Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 October

2019 October

31 August Prince Edward station incident

31 August Prince Edward station incident (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

[[:{{{page}}}]]

[[:{{{page}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page}}}|action=watch}} watch]) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

Requested move was listed as consensus not reached. Another user moved the page anyways. Not sure how to appropriately address. I was involved and was against the move. Maerlon0 (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America

Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

The Boy Scouts of America run several program:

• Main article: Cub Scouting youth advancement
• Main article: Ranks in Scouts BSA
• Main article: Varsity Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) § Advancement and recognition
• Main article: Venturing (Boy Scouts of America) § Recognition

As you can see by these edits, the program name has changed from Boy Scouts to Scouts BSA to reflect the fact that its not just boys anymore. I am proposing a change in the article title to Ranks in Scouts BSA reflect this program change. --evrik ^(talk) 21:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (but reclose as no-consensus) (uninvolved) What was the issue with the close? Move Review is not for rearguing the move. PaleAqua (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the reviewer closed it too early. The responders aren't responding to the facts, but to sentiment. I refuted each of the statements they made factually. --evrik ^(talk) 21:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The RM ran for the usual 7 days, so do not think it was too early. That said WP:CONSUB should have probably been brought up more directly during the RM. Looks like there current is a conflict in the result of Talk:Scouts BSA#Requested move 5 February 2019 (2) vs this RM. While my initial reaction would be to endorse per the content of the RM itself. Consistency is a strong argument and of equal weight to recognizable, so I am inclined to !vote Endorse (but Reopen). PaleAqua (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think needs to be reclosed as no-consensus to allow a discussion that deals with the naming conflict between the main article Scouts BSA and the sub article Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America. PaleAqua (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't comprehend this decision, PaleAqua, because to the casual eye it seems you "endorse" but recommend "overturning" the not moved closure to "no consensus"? Don't quite get that – am I missing something? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Endorse Not only is there no discussion with the RM closer, but this move review request is merely a rehash of the RM discussion, which nobody supported. Even if somehow the nominator was right on the merits of the move, there's no way this could be closed as anything more than no consensus, given that the opposes are policy based. Iffy★Chat -- 21:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The opposes are not policy based. A good link to show the actual name is here, Advancement_and_recognition_in_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Scouts_BSA and look at the Eagle Scout application and you will see that the BSA itself has rebranded the program. Also, Wikipedia:NAMECHANGES - "we choose the commonly recognisable name used in reliable sources after the name change is announced."
    "Google search using Scouts BSA". shows that the name is now activley being used.--evrik ^(talk) 21:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • My apologies to @Paine Ellsworth:, but their talk page said they were on a wikibreak. --evrik ^(talk) 22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• What's with the gaudy close box? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's an alternative way to close RMs that uses the template {{subst:Requested move/end}}, which I've updated. The "gaudy box" is essentially the same as the box that is at the top of open RMs. I choose to close with that template in part because of the handy log links at the bottom left of the box. Those links are lost when closers remove the {{Requested move/dated}} template. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• For what its worth, I think it is too big, to colorful, too much big bold text, too attention grabbing for an archive. Gaudy. Visually, it looks more attention grabbing than a usual open RM discussion. Two in rapid sequence is twice as bad. Generally, I think banners and colors should be used very sparingly, and only when there is good reason to attract widespread attention. It is similar to Alarm fatigue. I am fatigued before even reading the words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC) ^{compare with}

Mariner

Mariner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This appears to be a clear no consensus, but has been closed as a move. The closer has disregarded the argument that this was a primary redirect, on which the oppose !votes were based, and claims that this was not a valid argument, which it clearly was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Relist, I would say that "no consensus" can result in no primary topic (this is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#No consensus in primary topic discussions) but at least a relist would be beneficial if that was done. The main support argument that I can see was the HPD but as noted by Necrothesp those mainly point to "Seattle Mariners" for the plural not the singular. Oppose argued PRIMARYREDIRECT and while common sense was argued it might have been better for the oppose to explain why this was satisfied rather than merely asserting it. Common sense is often a valid argument but it probably needed to be elaborated a bit particularly explaining the long-term significance with respect to the other meanings derived from it and its long standing significance. The arguments by the supporters for NOTDIC seem weak, while the spirit of that guideline may suggest readers are not too interested in generic terms, the guideline its self supports redirection when a primary topic exists, similar to Petrol redirecting to Gasoline. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus - it is very disappointing to see that this wasn't resolved through discussion on closer's talk page, given that I (as an uninvolved observer) and two others raised legitimate concerns about this close. To reiterate here, this is a textbook no consensus, as the opposers made the clear argument that this is a legitimate WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT based on significance of the term "mariner" to mean someone who sails. For a closer to close against the numbers (which in this case appears to be a 4 support/4 oppose dead heat) there needs to be strong policy/guideline reasons favouring one over the other, something which was clearly not present here. And re "no consensus" can result in no primary topic, no, that's nonsense. "No consensus" means retaining the status quo, that's the convention across Wikipedia, and that's what should have happened here.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  "No consensus" for ELs tends to result in them being removed and with BLPs it usually also results in removal so I don't see why there isn't a possibility in having "no consensus" resulting in no primary topic but as noted that proposal its self hasn't gained consensus yet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn to no concensus. Besides the nom I see only three "support" comments, which collectively make a WP:NOTDICTIONARY/per nom argument but don't add to anything substantive; on the other side, there are four "oppose" comments (including my own) making a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT argument. That doesn't look like a concensus either way. Unfortunately there was an awful lot of shouting and bludgeoning of the process by the nominator, and I fear that is what the closer as been swayed by. I'm also disappointed that a move review is necessary: closer states that the primary redirect argument "was misapplied", but how so? It was a perfectly valid argument. At the very least there should have been a more detailed closing comment. PC78 (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus or not moved. (Involved) The closer appears to have completely ignored all opposing arguments, including mine, based WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and sided with the supporters because they made the most noise. The arguments made above and on the closer's talk page are fairly persuasive. As to the possibility of a re-list here, the move request had already been open for two weeks when it was closed and I doubt re-listing would result in any change in consensus. Calidum 16:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  The point about it being open for 2 weeks is certainly reasonable for a lack of consensus but relisting puts it back at the top of WP:RMC so users who only look at the top might comment. I wouldn't close as "not moved" since I don't think there was enough evidence provided by the opposes for that though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse close. JHunterJ's closing statement was brief but to the point: arguments that Sailor is the primarytopic for Mariner don't hold up to the numbers. Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Which numbers? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC explicitly allows for primary topics by "long-term significance", which means that numbers on their own are meaningless. Page views can be a very useful indicator and in many cases are enough to generate a consensus for something in a debate. That didn't happen there, though, and even though you supported the proposition and felt that there wasn't a primary topic, many others disagreed. Ergo there wasn't a consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand the closer's statement "per the primary topic (not "primary meaning") criteria supported below", but I do read a "no consensus", and "no consensus" means that there is not Primary Topic, which means that the DAB pages goes to the basename, which is what has happened. (separately I argue that the basename should redirect to the "(disambiguation)" suffixed title, so that the many people who think there is a PrimaryTopic do not mistake the DAB page for an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Huh? "No consensus" means no such thing; see WP:THREEOUTCOMES. The correct outcome of a no consensus close would be to take no action. Your second (off-topic) comment about titling the dab page is contrary to the naming convention at WP:DABNAME, i.e "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself". PC78 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:THREEOUTCOMES, like much of WP:RMCI, overreaches as a fake guideline. It should not be used to tell people how to make decisions as opposed what to do when closing. Please discuss further at WT:Requested moves#WP:RMCI bloated with opinions

This case would be a good example to consider in the still running WT:Disambiguation#No consensus in primary topic discussions. I consider the closer to have used a creative interpretation to get the right outcome.

The naming convention at WP:DABNAME is an age-old mistake that perturbs reasonable Primary Topic discussions, many naturally consider it astonishing that "mariner" takes the reader to a DAB page instead of their expectation. mariner (disambiguation) will surprise no one as a DAB page. DABNAME should be repudiated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

So, you're right and everything else is wrong? Please. Nobody else was biting in that discussion you started at WT:RM. I was challenging your notion that "no consensus" means there is no primary topic; it does not. "No consensus" in this context simply means that there is no agreement on the proposed move. PC78 (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It's more like gnomism in the documentation. Some things are curiously convoluted. WP:Primary Topic is one of the most long running acknowledge to be awkward things, and there is a lot of support in that discussion for a higher bar for Primary Topic assignments. Reading the discussion, I don't think the bar is met. Sorry if you don't like my observation: The discussion was "no consensus", but the outcome was right. That feels like I am agreeing with everybody on something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That a "no consensus" outcome should result in a move going ahead as proposed is simply illogical. PC78 (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If you look in that discussion, you may see that you are not the only one with that position. It is hard to disagree with. I guess that this is a case of the wrong question having been asked. Q1. Is there a Primary Topic for "mariner"?. Q2. If there is no consensus for there being a Primary Topic, is there a Primary Topic? Q3. If there is not Primary Topic, should the base name be (point to) a DAB page? The RM discussion convoluted all three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse - closer made a reasonable decision, which is literally all we ask of them. Red Slash 22:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Muslim conquest of Persia

Muslim conquest of Persia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

A RM had been open on this article for quite some time. The sources clearly showed that WP:COMMONNAME favoured a move (see the first comments by me and LouisAragon), whilst not a single of those opposing comments (which were heavily WP:OR) actually attempted to rebut the WP:COMMONNAME argument, yet the RM was closed with no move made, which I consider a mistake. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse.<uninvolved>. An easily defended "no consensus", almost couldn't be closed any other way, endless relisting is not a good idea. The support and oppose !votes were heavily talking at cross points, neither side persuading the other.

I recommend that the proponents take a pause, minimum two months, before making a fresh nomination. In the fresh nomination, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. <involved>. The result was a clear no consensus, and the COMMONNAME arguments (that is common name, as opposed to the name used by many modern scholars, especially those of Iranian origin) were valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• <involved> A question for those who would agree with the close: could you give a brief outline of what policy or policies the opposing editors invoked (explicitly or implicitly) that supported keeping the article's current name? (As you might be able to guess from my !vote in the RM, I was not able to find much of a policy-based rationale in the opposing arguments, but I'd be interested to hear others' interpretations.) Colin M (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse. (Uninvolved). There was no consensus here, plain and simple. I would advise those who support the move to spend more identifying evidence that addresses the WP:COMMONNAME concern when they revisit the issue in the future. Calidum 16:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Calidum: I'm a little confused by this comment. WP:COMMONNAME was pretty much exclusively invoked by editors supporting the move. Colin M (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • As I said in the RM debate, I think you do have to make a distinction between modern scholarly writing, which often tends to the PC (e.g. desperate attempts to avoid offending Iranians who want their country to be known as Iran throughout history, despite the reality that it is not), and common usage. In the latter, the country is usually referred to until at least the second quarter of the 20th century as Persia in English-language sources. And to my mind, that's what WP:COMMONNAME is all about. What most people call it in English-language sources (favouring those witten by native English-speakers and by those who do not have a political point to make), not what a few scholars call it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Could you please come up with something that supports your bold theory regarding scholars tending to the PC? Few scholars? What is this then? [1] It's amazing how much OR there was in all the opposing comments, god forbid we actually follow the rules, I CBA at this rate (also, I thought Wikipedia wasn't a democracy?). --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
        • There are no rules on Wikipedia. There is only opinion and, following on from that, consensus. In this case, there was no consensus. And I was contrasting scholars (a tiny minority of the population) with the vast majority of people and they way they use the English language. Sorry, thought that was obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
          • So.. if some users throw in opposing WP:OR comments, then there's no consensus? Aight cheers for clearing that up, great to see that this system is working logically. Also, your comment is still WP:OR nonetheless. Anyways, regular people aren't experts in this subject, scholars, however, are. We use scholars as reliable sources, not random blokes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
            • No, it's not OR; it's opinion, expressed in a discussion. You know as well as I do that "Muslim" and "Persia" in this context are still extremely common. It's certainly not OR to say so (WP:OR is, incidentally, frequently misapplied, as you appear to be doing). No, we use common usage for article titles (whether that is by "random blokes" or scholars). If we only used names found in scholarly works to name our articles we'd be renaming many thousands of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
              • OR, bold statements with nothing to back it up with, doesn't make any difference. You're coming with very bold claims which you still haven't backed up ("majority of people uses the current name", "scholars tending to the PC" etc), such as your latest one "If we only used names found in scholarly works to name our articles we'd be renaming many thousands of them." Even if that was the case, I highly doubt we can compare all cases with each other. Ultimately the proposed move is a "winner" by a huge margin, both per high quality scholarly works, and the numbers of them: no one has rebuted the WP:Common argument. HistoryofIran (talk)
• Endorse. (uninvolved) See quite a bit of editing in the RM that some might call tendentious, even bludgeoning. If something is worth saying, saying it one time is all that should be needed. Agree that the policy argument, while not explicitly used to rebut itself, could be seen as being thoroughly, although implicitly, called by some opposers. So Calidum is correct in that editors should have spent more time identifying evidence that addresses the WP:COMMONNAME concern and hopefully will do so in the future. There appear to be challenges with the current title and the proposed titles seen in the request. Would advise concerned and involved editors to strengthen their arguments and try again in three to six months from the RM's closure to garner consensus for a new title. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Spend more time identifying evidence that addresses the WP:COMMONNAME concern? How exactly if I may ask? --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • To editor HistoryofIran: my rationale was not aimed at any one editor in the debate. The applicability of the policy to the proposed and current titles appeared to me to be questionable to several involved editors. When this happens, it usually means that more time is needed to strengthen arguments. So a no-consensus outcome is appropriate. Strengthened args is usually the result of finding more independent secondary reliable sources to support an article title. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 07:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)