Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 August

< Wikipedia:Move review | Log
< 2021 July Move review archives 2021 September >

2021 August

edit
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The RM discussion was improperly closed before the minimum 7-day period. There was no WP:SNOW consensus formed at the point of closure to justify early closure, instead there were still votes being cast and good arguments being made on both sides. A non-admin close was not justified per WP:RMNAC.

Whilst the move rationale was based on the war being over, according even to the close rationale posted by the closer, the war in Afghanistan is not actually over, but "practically" over (see this diff), meaning that the close was a contradiction in terms (either the war is over and the move justified, or it is not over and the move is not justified). Predicting that the war will end this year is pure WP:CRYSTAL. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I don't care about the procedural issues on a topic with this much visibility. There seems to be 2/3 support for a move (though it would be helpful if someone tallied the votes). The topic of the article is NATO involvement to remove the 2001 Taliban and support the Karzai-Ghani government that replaced it, not simply conflict in Afghanistan. There is plenty of sourcing that that engagement is over. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was going to be closed this way anyways. The main objections seem to be over minor technical matters, and over the fact that the closer was not an admin. Neither would have affected the substance of the close, so there's no point in re-opening it. Consensus was already clear, and mandating keeping it open was WP:DEADHORSE and WP:BURO stuff we don't need here. Maybe it could have stayed open a little longer, but it would not have gone any other way. --Jayron32 16:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (or relist if not) - New to this, trying to be bold and act in good-faith as guidance seems to say.
I Strongly see the discussion as not finished. Not just about the war being predicted to be over but setting the finish date as start for one battle that's arguably not complete aswell as a declared victory/loss for all parties, there were good arguments & there was a divide with even the **Support** votes saying not at the present time but before discussion was over & minimum 7 days it was closed.
Just wanted to voice where I stood on it since I didn't get a chance to while it was open due to the close aswell as close of another similar one stating not to talk as it would be seen as "disruptive" I don't know if me posting this is warring or behaviour of that nature but thought it important to have on record Daseiin (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus could also be a fitting description of the situation on many move request votes having weak support but saying not now (also to wait for end of month/start of next month) on their comments & relative points in why it should be different or considered inaccurate, didn't it have to revert from 2020-Current in the past for a similar situation? Daseiin (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Daseiin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Endorse large participation and substantial agreement for the move. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Even if a significant amount of people who mentioned "Supporting" and then saying due to what is 'likely' (has weight but still speculation that contradicts other linked articles such as one on Phase 2 or still developing situations in Kabul) but added that the situation is changing and unclear while suggesting to wait with the "-current" name scheme for 31 August or even a week?
    I do wonder if those could perhaps be counted separately and decided where they count if those added views should be taken into consideration?
    -
    There are also mentions that opposers were perhaps biased in the reasons for not liking outcome which I feel is another assumption and this situation has happened before where actions had to be redone and people requested to close in 2020. Believe it also happened earlier this year but that could easily be verified by looking at the talk page and the issues that have been similar even for specific end dates to put into article. I know it seems trivial but there does seem to be a lot of splitting going on and articles are starting to not match up properly which is messy to follow & confusing me at this point on the contradictions. Daseiin (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. (Copy and pasting what I wrote at WP:AN) As someone who voted against the move, I do agree with No such user's close, here. They're right when they say the move is sort-of urgent, and it's clear that consensus was in favour of the move. I think they could perhaps have better labeled it as a NAC, but I also don't think it's that big a deal. I certainly don't think he did anything that I would call WP:POINTy. I can also understand (and sympathise with) the disagreement with the WP:SNOW label -- but again, I think given the direction of the discussion, No such user made the right choice. I'm endorsing the closure. — Czello 07:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Bailey (historian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The nominator was a sockpuppet with some of the supporters of the move. Therefore, once removing them, there was not a clear consensus to move. This should be reopened so that a clear consensus can be found, or closed as no consensus (and the move reverted). It was not a clear consensus anyway in my opinion (as I said at User talk:Johnnie Bob#Mark Bailey (rugby union) move, and the proposal was made by a bad faith editor, which we should not be supporting. I waited until the SPI was over before starting this move review, as it's now new evidence that shows there wasn't a credible consensus to move, and especially not for a non-admin closure. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nashville, Tennessee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The close was a bad close acting as a super vote, stating a guidleine could not be overridden by local consensus. This is blatantly false as guidelines are simply just that, guidelines, not policy, there is always room for exceptions and local consensus to override the guideline. Now I do doubt this would pass but the discussion should have more then 1 day to run it course to see if there is a desire for some exceptions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of places used in the names of chemical elements (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

See #List of people whose names are used in chemical element names below for parallel RMV.

DePiep (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people whose names are used in chemical element names (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Note: page Talk:List of places used in the names of chemical_elements has a parallel RM process, and so RMV request.
Move as proposed. As I involvedly !voted, and per visible consensus, I expect the moves to happen as proposed.
Closer concluded "merge", which was not in the original RM proposal nor was it discussed as alternative option. The closing reasoning contain any consideration. The merge option was mentioned but not argued, and was deferred to 'after closure' (by me btw). Given the subtle and complicated background re etymology (for example see its history, TOCs and the RM talk), I was expecting more, new considerations by more etymology-experienced editors in the follow up merge talks.
Talk with closer: I have addressed these concerns at the closers talkpage [1]. It was not received as a "please reconsider" post. As I read the replies, the closer invokes "IAR" and "supervote" argumentation, in between non-relevant remarks (e.g. invitation to start a content discussion at their talkpage; a frivolous use of process arguments). Worth noting is that WP:IAR is not motivated nor applicable in this closure, and WP:SUPERVOTE clearly states it must be based on discussion content & guidelines, not on a (new, outside) closer's opinion. DePiep (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer here. This was a month-long two-pronged discussion with limited participation, i.e. your typical dog's breakfast of a RM. Somewhere mid-way, Elli proposed a redirect or merge into the existing List of chemical element name etymologies; DePiep sort-of-agreed [2] on the condition that it should be properly merged, preferably after the move. They basically repeated the same comment at the parallel RM [3].
    So, when I examined the discussions as well as the contents of the three lists ("places", "people" and the abridged "etymologies" one), I concurred with Elli that there's huge scope and content overlap and that merge would be the best option for the readers. Trying to address DePiep's concerns from the RMs, I spent an hour duly merging and copyediting the prose. Indeed, that was jumping the gun, since the apparent consensus was only to move the pages. However, I saw no point doing an interim step and spending more time in a second round of merging discussion, when apparently nobody had substantial reasons against the merge.
    The fiasco that ensued on my talk page involved DePiep and myself taking past each other. Yes, my close was indeed not a textbook one; I was trying to help and speed up the proceedings rather than drag the matter through further bureaucracy. I tried to persuade DePiep to produce a single substantive reason why they disagree with the merge so that we could move forward; I would gladly undo the close had I received one. All I got in return was a lecture about the procedure and my "dishonesty" and "framing the discussion" . So here we are. I suppose that's what you get when you're trying to help. No such user (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I literally wrote "... and then we can propose a merge" [4], which is clear and not a "sort-of-agreed".
re "dishonesty": I tried to stay away from personal notes, but here we are. I replied to you remark 'I'm not really fan of the line of argumentation "you are not allowed to enforce your own opinion" (aka "it's contested because I contest it")', which sounds unfriendly to say the least; it was a reply to my second try to start a conversation. Anyway it is dismissive.
Your talkpage is explicitly not the place to start a content discussion in RM. -DePiep (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know, DePiep, you really have a knack to rub the people wrong way. If you had said something like Hi. I think there is consensus to move but not to merge, and I have concerns about it. Would you please undo the merge? I would likely obey. Instead, you said Your closure of this RM discussion is not a reflection of the proposal nor its discussion. Please revert. and your closure is incorrect... But as a closure you are not allowed to enforce your own opinion. which comes across as high-handed and patronizing. Closing discussions is not just counting votes and rubber-stamping. Closers are also encyclopedia editors who have opinions and, in messy situations like this, have to cut an occasional Gordian knot.
Now, if you don't mind, in the interest of peace and harmony I will just re-close the RMs as moved (but not merged), and then you can have merge discussions for as long as you like. There's no point dragging this issue further. No such user (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gang stalking delusion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
Closure request (permalink)

I don't think closer appropriately weighed strength of policy-based arguments. Three editors opposed, consistently citing WP:COMMONNAME (RS do use the name "gang stalking", and do not use the name "gang stalking delusion"). Five editors (including nom) supported a move, 3 supporting Gang stalking (delusion), and 2 supporting Gang stalking delusion (or it might be 4-1 — PaleoNeonate's preferred name is not entirely clear). Supporters' policy-based arguments are not clear to me, but the closer cited WP:PRECISION as the main consideration. But 3 of the 5 supporters specifically cite (as their sole rationale) a comment that begins I've never seen "gang stalking" used to refer to anything but the delusion that one is being stalked by a group., which would seem to undermine the notion that any disambiguation is demanded for WP:PRECISION. Even if you accept that there was consensus to move (I don't), it's unclear why the article was moved to the name with less (numerical) support. (Edit: As pointed out by the closer below, there were two other participants I failed to mention here: one supported a move as a "distant second choice" over merging, and the other left a comment in a threaded sub-discussion which was suggestive of support for the parenthetical title. But my point about the strength of policy-based arguments on each side remains.) Colin M (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus. The closer may have missed Bluerasberry's non-bolded oppose, where he provided an analysis how the term is used in the sources; I don't see a "clear consensus to move" in the discussion. I find the opposers' arguments much better grounded in WP:COMMONNAME policy than the supporters': while there's indeed no actual gang stalking involved, there's no policy reason why we must specify a qualifier in the title, and particularly not a parenthetical disambiguator. As demonstrated by the opposers, majority of sources uses the unqualified title (sometimes within scare quotes). No such user (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did notice Bluerasberry's oppose. Ten editors participated and three supported the status quo against seven that opposed it (including nom, FORMALDUDE and Aquillion, who supported the move as their second preference). That is overwhelming support for the move in my opinion. Both COMMONNAME and PRECISE arguments have merit, but the implicit consensus is that PRECISE trumps COMMONNAME in this case. Regarding using parenthesis or not, I see that as a minor point. Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, a new move request can be started at any time if someone feels strongly about the parenthesis. Vpab15 (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, you're right, I probably should have mentioned Aquillion and FormalDude, though the former supported a move only "as a distant second choice", and the latter only left a brief comment in a threaded sub-discussion that's suggestive of support for the parenthetical title. Regardless, my main concern is the strength of the policy-based arguments, rather than the headcount, and I don't think these two participants move the needle in that respect. Colin M (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that "Gang stalking delusion" is a better choice than "Gang stalking (delusion)" per WP:NATURAL. I just concur with Colin that that the strength of policy-based arguments did not warrant the "move". No such user (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's no coincidence that this user keeps moving pages ignoring Wikipedia:Moving_a_page and other "policies" and "guidelines". i have seen at least three cases in less than a week: Chow Hang Tung, Eder (river) and this. every time this user would arrive at an illogical conclusion upon challenges, but s/he would never concede. in this case, this user said "Yes, I think it is appropriate in this case because of the clear consensus." in response to "Do you think it's ever appropriate for an article to have a title like Foo (bar) while also having the basename Foo redirect to the same page?". lmao.--RZuo (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> Clear consensus that the previous title should be canned. No particular agreement (in more than 3 weeks) as to where the article's title should land. Trout the RM closer for not being clear about WP:NOGOODOPTIONS in their closing statement and no prejudice for there being a new RM at any time. That is the way this should go. Let this closed RM stand as it is and if editors want to request a different name, then they can open a new move request (after this MRV closes and as long as the newly proposed title is not the old title, which consensus was against). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closer did not effectively assess consensus when he did not explicitly weigh arguments that No policy-based arguments have been advanced to support renaming. A majority of participants did not even consider WP:COMMONNAME, when it's WP:SKYBLUE that the term "gang stalking" is practically the only name for this phenomenon, as it called by the participants in the relevant online communities. An apparent desire to qualify the subject as "not a thing" should have led to the realization of WP:WORDISSUBJECT*, which no one mentioned. All of this means that the discussion is deeply defunct, and could not have been closed through a finding of material consensus.
    *leading to no change in the title, as per Gay agenda -- it isn't titled "Gay agenda false concept" or "Gay agenda hateful delusion"— Alalch Emis (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-open RM. While MR is not RM-part-2, per No such user, the COMMONNAME argument is strong and policy-grounded here. There's no need to take every false belief and add in "delusion" or "incorrect belief" or the like to the title, and indeed sources don't. Even if a simple votecount might suggest a weak consensus to move, I think the opposers had a stronger case. SnowFire (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_August&oldid=1053164204"