Liverpool 1 (TV series)

Liverpool 1 (TV series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

I think it's wrong to close a move (whether as not moved or no consensus. in this case, the former) if there are only two participants and since its only been 8 days. While there is no minimum participation, I don't think 2 people opposing is enough because the nominators/proposers decision should also be taken into account alongside the participants. It is also because the policy on WP:SMALLDETAILS can be subjective. Liverpool One is the title of the shopping complex while Liverpool 1 is a dab page with it only containing the TV series and the shopping. I know that people may refer to the shopping area as Liverpool 1 because of the fact that it's also in the logo. However, natural disambiguation is preferable, hence why small details apply. On the RM, the views for the shopping area and the TV series is about the same. The closer went by counting votes (closers shouldn't just count votes but weigh them) and have excluded the nominator/proposers rationale. I just think the consensus score would have been 1 support and 1.5 opposes. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that relisting (or even overturning it) is the best way forward. JuniperChill (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• EndorseWeak endorse (involved) but possibly change to "no consensus" or relist, both opposers pointed to the ambiguity such as the logo of the shopping area using "1" rather than "One". I am a supporter of SMALLDETAILS but I doubted it applies in this case so its not like the opposers didn't discuss the policy. In terms of the point about natural disambiguation WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT may apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). Entirely correct close. The title is clearly ambiguous and we deal with ambiguity with disambiguation. The only participants other than the nominator (who is also the nominator here) opposed the move. Yes, it only had three participants, but if we reopened every close that only had a handful of participants we'd hardly close anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Because two people opposing with one supporting (the proposer) isn't enough to deal with whether or not small details would apply. If someone proposed (for example) to change Tacoma, Washington to just Tacoma (because Tacoma redirects to Tacoma, Washington), and only 2 people opposed it, that's fine by me because WP:USPLACE stipulates that the state has to be included with almost every US city. Therefore, relisting it should have been the option, or simply, leaving it since RMs could last for infinity. While Liverpool 1 is ambiguous, hatnotes can deal with it fine, like in ice cube (the one used to cool drinks down) to Ice Cube (the rapper). Apple is ambiguous due to the tech company, but that title is taken by the fruit. I normally search in all lowercase. I could argue that a the closer opposed it

  And with natural disambiguation, how is Liverpool 1 redirecting to the shopping natural? What I mean is that both articles won't have a disambiguiator or maybe I was thinking it wrong JuniperChill (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The fruit is considered primary by long-term significance rather than primarily because the company has a different title, see Rock (geology) which is primary for Stone even though its not for Rock. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT states "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary". If the RM had have been closed as "moved" I would have taken it to move review. If we were discussing Liverpool 1! and Liverpool One!! then I agree SMALLDETAILS would apply but as noted "One" and "1" are interchangable and evidence was presented by both opposers that the shopping area is ambiguous with "1" so it seemd reasonable for the closer to close as "not moved" though as noted a relist or "no consensus" may be better and possibly the shopping area should also be qualified. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's not Formula One vs Formula 1, because of the fact both are in common use (though I could argue Formula 1 is WP:COMMONNAME but that's a different topic altogether). But with the Liverpool One/1 situation, its different. Both articles have way less views than F1 and that there are only one article titled Liverpool 1 and Liverpool One. When I tried to move Train simulator (disambiguation) to Train Simulator, (which Crouch also participated in and supported it. Necrothesp was also there, but opposed it) the opposers stated that there are only a few articles that are titled "Train Simulator" with the rest being partial title matches WP:PTM, and the fact it adds ambiguity.

  Maybe you meant to vote 'weak endorse' because you said that relisting/no consensus may have been a better option? JuniperChill (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the point is that for Train Simulator there is probably no primary topic even though Train simulator has one. The same might be true for "Liverpool 1" meaning I'm not saying "Liverpool 1" should redirect to the shopping centre but go to the DAB which it does. As noted I provided evidence that the shopping centre appears to be called "Liverpool 1" with my Google search and Necrothesp provided the argument about the logo. Such arguments may have been weak but were from what I can see policy based and were the only evidence presented in the discussion, you didn't provide any evidence that "Liverpool 1" mainly refers to the TV series. Now if the debate was relisted and evidence of a primary topic was presented and we had others agreeing with you then yes the discussion could later be closed as "moved" but from the evidence and participation in the discussion as it standed it could only have been closed as either "not moved" or "no consensus" if not relisted. I have changed my !vote to weak though my main point of "endorse" is that the discussion should not be closed as "moved" at this time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  To conclude, the reason why I opened this review was because of the fact that there were only two participants which both of them opposed and its only been open for 8 days (just above the minimum of 7). If there were at least three participants and all of them opposed, I would've left it as it as and won't have to talk to the closer, let alone open this review. I would be hopeful for a third participant to support/oppose it, and it would've been the end of the matter. I am thinking it's wrong to close an RM with just two participants opposing it and that relisting or leaving it is the best way forward since RMs don't have a maximum length and that is what I would have done (although idk about relisting moves I opened). Hopefully, there will be uninvolved users commenting on this since it's been over 30 hours and I have notified the TV series Wikiproject. JuniperChill (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak endorse (uninvolved). Had I been in the closer's shoes, I probably would have relisted the discussion or closed as no consensus, but I think "not moved" is also within the range of reasonable interpretations a closer could make here. Participants were divided on whether applying WP:SMALLDETAILS would be appropriate – and some back-and-forth took place on that question, so I don't think either side would have been likely to convince the other with more time for discussion. The only primary topic-related discussion argued for no primary topic, so the absence of a consensus to apply SMALLDETAILS means that not moving the page was the correct approach. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)