Clearly no consensus to move to what is obviously a POV title away from an NPOV title. The closer suggests that this is not a valid argument and seems to base the close entirely on an ngram, ignoring views expressed by the opposers (including myself) and the cited example of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Given the clear lack of consensus, this should at least have been relisted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer. The supporters provided multiple evidence points (ngrams, gbooks, gscholar, JSTOR) to show the proposed title was the most common name in reliable sources; those opposing asserted that this was not true outside Zimbabwe but presented no evidence to prove this. Those opposing stated the proposed title was POV but provided no evidence for their argument; those in support pointed to the article titles policy to show that even if that were true, our policy is that we can use POV titles if they are clearly the most common name for the subject (this was not refuted). I found the arguments in support to be so much stronger in terms of article titling policy that there was a consensus to move despite the even split in head count. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Though the participants were numerically split, supporters of the move provided strong evidence for their preferred title being the WP:COMMONNAME (including multiple Ngrams and other sources). Opponents challenged the claim to COMMONNAME status, but they furnished no evidence for their counterclaim. The WP:POVNAME argument was raised by opposers as well, but the nominator raised a valid interpretation that POVNAME explicitly allows for non-neutral COMMONNAMEs; thus, I don't believe that the POVNAME argument held enough strength to have reduced the discussion to a lack of consensus overall. When the strength of argument is taken into account, I find the close to be definitely correct. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - While I agree with the close in judgement that the discussion itself appeared to have a (weak) consensus to move since participation was minimal, especially compared to the related discussion, I think WP:CONSISTENT should've been considered and the jury's still out on a wider consensus. Considering there was no relist here, I think at least one relist would be warranted/sufficient. estar8806 (talk) ★20:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. First impression is that it’s a jarring close. On looking closely, the closer equates ngram data to reliable sources, which is a mistake. On looking at the actual references, the assertion about which term is used in reliable sources appears baseless. On google scholar the preference is a wash, and a more careful look is needed to see which is used more for introductory purposes. Also the key ngram is flawed by comparing a two word term to a three word term. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Involved) On looking closely, the closer equates ngram data to reliable sources, which is a mistake. However the closer states (per above): The supporters provided multiple evidence points (ngrams, gbooks, gscholar, JSTOR) to show the proposed title was the most common name in reliable sources. The closer has considered multiple points of evidence which were not refuted - not just ngrams. The course of an RM is usually seven days. The RM was opened on 8 October. The evidence was provided on or before 16 October. The close was made on 25 October. Per WP:MRNOT: Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. Further at Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a move review: the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. [emphasis added] The closer is to consider the debate and the strength of argument. While they might confirm links to guidance and evidence. They are not there to closely scrutinise the evidence and form their own opinions regarding same. That is the purpose of the debate. If such scrutiny did not occur (it was not challenged), that does not invalidate the close. Also at Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a move review: Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Equally, an attempt to now challenge such evidence falls outside the purview of a move review. 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. None of the afore goes to this. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s an awful lot of words that miss the point. Are you trying to bamboozle?
The closer appears to have taken ngram data as reliable sources, and that’s a mistake.
The other evidence, your links, showed no such thing, and there is no explanation in the close indicating how links to evidence were used. It was not a good close. It does not induce confidence. It needs to be overturned. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As there appears to be some issue with assimilating too many words: It is the purpose of the RM discussion to debate the proposition to move. It is the role of the closer to assess the debate - not the proposition. Trying to litigate here how the debate might have been conducted is outside the purview of a move review. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the role of the closer to “assess the debate”, like a professor marking a paper, the role of the closer is to declare the consensus evident in the discussion. In this RM, the consensus was not evident.
User:Cinderella157’s !vote in particular pointed at a lot of data that might be indicative but should not be assumed to be reliable sources. The data were not assessed in the discussion, the data were just waved at.
The closer’s second sentence is decidedly wrong. The connection between ngrams, gbooks, gscholar, JSTOR evidence points and reliable sources was not made. The obvious counter point, so obvious that it is justified attention in review, of lack of support in the existing references, which should be assumed to be the most reliable, best quality sources, is jarring. It strongly indicates a process failure. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the debate failed to critique the evidence in a way you think it could or might have been, that is at best a failing of the debate and those that contributed, not a failing of the closer. If you believe that the closer should have made their own critique of the evidence offered and formed their own opinion of the premise in consequence, then that would be a WP:SUPERVOTE. Even if only 20% of results for First Chimurenga from Google Scholar and JSTOR were reliable sources and all of the results for Second Matabele War were reliable, First Chimurenga would still be the WP:COMMONNAME. It is certainly not the purpose of MR to re-litigate the debate in a different way, had the commentors chosen such a course. They didn't. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is very bad form for involved editors to badger. There should be a rule against it. Your !vote is not as impressive as you think, and your badgering it not revealing anything. You are wikilawyering the purpose of review in support of your preferred outcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Involved) The RM was opened on 8 October and closed on 25 October - seventeen days. Per WP:RMNOMIN (see particularly Relisting section): No minimum participation is required for requested moves. ... Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus. Editors are under no obligation to wait to close a move request after it is relisted. Once a move request has been open for the full seven days, it may be closed at any time by an uninvolved editor. Closers wait mainly for general agreement, for consensus, to emerge. If the closer was reasonably satisfied that a consensus had formed, they have complied with WP:RMCI in this respect. It is only a point to challenge on if the ... close of the discussion was ... unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines.
If WP:CONSISTENT was not raised in the debate (and it wasn't), then that is not reasonably a matter that the closer was required to consider as to whether it should have been relisted after seventeen days or could be closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there clearly was no consensus. Two supports (including the nominator) and two opposes is not consensus. The closer merely made a decision based only on Google evidence (which is invariably deeply flawed) and ignored anything else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two supports [...] and two opposes is not consensus is head-counting, and if a closer were to use that as their central rationale, then they'd be deservedly taken to MRV for doing so. Weighting !votes by strength of argument is a central part of almost all discussion closures on Wikipedia, and while Google evidence (and Ngrams, and JSTOR, etc.) is by no means perfect, it certainly outperforms the complete absence of evidence that the opponents marshaled to rebut the WP:COMMONNAME argument. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's head-counting or not, it still does not amount to consensus by any definition of the term. There was no way that the closer could have determined that there was a consensus as stated by Cinderella157. The "complete absence of evidence", as you put it, was based on WP:NPOV, a Wikipedia policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) . It has been long-established, at requested moves and across the project, that discussions such as this are WP:NOTAVOTE. In particular, the Wikipedia version of WP:CONSENSUS works through strength of argument, evidence and rebutting points made by those in disagreement, rather than a simple headcount. And this RM is really a text-book example of that. The numbers were split 50/50, with two votes in support and two against, but the evidence presented by the supporters was much more convincing than the opposition. Pretty much as indicated by the closer above, there was a body of evidence presented showing WP:COMMONNAME, particularly in ngrams, but also in other areas. While both of the opposition votes seemed to hinge largely on the false assertion that Zimbabwean sources should be ignored when considering the common name for this - if anything, the opposite is true with WP:TIES telling us to favour the local way of referring to things - but there definitely isn't any policy saying that the US or European terminology for things is what should prevail. Finally, this RM was active for 17 days, so there's no particular reason to think a relist was in order. Most of what could be said had already been said, and the closer did a good job of evaluating the arguments presented. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I've seen some odd takes in my time but this one really takes the biscuit. Next you'll be telling me we should rewrite American Revolutionary War in British English because the United States didn't exist when it began. By Wikipedia's definition of consensus this one is really very clear cut, and for an experienced editor such as yourself to keep arguing otherwise and perpetuating a systemically biased notion that the way we call things in the UK trumps COMMONNAME evidence and usage in the location where the event took place, is a little bizarre. — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, in your opinion, only one of the parties involved in a war is relevant to WP:TIES? Now, I have to say that I find that quite bizarre! A war is relevant to all parties involved in it, not just one, even the one on whose territory it was fought, especially when that country didn't exist at the time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Amakuru. <uninvolved> How many times we've seen this, and how many times do we need to be reminded that WP sees editorial rationales as far superior to numbers of !votes this way or that way. Good close!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there17:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm just pointing out that I'm aware that closure is not about vote counting, but it is about consensus, and I genuinely do not believe that there was one or that the opposers should have been effectively ignored, as WP:NPOV is a longstanding policy and Google searches are not the be-all and end-all and very often not altogether reliable. But clearly the majority here disagree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesey relist. In a RM with low turnout, if someone asks politely for a relist, better to just relist it. No judgment on the quality of the close. SnowFire (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was never asked to relist. To be honest I probably would have if I was asked, not because I thought my closure was wrong (or that the discussion hadn't been open long enough, it had been open for 17 days and already been relisted), but because I think most experienced closers would have made the same call so what does it matter who ultimately signs off on it. I was accused of supervoting and when I responded to that, this MRV was opened. Jenks24 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. That was indeed less than polite, my assumption in the above !vote was incorrect. @Necrothesp: are you looking for an outright overturning of the close (seems unlikely, with just one editor suggesting that), or would a relist suffice? It seems this whole MR could have been avoided. SnowFire (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'll have no issues if this is closed as relist. I would like to think I have a decent track record of being willing to discuss and even reverse my closures (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) but it's probably unreasonable for me to expect others to know that. Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. MRV is always about disputes about closures and how at least one editor thinks the closer "didn't actually close anything". Length of discussions has nothing to do with it. The close was reasonable and in accord with WP:RMCI, and that is the only rub here. Anything else is a non sequitur. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there20:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Although the participants of the RM were roughly evenly split at 11–13, consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments raised rather than raw votes. Accordingly, greater weight should have been given to arguments grounded in policies, as opposed to those based on guidelines, conventions, and subjective opinions.
Those who !voted oppose cited not a single policy that justifies ignoring COMMONNAME and using a factually incorrect title. The most recurring argument was accessibility concerns, specifically how the "unpronounceability" of the title could cause problems with screen readers, followed by ad hominem accusations in response to good-faith counterarguments and erroneous assertions that the proposed title is a "stylization", in spite of overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise. No policy or guideline, including MOS:ACCESS, states that titles must be pronounceable.
On the other hand, those who !voted support have cited WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:TMRULES, WP:CRITERIA, and WP:NAMECHANGES, three of which are policies. Requests to present evidence of sources that use the contested title were repeatedly ignored. WP:RMNOMIN also states (with emphasis added): 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 RM is also a unique case, as the page was unilaterally moved from a title that had been stable for four months. The editors who moved the page cite a previous RM that was procedurally closed after six hours and three !votes, and which took place under vastly different circumstances. Multiple !voters, including those who !voted oppose, have agreed that this action was inappropriate. If and only if this move request upholds the closer's finding of no consensus, a move back to the previous stable title should be considered. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as closer. My reading of the history of the article title is as follows:
Uncontested at the title, The Expendables 4, from October 2021 to May 2022 (about 7 months)
Brief back-and-forth in early May 2022 with an editor trying to boldly move the page to Expend4bles, and another reverting it back to The Expendables 4
Unsuccessful RM in May 2022 proposing to move the page to Expend4bles (closed early because the nom was a sock)
Uncontested at the title, The Expendables 4, from May 2022 to June 2023 (about 13 months)
WP:RM in September 2023 proposing to move the title back to Expend4bles
This was the history upon which I based a determination that the stable title of the article was the title at which it was created and occupied for most of the first 20 months of its existence. What constitutes a "stable title" for purposes of reversion to a status quo ante is not well-defined in our policies. I am certain, however, that the June 2023 move should have been proposed at WP:RM. BD2412T18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Expend4bles is a stylization at best. Nobody will call it that when they watch it. Also, that title name is not pleasant for the vision-impaired who use screen readers. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BattleshipMan, per WP:MR#Commenting in a move review, editors must disclose if they were involved in the RM being challenged. Secondly, this MR is not a continuation of the previous discussion where editors rehash arguments for or against a title. Rather, we are discussing whether the closer's reading of consensus was accurate, based on the strength of arguments (policy-based arguments are given the most weight), as well as determining where to move the page if there is no consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: (Involved). I stated oppose at the RM. The closers evaluation of the RM as no consensus was an accurate reflection of the comments made. The assertion that the oppose comments should be disregarded as not citing policy is specious as the policy is not clear cut and even policy can be overridden with sufficient justification per WP:IAR (a policy) which I believe the oppose votes gave. The arguments of the closer are persuasive to me that he made a well-considered decision given the contents of the review and his choice of the most stable previous version is also justified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This reader was blatantly and egregiously WP:CANVASSed by @BattleshipMan on their talk page (diff). BattleshipMan should be aware that canvassing is considered disruptive behavior and strictly prohibited. WP:IMR further states: However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came to comment here because of the note on the talk page of the article pointing to this discussion, not because of being informed on my talk page about this discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) as a correct reading of community consensus. The proponents of name change failed to convince the remaining editors that "Expend4bles" is anything but stylisation adopted for marketing purposes, given that many reliable sources (including the film's official website) freely use both spellings. — kashmīrīTALK08:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The move was performed in response to a technical move request (RM/TM) that asked to undo an undiscussed controversial move performed by InfiniteNexus. I have no interest in, or preference for, the article title, and I did not !vote in the move request. — kashmīrīTALK00:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, involved. The initiator of this RM appears to misunderstand what make a title stable. An inappropriate move that goes against the consensus of a previous RM does not become justified simply because it goes unnoticed for a few months. Closer User:BD2412 explains this well in the above comments. 162 etc. (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm starting to think that move reviews should bar those involved in a challenged RM from participating. It's pointless if everyone who !voted "oppose" in the RM just !votes "endorse" in an MR, or vice versa. It should be noted that all who has !voted "endorse" above were involved in the previous discussion and in favor of the present title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If those who voted support can challenge the close decision, those who voted oppose should also be permitted to comment on the challenge discussion, as long as the comments are about the decision itself, not rehashing the discussion. The closer of this discussion is being made aware of the involvements in the RM discussion and can factor that in the decision. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, right. Those involved in both sides of the argument should be involved in the argument of the RM, no matter what. Accessibility of all the readers, including those with vision-impairment, should be taken into consideration of this RM. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The stylization block did not ignore the COMMONNAME argument, they did not think that the stylization of the name which is the same name as "The Expendables 4" just stylized should be carried over, and that it is the natural-language version of the same name which should be represented in the title. The result was a lack of consensus.—Alalch E.01:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That argument was already refuted in the RM. WP:COMMONNAME says to use natural-language titles, linking to the article natural language. If you read that article, you can see that the definition of the term has nothing to do with "not leetspeak". When asked why we should ignore COMMONNAME, the only guideline the opposers kept on citing was MOS:ACCESS, which makes no mention of pronounceability. Without a policy or guideline on their side, none of the opposers' arguments were strong enough to sway the RM to a "no consensus" close. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn(Involved) because the problem is BD2412's mishandling of of the closure, especially based on their mistaken assumption that the article title was The Expendables 4 the whole time and that the title was simply left alone. They have dodged admitting to this error. To trace the article-title journey:
Article title was first The Expendables 4 as pre-official sequel numbering
On June 7, 2023, based on official studio materials being released on that date, the article title was boldly moved to Expend4bles with an explanation on the talk page. The Expendables 4 redirected to that new title.
There was no pushback until September 24, 2023 (so 109 days total) when an editor used WP:ROUNDROBIN used their page-mover privilege to move the title to The Expendables 4. This bold move could not be undone by editors who lacked page-mover privilege. (see comment below)
Because of being unable to undo the bold move, a RM discussion was started to move The Expendables 4 back to Expend4bles.
The problem with RM discussions is that when there is no consensus, the so-called status quo is kept. If the bold move could have been undone, and an RM discussion started to move Expend4bles to The Expendables 4, "no consensus" would have meant staying at Expend4bles. So instead of deferring to the status quo of 109 days, it was the privileged page-mover's preference that was deferred to.
The closing editor, being ignorant of the article being at Expend4bles for 109 days before the RM discussion, said here, "Neither of the possible titles is impermissible, and except for one 24-hour back-and-forth, the article was titled The Expendables 4 for over a year and a half (including a failed RM proposal)." They thought that Expend4bles was only an article title for less than a day. If they missed this, they missed understanding that if the RM discussion was started with the titles switched around, the status quo would be Expend4bles.
Editors who are continuing the RM discussion need to knock it off. This discussion is about how the closure happened. It was the nature of being unable to undo the round-robin move that led to the structuring of the RM discussion and what tends to happen with "no consensus". If the page-mover's action was readily undone, and the page-mover started the RM discussion that resulted in "no consensus", the article would have stayed at Expend4bles. So a closing editor should redo this with clear recognition of these events that transpired. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Struck out my mistake, editor could have undone the round-robin move after all. I withdraw that point. I still think the nature of the "current" title when the RM discussion started affected the meaning of the no-action "no consensus" outcome. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)20:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: Your assessment is flatly incorrect. I stated my understanding of the article history at the outset of this discussion. It cannot be the case that editors can make a "bold move" for a title change that has previously been contested, and then avoid a consensus-development process by fiat. I was neither operating under a "mistaken assumption", nor "ignorant" of any facts stated, and I consider these assertions to be personal attacks. Please strike them. BD2412T18:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was under the title for Expend4bles for 109 days. You said that it was not under that title except for a 24-hour period. I quoted you on that. "Neither of the possible titles is impermissible, and except for one 24-hour back-and-forth, the article was titled The Expendables 4 for over a year and a half (including a failed RM proposal)."Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)20:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RMs aren't overturned based on who said what whereby the closer might have said the wrong / technically incorrect thing somewhere at some point, including in the closing statement itself, but the actual outcome is reasonable / not inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. —Alalch E.20:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the point of highlighting this is showing the presumed fallback position of the closer. "Oh, no consensus, we need to go back to the way it was, The Expendables 4," when it was Expend4bles for over three months. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)20:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement you highlight out of context was in response to the assertion that the title was stable because it had been moved in June 2023. Prior to June 2023, the article already had a stable title, because prior to that move, except for one 24-hour back-and-forth, the article was titled The Expendables 4 for over a year and a half. At that point it had already been established that moving the article was contentious, and required consensus. BD2412T23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
109 days is a fairly long period in the context of page edits but not that long for assessing implicit consensus around moves. While WP:EDITCON does apply to titles, this reversal of the undiscussed move was still within the bounds of reason. The burden to move shifted to proponents of "Expend4bles". The fact that the move reverter had page mover is completely irrelevant, as no one should have had, at that point, reverted them. The same thing as requesting technical help, just doing it yourself. —Alalch E.18:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that the move could have been undone, per below. I would however argue that the article got more daily pageviews under Expend4bles than under The Expendables 4 (incidentally resulting from the promotional push). This is the weakness of "no consensus", that it has to fall back to something. One title should at least edge out the other for a particular reason. It strains credibility that, with lack of a consensus, an article that was titled one way for 109 days should jump back to the other title before that time period, and be locked in to that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)20:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me, 109 days is oscillating on the absolute upper bound of where I would consider it to be the consensus title based on implicit consensus, with many intervening edits in the article ocurring from many editors and no one seeing it fit to revert the move. Truly the upper bound. I very much dislike pseudo-reverts of bold moves, that are bold moves themselves, that exact from the other side to meet the burden of moving in an RM when the burden was on them according to WP:CON. I totally get that. In this case, all things considered, I believe, weakly, that the burden was on supporters of "Expend4bles". —Alalch E.21:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it another way. If Kashmiri showed up at the article on September 24th and decided to simply start an RM discussion to move Expend4bles to The Expendables 4, it's fair to say that the discussion would have had all the same arguments as the ones we saw. Then the discussion would be closed as "no consensus", and the article would stay at the title Expend4bles. Do you disagree with that? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going from Kashmiri starting an RM instead of undoing the bold move, three things are possible: That the discussion would be closed procedurally as an unnecessary use of the RM process which masks an immediately actionable request to undo a bold move (which the RM starter could have done himself); that the closer would record a "no consensus" and move to the name from before the bold move for which there turned out to be no consensus after the fact; that the closer would record a "no consensus" and consider the then-present title as the status quo. —Alalch E.22:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, as a page mover, I was fully able to revert Kashmiri's move, but I did not — in good faith — for a variety of reasons. First, I had already asked whoever would review the RM/T request to decline the request per point two of WP:RM, and then asked Kashmiri to revert their move after the fact. Both times, my request was refused, and comments made by those involved on the article's talk page signaled that a move revert would almost certainly be re-reverted. I had no intention of starting a move war, so I opened an RM in good faith. Admittedly, I had not foreseen the "screen reader" argument (even though it is flawed) and expected it to be a speedy resolution. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Our Manual of Style very clearly says that article titles do not have to follow stylizations. And using a number "4" in the place of a letter "A" is clearly a stylization. And it's a stylization that causes problems for readability and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. A majority of people in the discussion thought that having the stylization in this article title caused enough problems that it was not a good idea, so that's that. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Variety removing the stylization in their prose (see WP:RSHEADLINES for the heading); that's already enough for me as evidence against "almost never". (This is not really my relitigation of the RM in which I did not participate, I'm just saying that you don't have a policy silver bullet) —Alalch E.22:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what RSHEADLINES has to do with this. That's a guideline about sourcing, not naming conventions. You cannot just throw out a guideline that says something about headlines. And secondly, one (or ten) source(s) vs. a hundred is the very definition of "almost never". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, when Variety uses one variant over the other (what they use in the headline doesn't count because that part of the source is not a reliable source in itself, which is why I cited RSHEADLINES, and it often has great relevance in RMs), for a film title, that's already something. Something more than "almost never". Let's just agree to disagree about that. —Alalch E.23:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean by 10 vs. 100. The fact that some sources use "The Expendables 4" does not make it a common name ("almost never"). But as I wrote above, this MR is not a continuation of the RM, so let's just leave it at that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While going through the list of sources above, I found it striking how many of them call out or make fun of "Expend4bles" for being an ill-conceived title:
LA Times: A full nine years after The Expendables 3, we have the confoundingly-titled Expend4bles
AP: Expend4bles, a movie whose most enticing mystery is not the secret identity of its shadowy villain, but how you pronounce the film's title. Are we supposed to enunciate the mid-word numeral, or is it merely visual? Is this what stands for a smart new spin on a tired franchise? Will we soon have My Big F4t Greek Wedding? Are these questions supposed to distract us from how stunningly mediocre the film is? (the headline cracked me up too)
A.V. Club: Expend4bles—pronounced ecks-pen-d-for-bulls (hey, it is pronounceable after all, perhaps the screen reader argument is moot after all!)
THR: Expend4bles — the number is in the middle of the word, get it?
The Independent: Expend4bles – or The Expendables 4, for people who know what an "a" looks like
Rolling Stone: for a movie that's technically called Expend4bles, but which we'll just refer to as The Expendables 4.
EW: The fourth installment of The Expendables franchise, titled rather confusingly Expend4bles
MovieWeb: It's the fourth Expendables film to date, in case you didn't notice the "4" boldly sticking out in the new film's official title.
Digital Spy: Expend4bles (yes, that's really the on-screen title)
TheWrap: The first thing you need to know about Expendables 4 is that its studio somehow made the grating decision to fashion its title as Expend4bles. It's a needless spelling challenge for a dull and vulgar flick with a lot of empty-calories muscle, but little-to-no skill or fun to spare. The second thing you need to know is, that insertion of "4" is, unfortunately, just about the most clever thing the fourth installment of this star-studded action series has to offer.
Bonus: Interview where the producer explains why they chose this title over "The Expendables 4"
Endorse no-consensus close (uninvolved). From a quick read of the discussion, I would have closed it as "moved" myself, as I feel that the supporters of the move had a stronger grounding in policy; however, the opposition was also substantial, and their arguments – while less tied to policy – were not without merit. Thus, I feel that "no consensus" is within the range of reasonable closes that could be made here. As for the question of which article title was the latest stable one, I find myself weakly supporting Expend4bles. Although the article should not have been WP:BOLDly moved in June due to its history of controversy, and four months is fairly short for establishing stability at a given title, those four months were a period in which the article was extensively edited by many editors – which does suggest a degree of collective comfort with that title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). I don't think anyone disagrees that the discussion should have been closed as no consensus so really all we are debating is which title was the stable title. I find BD2412's reasoning here and on the talk page completely reasonable in finding that "The Expendables 4" was the status quo ante. I would also have defaulted to that as the stable title if closing that discussion for two primary reasons: 1) the article should not have been moved to "Expend4bles" in June because there had already been debate about the title (including a procedurally closed RM where several editors had objected to that title), instead a RM should have been started, and 2) the article has been uncontroversially at "The Expendables 4" for the majority of its history. Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Imagine that a film is scheduled to be released in 2024, and the article is titled Wikipedia (2024 film). Someone proposes a move to Wikipedia (2025 film), and the RM is obviously closed with consensus not to move, because the film isn't, in fact, scheduled to be released in 2025. A few months later, the studio announces that the film has been delayed from 2024 to 2025. Even though there was a previous RM with consensus to keep the article at Wikipedia (2024 film), it makes no sense to start a second RM given the uncontroversial, straightforward nature of the move. This is exactly what happened with the bold June move from The Expendables 4 to Expend4bles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here, we're doing move review, not movie review.
We're to analyse whether the RM close reflected the community consensus, and not try to rehash old discussions about the correct film title. — kashmīrīTALK18:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I responding to comments from some users (including you and the gentleman above) asserting that the June move should not have happened "because of the previous RM". Here's why that logic is flawed. And I'm also illustrating why the previous RM is irrelevant, and the fact that "The Expendables 4" was the stable title for most of the article's history is also irrelevant — why would it be called anything else when "Expend4bles" didn't become the official title until June? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's because you failed to convince the community that the film officially received a new title in June 2023 – you did not provide a single source that would confirm official rename. — kashmīrīTALK00:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the close was "without prejudice to renomination should sources further develop in the future favoring such a move". I suspect that the current process is not conducive to that end. BD2412T01:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close. Could have been a consensus to not move, rough consensus that source stylisation should not be copied to titles. Could not have been closed as a consensus to move. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The discussion was closed as 'no consensus'. Although it appears from the discussion that three editors were in favour of the move, only one objected, but the arguments he gave in the course of the discussion were dismissed as not based on facts and also incompatible with the Wiki guidelines (WP:OCEGRS). Marcelus (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As there were two nominations pointing in opposite directions, aiming to resolve present inconsistencies, it would be desirable for the closure to achieve resolution one way or the other. I believe that if there was no consensus, we should follow precedents that ended with reverting to the status quo ante.
Endorse and take no action here. I see no basis to overturn the close, and the idea that a poorly-attended "no consensus" closure can overturn a series of better-attended discussions with clear consensuses as Fayenatic london suggested is bizarre. * Pppery *it has begun...04:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Usernamekiran was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: the intent of the move from "TERF" to "TERF_(acronym)" was to allow "TERF" to be redirected to Gender-critical feminism. This was justified - with no objections - on the basis that most usage of the term "TERF" refers to a specific ideology or movement, and this was not served by the existing page explaining the acronym and its surrounding controversy. However, the page now targeted by TERF was not informed of this move beforehand so editors monitoring it were unaware of a discussion that substantially affected it. As a result, all of the discussions and presentation of contrary evidence that could have taken place beforehand in establishing move consensus have instead taken place afterwards, spanning both talk pages but mostly on Talk:Gender-critical_feminism#TERF_redirect - discussions which do not seem to be moving towards a consensus. My understanding is that there is no point taking the new redirect to WP:RfD since the newly created TERF redirect cannot now be redirected back to TERF_(acronym), per WP:MISPLACED. Given the controversial nature of the subject, the absence of any notification of the target page in advance, the restrictions on what we can do with the redirect, and the lack of emerging consensus for resolving this new situation the discussion should be reopened and relisted. Void if removed (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline in short (up until where I was involved): I had closed the original move discussion. There was consensus to move the page: TERF → TERF (acronym). I was not sure about updating the links after page move, so I started a discussion at User talk:Red Slash, and pinged all the involved editors below the RM discussion. Then I moved the discussion from user talk to below the RM discussion again, it can be seen there in entirety. Then like User:Red Slash suggested, Updating the links is something that people will do as needed. Most of the time when TERF is linked, it's about the ideology instead of the acronym, anyway. I decided to leave it to the editors familiar with the subject. I had updated the links in only two (or maybe three) templates. I had closed the move discussion on 9 September, and the Talk:Gender-critical_feminism#TERF_redirect was initiated on 22 September, so there was no way for me to be aware of it when I closed the RM.
I stand by my close. If there were developments after and/or outside the move discussion, then please feel free to start a new RM. —usernamekiran (talk)14:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A small point in this timeline - the discussion that took place on user talk was only moved to the RM discussion on 22 September, after I raised the issue, 13 days after the RM close. And I note that the claim made in that user talk discussion that most of the time the link is "about the ideology anyway" was extensively disputed in this comment on the GCF talk page on 26 September. Void if removed (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The RM could not have reasonably been closed with any other decision, I think even the nominator here concedes that – "This was justified - with no objections". I do agree that in would have been preferable if during the RM a notification had been made at Talk:Gender-critical feminism but it is not a necessity. Assuming this MRV is closed as endorsed I would suggest the closer note no prejudice against starting a new RM. Jenks24 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's relevant and that is why I've said there should be no prejudice against a new discussion. But this forum is about assessing the closure that has been made and as I said above I don't think the closer could reasonably have made any other decision. Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As noted above, the RM could not have reasonably been closed with any other decision. This was a normal RM, with seven participants in the move discussion, which is likely a bit above average for an RM. The article is also a very high profile article, with active arbitration remedies, so editors interested in taking part had a reasonable opportunity to do so. We have a main article on the ideology and movement itself, and an article with a very narrow focus on the history of the acronym. The vast majority of sources mentioning TERF are clearly about the ideology/movement itself, not about the history of the acronym. Also note that the article on the ideology/movement is the main article on the topic, whereas the acronym article is an in-depth article on a smaller facet of that article (that is summarized in the main article per WP:SUMMARY style). Hence, the main article can never be wrong as a target, but if a source is specifically discussing the acronym the acronym article can be a more relevant target. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) The close was proper. It seems unlikely that the outcome would have been any different with more notifications. However, a new RM discussion can always be started in the future if there is any doubt. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ModernDayTrilobite did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because the RM was treated as a regular WP:COMMONNAME dispute (where both parties are required to provide evidence) in closing this requested move discussion. Note that this is a stylizing issue, for which clear instructions are stipulated in WP:INITIALS, hence no evidence is required. The burden of proof lies only within the opposing camp, a fact seemingly overlooked by ModernDayTrilobitety, as evident from the statement: I feel that the evidence they provided was weaker than the evidence provided by the pro-exception camp. If ModernDayTrilobite sees "no consensus", it means they have "not demonstrated" existence of an "overwhelming majority". In that case, how can that title be kept? That's a move. Otherwise, it's a violation of MOS and creates a bad precedent.
Furthermore, from the closing statement, it seems ModernDayTrilobite relied on vote count rather than considering merit. Has also made contradictory statements in user talk, such as a substantial proportion of participants laid out plausible arguments that the evidence was sufficiently overwhelming to justify an exception. If that's the case, it raises the question of why the decision was not to "keep" rather than declare "no consensus". Additionally, as per WP:BADNAC, non-admin closure is not appropriate when the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. The Doom Patrol (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing summary is an accurate reflection of both the manual of style guideline and of the discussion. MoS initials requires two conditions to be met in order for an article to deviate from it, it is common ground that the first condition is met (the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name) but it is disputed whether "an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person" (the second requirement). Those in favour of the dotless style needed to show that an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that style, while those in favour of the dotted style needed to show that an overwhelming majority of sources do not use the dotless style (which is not necessarily the same as an overwhelming majority using the dotted style). There was no consensus that an overwhelming majority of sources use the dotless style (as would be required for a close of "not moved") nor was there a consensus that an overwhelming majority of sources do not use the dotless style (as would be required for a close of "moved"), so no consensus was the correct outcome. A consensus is required to move an article from a stable title, regardless of whether that title aligns or does not align with a style guideline. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) First, it is clear that there is not consensus for the move, as evidenced by the RM. The close is, no matter what way you look at it, correct. It does not, in any way, matter if the closer is an admin or not. It is perhaps a good reminder about now that WP:BADNAC, and even the closing instructions for RMs, are both essays. They are not, in any way, actual policy or guidelines, and thus hold only weight that is assigned to them. They are good essays, and are frequently used, but that does not mean they are the end all be all. It should be pointed out that the closer is a page mover, and that userright was approved, in part, in order to reduce the ever-expanding backlog at WP:RM. The fact that the closer is not an admin is an argument that seems to be thrown at any close the nominator disagrees with. Administrators are no different than anyone else here, and it is my firm belief that people bringing closes to review boards should stop relying on this joke of an excuse to nominate a closure for review. There also seems to be a misunderstanding here about no consensus. For reference, no consensus actually refers to "no consensus to move", meaning that no, the article should not in fact be moved from its current spot. Given that you have chosen to bring this closure to move review, I hope you're aware of WP:BOOMERANG, because your own behavior in the contested technical request was also heavily problematic. You made a request, and two page movers told you that it required a discussion, to which you demanded an administrator, for a matter that is generally not decided by administrators, but by those who work on technical requests, mainly page movers. EggRoll97(talk) 08:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The RM has three basic possibilities. 1. If consensus is that enough sources omit the period, then the not moved is the result. 2. If consensus is that not enough sources omit the period, then moved is the result. 3. If there is no consensus on whether enough sources omit the period, then no consensus is the result. Insofar as a guideline says majority, clear majority, overwhelming majority, or whatever else, it only influences where to draw the line for how much is "enough". It doesn't change who has the burden of showing which side of the line the article falls on. Essentially, I agree with the closer's rationale explaining "no consensus, relative to the standards of evidence required". I think the judgment of no consensus was reasonable. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
