Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 April

< 2015 March	Move review archives	2015 May >

2015 April

edit

Killing of captives by ISIL – Closure endorsed – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There was no consensus for a move as can be seen in the discussion with 5 opposing and 5 supporting, all of whome had valid policy based arguments. The RM was a multipage RM involving 4 separate articles and should have been closed as 'not moved due to no consensus'. The move should be overturned for all of the 4 articles. 22:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Mbcap (talk)

Comment there was a weak reasoning and no convincing rationale presented by the opposers of the move. Their questions to supporters of the move were satisfactorily answered within the discussion. Khestwol (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer - WP:AT is policy, and includes naturalness, recognizability, consistency, conciseness, and preciseness. The discussion clearly showed that consistency was a wash--the new titles are not in line with the main ISIL article, but they are with about nine different other articles that include the acronym ISIL. With that set to the side, there was nothing set up to counter a crystal-clear WP:CONCISE argument. I also note just for the record (it really is just for the record; I know discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE), the count was 6 to 5; Mbcap forgot to count the original nominator. Red Slash 03:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Nominator made the correct reading of consensus and policy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Greek Muslims – Decision endorsed – —Darkwind (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Greek Muslims (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) Though stability of the article has been chosen as the main impetus for the closer Mike Cline keeping the title as it is, people who chose convenience years ago when the first change was made, as opposed to discussing the merits of such a change, due to a lack of expertise has resulted in the title today being problematic. I feel that a more wide ranging debate needs to take place by others who either come from such communities themselves or have expertise in the area. These people, mostly feel Turkish and not Greek, as academic sources and the people themselves have declared. I have voiced my concern with the title of this article as it infers certain identities i.e. "Greek" about a people who want nothing to do with a Greek identity. Their only connection to Greek culture is through language which they call by a different name, either Romieka (not used by Orthodox Greeks today) and Rumca in Turkish. It would be like saying and naming articles in wikipedia which would infer that current day English speaking USA are "English" when they do not feel so, even though lets say of the sake of argument that someone had named an article as such; and for the sake of stability no change occurred to rectify it. There are precedents (as i wrote in the talk page) already with regards to the Arvanites and Slavic speakers in Greece. No one would call them Albanians or Macedonians just because they may share a cultural trait with those peoples. The next step, in accordance with wikipedia policy would be to undertake Wikipedia:Publicising discussions and seeing what wide ranging discussions would manifest.}}Resnjari (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer: I am aware of this move review and provided the requester with rationale on his talk page prior to this nomination. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the issue with the close? Note this venue is slightly meta and mostly for looking at closes themselves and not for rearguing the close. @Mike Cline: question for the closer. I note that the result was Not moved but the close reason includes mention of no consensus to move. Was the really a "no consensus to move" or a true not moved ( per consensus )? The reason I ask is there is a slight difference in when/how a future move request can be made.
If it is a non-consensus, as it seems like it was to me, it means that another requested move can be made, though I would suggest though probably best to make sure to have all the reasons laid out and consider if there are additional policies and facts that can that might help decide the issue. Considering how the parts of the article policy such as WP:PRECISE and WP:POVNAME between the possible names could probably help. PaleAqua (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PaleAqua In retrospect, as my daddy use to say, half a dozen to one, six to the other. Not Moved or No Consensus. Having read the RM discussion and article many times, I came to the conclusion that this is one of those articles (because of the complexity of and battleground nature the topic) will probably never gain real consensus on a title, thus my suggestions to adjust content instead. And I don't think anything precludes another RM should editors so chose and the community desires to participate.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When i originally requested the move, i probably did not publicize the discussion as wide enough as i should have which resulted in low turnout of input. The article's title is very problematic as it infers that the current community is Greek in national identification, when only language is the largest marker of association with Greek culture. The title could be considered a form of POV, when the article's contents clearly state something else. The article's title was originally Greek speaking Muslims, and convenience was chosen by people to change the article name to Greek Muslims, who themselves said in the first debate in the 2000s that they themselves had little knowledge about. I request that the discussion is reopened. There are also precedents set regarding other peoples (Arvanites, Slavic speakers in Greece) who share cultural traits with other ethnic groups(Albanians, Macedonians), but in no way identify with them (and even find association with them offensive). I apologise to Mike as i did not reply to him earlier (i got bogged down with university studies and did not check the article) and may have caused him inconvenience in the matter regarding closing the discussion.

Resnjari (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it was publicize after being relisted and only brought in one more participant. The rest of your comment is mostly arguments better suited for a requested move than a move review. This forum is not for rearguing the requested move but dealing with issues in the close itself. BTW if you do start a future RM, I would suggest reading up on WP:CANVAS for advice on appropriate notification. PaleAqua (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I unfortunately agree on the likelihood for a consensus in a future RM. The participation was low even with resisting, notification, etc. PaleAqua (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice then for how to go about it

Thanks for the advice, i will re-list it for a move later in the year then. However the first change did not have consensus, and if anything, it was done for convenience without taking into consideration without taking cultural sensitives into account(as was said in the article talk page). Only 2 people gave support in the survey and one was neutral. Could you advise me PaleAqua and others too, was the page then supposed to have been changed, considering that turnout was low. The change was decoded by 2 to - votes. While in the recent debate there was 3 oppose (neutral but oppose) to 4 regarding change. Does it have to be a majority of votes so the article name can be changed or does it have to be everyone ? Moreover, what if the title is offensive or seen as not representative of the community (in this case it is asserting one thing for a people, when they themselves do not feel that way, and there are precedents on wikipedia in that regard for change) ? If it just relies on consensus then say some people wanted to call a article Coloureds for African Americans, but is known that that term is not suitable due to certain historical and pejorative reasons, how would one get change if people opposed it and consensus can not be reached even with the case for change was cogent (as Mike Cline referred to the discussion for change before closing it) or a majority of people supporting it? Would the article name still stay that way ? Resnjari (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article title looks hilarious. Is it logical to create an article named as 'Muslim Germans' or 'Christian Chechens' or 'Atheist Spainards' ? I think we should merge the content with related artciles like Greeks, Turkification, Conversion etc. and delete the article. kazekagetr 08:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse a close of no consensus. Have another crack at an RM in six months or so. Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. A perfectly reasonable gauge of the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Carbon (fiber) – It may be unsatisfying to those hoping for a clear-cut resolution, but I find that there is no consensus in the MRV to overturn the NC closure of the initial RM. There are legitimate arguments towards moving to "Carbon fiber" or not doing so, and there is general agreement that something needs to happen with this topic, but I cannot responsibley find consensus here to overturn the RM and reclose it as a move of "Carbon (fiber)" to "Carbon fiber". From my perspective, a seemingly constructive solution (which is garnering growing support) might be a WP:CONCEPTDAB merging Carbon (fiber) and Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer under the title Carbon fiber, but that isn't a discussion that is to be held at MRV, and there isn't currently enough discussion (nor consensus) towards that goal for me to boldly decide that it's what should happen immediately. – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he gave weight to alternative solutions that were informally proposed, even though these did not change the nature of the clearly expressed support or opposition to the move exactly as proposed, nor did they lead to branching discussions that would confuse the issue being discussed in the RM. When asked on his talk page, the closer did not explain how the opponent's arguments were superior on grounds of policy or evidence. Srnec (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold no consensus and follow initial close recommendation - This page had a requested move in October 2014 (Talk:Carbon_(fiber)#Requested_move) and the result was no consensus with the suggestion that "a more focused discussion on the proper target of the redirect [be proposed] first, perhaps at WP:RfD". Counter to this recommendation, a second nominally identical move discussion was initiated in March 2014 (Talk:Carbon_(fiber)#Requested_move_21_March_2015) which was again closed due to lack of consensus. Per the October 2014 close, this discussion should continue in WP:RfD not WP:MR. --Kkmurray (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. What needs to happen in my opinion is that an expert in the field (or at least a quasi-expert) needs to propose a merge of the two pages in question to make a WP:CONCEPTDAB, followed by that conceptdab taking primary topic at carbon fiber after a successful move request. But first things first: please, someone who knows what they're doing--propose a merge! Red Slash 04:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Minor rewording for clarification - overturn Red Slash 00:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Endorse closure clearly "carbon fiber" used in the world at large, outside of material sciences, is about the composite, even in technical fields, such as aeronautical engineering and industrial engineering. So there are two competing claims to the term "Carbon fiber", one the public is familiar with, and one that materials specialists are. The proper solution is "carbon fiber (some-disambiguator)" for the article currently at "carbon (fiber)". The easiest solution is carbon fiber (fiber) since it is about a fiber called carbon fiber, therefore the disambiguator indicates it is about a fiber and the base title indicates the fiber's name. The composite's article should also move to its common name, which is also "carbon fiber". (note, this is analogous to "Crystal Lake (lake)" vs "Crystal Lake (village)" the duplicated lake indicates clearly it is about a body of water and not a village) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close. OK majority isn't everything but a 7:3 weight in favour of moving needs strong clarity in any decision not to move. There is no such clarity here. The title "Carbon (fibre)" is an embarrassment and stasis is not a good option. Let's do one thing at a time and sort out any trailing dab issues once we can see what we are disambiguating. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer I am aware of this move review and have previously provided additional rationale to requester on my talk. No additional rationale is required from me in this review, That's all I will say.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - Close looks reasonable given the arguments presented on both sides. While a no-consensus close doesn't prevent future RMs, considering some of the arguments presented it probably makes sense to step back and consider other approaches such as the WP:CONCEPTDAB idea that has bee mentioned a few times. I'd suggestion holding a more open/free-form discussion before just opening a follow up RM or merge or the like. PaleAqua (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't endorse the close, since it is basically a non-close, an "I give up, you have to do it over again", in the face of a supermajority in favor of moving, while those against the move appeared to be relying almost entirely on a previous discussion, the validity of which has been questioned. It may have closed that particular thread, as if to be temporarily rid of it, but it has done nothing to close the issue. That said, I lean more and more toward the view that a merge and WP:CONCEPTDAB is the way to go here, so this review may well be moot. I nevertheless agree with the above sentiment that when a closer is going to buck the clear majority, they need to provide a very clear rationale for doing so, or not be the one to close it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either Overturn (I read a consensus for the move, with a strong case that the current name is worse) or moot, I read that it is a content fork and should be merged to Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. I note that "carbon fiber" is a trade name misnomer, and that real carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, are not called carbon fibres. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Greenbelt Station – Consensus is that this is one helluva mess. I find consensus (between the first RM and this MRV2) to use the lowercase titles. I'm not sure if this should be considered an overturn of the first RM, an endorse of the first MRV that if RM2 was NC then move to lowercase, or if this is an overturn of RM2 proper, but to be perfectly honest, that's purely semantics and paperwork and I think everyone has had enough. So, there is consensus between everything that has been said to move to lowercase, and any further retitling will need to be backed by consensus in a new RM; to make it explicit, an RM3 with an NC closure would result in the articles staying at the lowercase title. I'm gonna wait for 24H before doing all the moves out of an incredible abundance of carefulness, just because undoing them for any reason would be a pain in the ass. – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The previous closer of the RM that capitalized Station suggested in move review that rather than do the work to move them back to lower case at that time, we should compromise and have another RM discussion, and that if it ended in no consensus then the pages should default to lowercase, which is what was originally supported in the first RM discussion. The new closer does not seem to think he can fix it as the original closer suggested, though he has closed as no consensus. Details to follow.

First RM: Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move
Review of first RM: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt Station

Note that the review was withdrawn after a long wait for a close there, and after starting the RM that we are now reviewing, which was on the advice of the previous closer, Dekimasu, who wrote in that review about his close (my bold):

Closer comments: I am not able to be very active at the moment, so it's good that so much discussion was able to be done here; I don't mind that this wasn't discussed with me beforehand. At any rate, I do not have particularly strong feelings about this. The proposal was changed with 5.5 days left in the request, and no one objected over those 5.5 days, but it does seem like it would have been helpful to ping the editors who had already expressed opinions. If a single page was involved, relisting would seem to have been an option, but moving all the pages back and reopening in this case seems like a lot of work for questionable benefit. I'd hope that a compromise position--e.g., opening a new move request to lowercase titles, and having "no consensus" default to moving the pages to lowercase titles--might be sufficient in this case. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The new RM that we are reviewing had about 50% support for lowercasing station, but it was mixed up with other problems and distractions, so no consensus was apparent. BD2413 closed it saying: "Not moved. After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution."

Per Dekimasu, that "no consensus" should have resulted in a move back to the lowercase titles that were the original proposal of the first RM discussion, and which had unanimous support before that proposal was corrupted by its nominator BDD flipping the case in this edit.

I encourage reviewers to review the history, to assess the intent of Dekimasu, the original closer (who unfortunately went on vacation for a month at the critical time), and to review other related discussions; I'm sure someone will want to link to discussions of all the trouble I've gotten myself into in my attempts to get this fixed, but I'm trying to follow their advice and use the MRV process to get to the resolution that we mostly want.

The closer of this RM, BD2412, has declined my advice to follow Dekimasu's compromise; see his response in User_talk:BD2412#A potential resolution of the stations question. Hence this MRV is the next step.

I recommend endorse the "no consensus" part of the move, but overturn the "not moved" part and do what the compromise agreement from the last closer suggested.

Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I had been voting as a participant in this discussion, I probably would have supported moving to lowercase "station", because I'm a DC Metro area resident and I and my neighbors (and the local news stations and newspapers) tend to refer to the Metro stops by their short names, without using "station" at all. However, I came across this very-old RM as it was, and closed it as the discussion seemed to warrant. There was an even split of opinions by participants about whether the pages should be moved, and claims on both sides that would legitimize the preference stated. The issue raised in this MR is that the titles previously had an uncapitalized "station" and were moved to capitalized "Station" in the previous RM without there being a specific consensus for that move; therefore the current situation exists without there being a consensus for the pages to be moved to a capitalized "Station". That by itself does not render a consensus to change the status quo, but I will suffer no discomfiture if these pages are moved to lowercase "station" titles. bd2412 T 02:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, these pages did not previously exist at the lowercase titles, even though the first RM apparently had a consensus to do so before it was case switched. Thanks for your comments. You are one of many, who, like RGloucester, favor lower case but won't let us fix it. This really weirds me out. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return to RM – I don't think that the suggestion of Dekimasu can be implemented ex post facto. That would've needed to be made known to participants in the recent RM. Moving the pages now would clearly be seen as an oddity. Whilst I agree with the move to the lowercase "station", I simply do no think that such a thing can be done without returning this to RM, and gaining consensus. I believe that this can easily be done. As such, I am happy that Dicklyon has opened this move review. I think that the best way forward is to reopen the RM for fresh input. There is no other easy way forward. I would add that I think that the early closing of the fist move review was a grave mistake, now that I look back upon it. RGloucester — ☎ 02:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can this easily be done? Why would you expect a consensus to emerge next time, differing from what happened last time with all the "don't much care", "not broken", "go back to the previous conventions", etc noise? Why not support the easy resolution here and now? Anyway, I have previously asked you to do an RM if you think that will resolve anything; I think my name is poison on such things. Note that in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions, it appears that a move back to the original names might enjoy more support than even a proper implementatin of WP:USSTATION, but that also probably won't get a consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A return to the previous names would require a new RM. There was strong support for the USSTATION guidelines before this mess, so I imagine that any such change would fail. I'm no going to file an RM because I likewise feel as if my name might cast such a move in a certain light. The "easy resolution" you propose is even more of a procedural nightmare than the present nightmare, and I'm sure it would only take five minutes for some of the editors who opposed the move to raise a row on the matter. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would require a new RM, if we didn't have this Move Review process that could do it and avoid that. Thanks for your consistent support of the move to lowercase and your consistent resistance to actually letting any resolution happen. This MRV can decide to re-close with revert to the previously supported lowercase, or to the previous names before the improper move; neither would be particulary problematic like the current corrupt state is. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no consensus, the page should remain at the first non-stub version. Anything else encourages gaming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, SmokeyJoe is one of those who contributed to lack of consensus on how best to follow WP:USSTATION, by his suggestion that "The titles should be made precise, as in Greenbelt railway station." His comments don't contribute to fixing the case issue that this mess is about, but rather confuse the question with added noise. And "first non-stub version" might be a big step back, not really relevant here. If we don't fix the case problem, we can go back to the recent stable titles with parenthetical disambiguator before the adoption of WP:USSTATION, but this kind of input only frustrates finding a resolution. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I find it really hard to get my head around this one. The first RM, a big group, found a consensus. The second didn't find a consensus to go back. The early versions didn't contain "station" at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the late change to the first RM target, as mentioned above. The original target was for lowercased "station". After most people had already commented, this was changed to the uppercase. That act was the origin of this continuing debacle. RGloucester — ☎ 05:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's true that the first RM found a consensus, but that consensus was for lowercase, while the RM closed erroneously to uppercase. And second was not about going "back", but going toward what was supported in the first. Please do try to get your head around it and revise your comments. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore status quo of parenthetical disambiguators (i.e. "(WMATA station)") – Dicklyon made two RMs in as many months, creating a huge mess out of the page titles. The articles need to be reverted to the last stable title, then another RM or RfC can be held. Epic Genius (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made one RM, and you did a lot more moving than I did; at least my moves to lowercase station had majority support (as you can see the RFC, the first RM, and my RM), unlike the uppercase Station that you moved them back to. There's no need to rewrite history. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "status quo" at all. The articles have not been at those titles for months, and there was very strong support for the USSTATION guidelines. The articles need to go to lowercase, which was what the original move discussion should've done.RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was the status quo before the moves changed everything on the basis of an indecisive couple of RMs. The only reason why they have been at these titles for months is because no one thought that a second RM would be filed to rename the articles again. Epic Genius (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Dick, if you wanted to move a bunch of articles around, you could have moved directly from parenthetical disambiguators to lowercase "station" suffixes. Epic Genius (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? What's that supposed to mean? I'm not looking for a bunch of articles to move around; just want to fix these ones that got mistakenly capitalized. Why is this even controversial? Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you could have stated at the December 2014 discussion at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested_move that you wanted to move "Greenbelt (WMATA station)" to "Greenbelt station" instead of to "Greenbelt Station". Why didn't you do that? Epic Genius (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that discussion at that time, or I would have been able to stop this before it happened. If I had a time machine, I certainly would take your advice. Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. You know what makes even more sense? Holding off on the RM until a solid decision has been made, so that your moves don't waste tons of time. Epic Genius (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do "beta moves" until a firm consensus has been reached. It's clear that you were using WMATA stations as a testing ground for the new, but not fully formed, USSTATION convention. Epic Genius (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Epicgenius on this, I think. Regardless of the current state of WP:USSTATION, I think Epicgenius's suggestion should, in general, be the naming guideline for rapid transit and light rail stations in the United States – e.g. "{Station name} ({rail system})"... Failing that, definitely move back to lowercase Greenbelt station, as per Dicklyon's proposal. --IJBall (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold no consensus. This is an extraordinary mess. My reading on the first RM is that there is no evidence that those supporting the move would have changed their minds had they known the move was to uppercase rather than lowercase. The only one complaining (correct me if I'm wrong) is Dicklyon. The others seem to be fine with uppercase. As to the RM we're actually reviewing here, clearly no consensus, so no basis to move back to parenthesized titles much less to lowercase titles. As to Dekimasu's "hope" that a "new move request to lower case titles, and having 'no consensus' default to moving the pages to lowercase titles", I see no basis for that. For any move we need to establish consensus. We clearly had consensus to move from parenthetic to either uppercase or lowercase. The issue that remains is whether there is consensus to move from uppercase to lowercase. I see no evidence that such consensus has been established.
Finally, there is no clear policy reason to change these titles again, and I suggest that any RM that does so constitutes a clear violation of WP:TITLECHANGES and is disruptive. --В²C ☎ 17:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's amazing. Not only are you the only one so far to claim that the current titles that came from a corrupted RM are acceptable, but you go so far as to preemptively say that any attempt to fix them is disruptive! Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please stop with the drama. Somebody made such an innocent an innocuous change to the original RM proposal from station to Station that either nobody noticed or nobody cared. I can't believe you're making such a big deal out of Station vs station. Why does this matter to you so much? --В²C ☎ 07:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It matters so much because the flawed Greenbelt RM was used a precedent on 4 other RMs, and completely derailed the process of getting started on implementing what seemed like a sensible new set of station naming conventions. We should implement them, or change them, or roll them back, but not semi-ignore them and propagate error across a wide swath of articles. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold no consensus and revert to lowercase, as Dekimasu acknowledges was the case supported by the first RM discussion. Alternatively, cancel and revert the whole set of moves and go back to the original (pre-December 2014) titles (the Epic Genius and SmokeyJoe suggestion, essentially), since there is evidently no support for the uppercase and little support for the new station naming conventions. Thanks for the note on my talk page; my dynamic IP with Comcast seems fairly stable for a while. 73.222.28.191 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close and revert to lowercase RMs are not just decided by number of votes, but the arguments provided. While there was no consensus looking at the votes alone, the arguments to lowercase "station" are much stronger than the few arguments to leave "Station" capitalized. This RM had the intent of fixing the first RM where there was consensus to move from "Greenbelt (WMATA station)" to "Greenbelt station". The original consensus was clear. Unfortunately, the capitalization in the middle of the first RM muddied the waters. While the closer of this RM identified no consensus, I an disappointed that the rationale was simply "Not moved. After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution." This RM has become a complex issue and requires analysis of the entire situation of both RMs and MRVs to come to a conclusion - not just looking at this one RM in a vacuum. Weighing all of the arguments needs to be performed, and the closing user needs to explain the rationale for the decision point by point. Many arguments at this RM did not address the current question being asked. The arguments for "I don't like the current naming scheme, so lets go back to parenthetical disambiguation on all articles" should not be entertained, as the previous RM already showed support for the new naming scheme. Discussion at WT:USSTATION has some people that don't like the guidelines at all, and that spilled over into this RM to fix capitalization. The guidelines were established through years of consensus building, and there are still some very vocal people that do not accept them. (Look through the archives of WT:USSTATION to see how the current guidelines were generated. All of this has been discussed ad nauseam already, and now it is being battled out again scattered over several pages. The people against the new guidelines are just going to bring up the same arguments over and over again at every RM adhering to the new guidelines, which are in line with WP:AT - unlike the old unwritten conventions. So while I agree that guidelines are recommendations, and it is up to local consensus to see if it should be applied to individual articles, if the detractors from the guidelines show up at every RM, nothing will get done and there is no point to having guidelines.) Arguments of "the guidelines do not reflect actual practice" should also be thrown out - as these are new guidelines and these RMs are attempting to implement guidelines (which the first RM had unanimous support for). Arguments for "it's not broken, so don't do anything" should be weeded out as well. These long and arduous discussions prove that it is broken, and needs to be fixed. So getting down to simply uppercase "Station" versus lowercase "station", lowercase station has clearly supported arguments that uppercase Station is lacking. --Scott Alter (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that strong arguments and consensus matters. I disagree that the arguments are obviously stronger in favor of lowercase, or that a few people working on a guideline, even for years, establishes a consensus that the community has an obligation to follow. At best that's merely a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --В²C ☎ 19:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - While I see the arguments for using lowercase and had I !voted, I probably would have supported such. In some ways this could be looked at as a local consensus ( or local non-consensus ) at the RM vs a wider consensus at WP:USSTATION. But there is some leeway in WP:USSTATION on if the name is part of the proper-name, and many of the arguments show a lack of consensus on if the name is proper or not and thus the close of a no-consensus reasonable. The result of a no-consensus RM close is to move to the long standing name, though in this case it seems reasonable per IAR to use Greenbelt Station or Greenbelt station. While it might have been nice if BD2412 have used Dekimasu's suggestion, I don't see that brought up directly in new RM itself and going the other way is also reasonable. @BD2412: For no consensus closes, could you consider closing as something like "No consensus (not moved)" to make it clearer that it is distinct from "Not moved" i.e. consensus was against the move in the future. See WP:NOTMOVED. PaleAqua (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that my close clearly conveyed that there was an absence of consensus. The wording is different, but the sentiment is the same. bd2412 T 15:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah was very clear and it's a minor detail at best. Just sometimes makes it easier to explain when this might be the wrong venue and that a new RM perhaps after a delay be better, vs. suggesting when the it is time leave the poor horse alone at least for quite a while. PaleAqua (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold no consensus, and revert to lowercase per previous RM: I have to concur with Dicklyon, who summarizes it best: "'no consensus' should have resulted in a move back to the lowercase titles that were the original proposal of the first RM discussion, and which had unanimous support before that proposal was corrupted by its nominator ... flipping the case". Now that we've had the second RM, and it has concluded with no consensus, as most of us expected, there really can be no other result. I don't necessarily question the finding of "no consensus", but cannot agree with the later RM's closer not abiding by the earlier one. The argument that it's some kind of ex post facto gaming is nonsense; the discussions are linked and few participants in the latter did not participate in the former. All that said, if the close itself were to be questioned, I would agree with Scottalter that the arguments to lowercase are much stronger than the arguments to capitalize, so we end up at the same result: Lower case. And even aside from this uphold/overturn review, there is clearly doubt (thus the question of whether consensus was reached or not), and we still have the MOS:CAPS default: When in doubt, do not capitalize. That's three RM procedural reasons to use lower case here, versus zero to capitalize. MOS says lower case, the earlier RM said lower case, and this later RM did not come to a consensus to overturn it and capitalize (of that much there is no doubt). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbelt Pings

Ping group 1

@Secondarywaltz, BDD, Scottalter, Jmchuff, Kamek98, Calidum, and Tony1: Since you commented in the recent RM... Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping group 2

@SnowFire, DanTD, Epicgenius, Born2cycle, SmokeyJoe, Omnedon, and Amakuru: Since you commented in the recent RM... Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping group 3

@66.235.50.168, Cuchullain, and 73.222.28.191: Since you commented in the recent RM... Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do pings of IPs work? Maybe we'll find out. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not. Epic Genius (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would a note on their talk pages be in order then? Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would give them a big orange notification bar. Epic Genius (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping for those only in original RM

@Golbez, Thryduulf, and AjaxSmack: Since you participated in the first RM... Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping those in the related RFC at USSTATION

@Robert McClenon, Ansh666, Bkonrad, and IJBall: Since you participated in the linked RFC... Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close. Either as no consensus, or endorse, it has been so long, without activity, with the nominator now blocked, that any impetus for action should start afresh. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.