Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 July

< Wikipedia:Move review | Log
< 2021 June Move review archives 2021 August >

2021 July

edit
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chow Hang Tung (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closure request
no legitimate reasons to move. s/he did not care at all to verify the proponents' claims to move. s/he was given the opportunity to defend the decision to move, yet s/he cannot answer challenges.--RZuo (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus makes it clear: "any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it"; "this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority".
the page mover simply did a head count without any evaluation of the claims that were obviously contradicted by the article itself and facts.--RZuo (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo:, the closer’s job is to evaluate the arguments. There was no Oppose argument to evaluate. No policy- nor source-based rebuttal to the nom/Support. You can’t blame the closer for failing to do their own research and WP:SUPERVOTE; they’re not supposed to do that. See my relist comment below. —В²C ☎ 19:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."--RZuo (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. Nobody at the RM or this MR has argued with evidence that the nom or Support arguments which dominated the RM discussion were irrelevant, nor was it obvious that they were. You really need to read WP:SUPERVOTE, because that’s what you’re expecting. —В²C ☎ 13:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Supervote: "This is an essay." "Pile-on supervote: A discussion has an emotive majority in favor of an outcome, but it is clearly against policy. It is a supervote to close the discussion in favor of the majority as such, ignoring the policy faults of their arguments."--RZuo (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Very reasonable close; to go against the majority of users and the reliable sources cited, the Opposers would have needed much better policy-based arguments for why the previous title is not only a defensible title per the relevant policies, but also why it's better than the proposed title. Iffy★Chat -- 09:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Iffy. Reasonable close based on the presented evidence. No evidence supporting the actual title has been presented apart from hand-waving and WP:BADGERING by RZuo. No such user (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "No evidence supporting the actual title has been presented..." -- another user that doesnt care to read the article itself.--RZuo (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist After reviewing the English sources in the references, had I participated in the RM, I would have opposed the move because the majority of the English sources including the BBC use the non-hyphenated form. Among the sources there, only the Hong Kong Free Press uses the hyphenated form. The subject uses the non-hyphenated form on her own Facebook and we give even more weight to how people call themselves. But I did not participate in the RM and such a compelling Oppose argument was not presented there, so the closer cannot be faulted for not overriding local consensus—nobody gave them a reason to do so, and there is no basis here to overturn. While an endorse is warranted (there wasn’t even a single formal Oppose) I think the project is best served if the close is reverted so more salient arguments could be presented and the proposal re-evaluated accordingly. —В²C ☎ 15:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might well be that "the majority of the English sources including the BBC use the non-hyphenated form". Then again, the opposite might be true. A quick search finds mixed usage in the media. In any case, the RM discussion is the place to establish if there is a COMMONNAME and which one it is. Vpab15 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> Closure seems reasonable. So after full review of the RM, the talk page discussion, the article itself and the above nom and reviews, the new title is thought to be correctly in place. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Move review: "Move review is a process... to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines." "Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion."
WP:RMCI: "any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments."--RZuo (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a move based on factually incorrect arguments 'was reasonable'."
"facts and wiki 'policies' can be ignored when they are not explicitly spelled out."
"i didnt see. i didnt factcheck. i dont care."
that's what these users are essentially "endorsing". 🤣
if there's anything that should be done, it's reverting the article to the correct name and close this move review under the "snowball clause"--thus far no one has yet managed to back up the supporters' three arguments with any evidence.--RZuo (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paine Ellsworth, yes, but WP:MR also says: “ …if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.” In order to determine whether “significant relevant information was not considered” the merits of the move request have to be considered. Hence my question stands: After reviewing the evidence do you think the new title with hyphen meets CRITERIA best? I do not see evidence in the RM discussion which shows that usage in RS was properly considered in determining which of the two titles meets CRITERIA better, so I favor a Relist in this case so that this RS usage information could be brought into the discussion and the proposal be re-evaluated accordingly. —В²C ☎ 13:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That RM had nearly 6 weeks to consider relevant info without ever having been relisted, not seven days but six weeks. Time to put this to bed and endorse a perfectly reasonable closure. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RMCI: "closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments."
i bet the user knows nothing about the supporters' three arguments. s/he doesnt understand nor care to read up on anything about "Wade–Giles", "Hong Kong names", "romanisation of Cantonese", etc.
in fact, s/he was so ignorant in the closure that s/he ignored the plurality of reliable sources in the article that showed the non-hyphenated form was used by more media.--RZuo (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here at MRV we try to determine WHAT is right, not WHO is right, so please stay focused on the closure, not on the closer, the RM participants nor the editors here at MRV. Your words might just serve to show how wrong you are. So please show a modicum of WP:AGF. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i quoted a "guideline", and i showed exactly how the user failed that guideline -- s/he was not familiar with such matters and she had no ability to make these assessments. the ignorance and inability are reflected in the user's failure to answer how the supporters' three arguments hold true and why s/he approved of those three arguments.
Wikipedia:No personal attacks: criticism of a user's action is not personal attack.
on the contrary, instead of focusing on the closure, making ad hominem arguments against me and my words is not helpful.--RZuo (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
on the contrary, instead of focusing on the closure, making ad hominem arguments against me and my words is not helpful.
That's essentially correct. You've made ample mistakes in this discussion, so I don't have to worsen the situation because you are digging your own grave. You don't need help with that. What you DO need help with is the concept of consensus. The closer read the consensus in the RM very well, and consensus here so far seems to favor endorsement of that closure. There have been many times that consensus did not favor my opinion, but I went along with consensus. Like the rest of us, you will be expected to go along with consensus, too, as will I, however it turns out. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i'll sum this up one last time for other observers:
  1. in the RM, there were only two "policies" or "guidelines" mentioned: WP:NC-ZH and WP:COMMONNAME.
  2. in the RM, it was explained in detail that WP:NC-ZH is not applicable.
  3. in the RM, special:diff/1029306843: "both names got some sources, and her social media use "Chow Hang Tung"."
  4. in the article, more sources use the non-hyphenated form.
  5. given that the RM established that, (1) both names have sources, (2) the person uses the non-hyphenated form herself, (3) more sources use the non-hyphenated form, the page mover fails to answer how the move to the lesser-attested hyphenated form followed any wiki "policies", especially Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_page.
  6. none of the users above have come up with justification for the page mover's failure either.--RZuo (talk) 18:44, 5 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_July&oldid=1053164199"