Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July

< 2024 June	Move review archives	2024 August >

2024 July

ABC News (United States)

Ignoring the "per nom" and "as above" arguments, I do not see a clear consensus. It looks like a 50-50 to me. So, as other users pointed at BillMammal's user talk page, I believe that that this discussion should be reopened and relisted. GTrang (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I believe that the arguments in favor of moving the page that I brought up are stronger than the arguments in opposition to moving the page that were brought up. It is true that more individuals supported moving the page than opposed moving the page (it was over a 2-1 margin in favor of moving). A bean count, of course, is not enough; consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. But since the quality of the arguments made by those involved in supporting the move (including myself) were higher than those of those who opposed the move, I see a consensus attained, and I believe that the close faithfully reflects the consensus attained in the move discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified those who participated in the requested move and also those who participated in the ensuing discussion on closer's talk about this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (uninvolved). Clearly not a solid consensus for a move of this nature. For reasons, see here. There have been many RMs in the past. One as poorly attended and poorly argued as this one~~, open for only one week,~~ does not create a consensus for a massive change. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move request was opened on 18 June 2024 and closed on 3 July 2024. That is to say, the discussion was not open for only one week, but was instead open for over two weeks. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I was looking at something dated 24 June, but evidently not the close... Srnec (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation, and even those not by much - and generally, seven participants is a good number for an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on poorly argued. For example: The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts. I must be missing something because this clearly establishes the US broadcaster as the more watched. The support comment that oppose arguments have a very US-centric worldview bears no relationship to the actual preceding oppose comments. To this we can add per nom and as above. The whole discussion is so short it is very easy to read in full. Which I did after I saw the link corrections in my watchlist. I was flabbergasted that this counted as consensus. In a very different case, it might. But these are highly visible articles with a history of RMs. (And just for the record, I am neither Australian nor American.) Srnec (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my consideration of that as closer, I saw that as evidence backing the supporters claims that there was no primary topic; they don't establish which is more popular - more significant - because they aren't directly comparable they do establish that both have very large audiences that are comparable in size.

Importantly, this wasn't disputed by the editors opposing the move, one of whom even interpreted the figures as meaning that the Australian source is more popular. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to chime in here, using views to determine an article merger/move makes no sense in this case. There needs to be a better argument developed. This move discussion was a lame duck one (no offense) based on the number of views a network / program received. Soafy234 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist (uninvolved). I originally outlined my thoughts on the closer's talk page after the various moves started to popup in my watchlist. I don't think there was a clear consensus and it should have been closed as "no consensus" or relisted. The non-admin closer (BilledMammal) gave equal weight to the two "per nom"/"as above" comments as the other 2 support comments & the nominator (they stated: "If someone writes an effective argument, it would be a waste of editor time to require those who agree with that argument to rewrite it rather than saying "per x""). But this shouldn't come down to a WP:VOTE & should instead be judged based on the quality of the discussion. Remove those two "per nom" comments and it becomes 2 support and 2 oppose with BilledMammal as a tie breaker determining the discussion should be closed as "support"; there also wasn't really a discussion between the editors who stated their thoughts. There really only seemed to be two higher quality comments (one oppose, one support) arguing about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so I think further discussion to determine what the primary topic is would be useful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, when closing RM's the nominator is also considered to support the proposed move. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist <uninvolved> pointedly not because I think the closure was wrong at the time, but because the ensuing discussion on BilledMammal's talk page should have made clear that interested editors had not fully had their say. The closure was procedurally correct, but I don't think "you snooze, you lose" is the right answer in this situation, particularly since there's no evidence people were trying to game the system by waiting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Extraordinary Writ. I don't have much to say here, and I certainly have no opinion on the underlying matter, but if I had been asked to close that request I would have relisted it. The subsequent discussion on the editor's talk page made that abundantly clear, IMO. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One concern I have with a relist is that it means participation won't be representative of the community. This is because editors who see the link corrections are more likely to check the discussion if they oppose the move, because they may want to overturn the result. In contrast, those who support the move are likely to consider it settled. This can be seen in comments like this one. BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How ... How in the world is two weeks not enough time?? RM policy is for a minimum of a week. Come on, man, people had enough time. People miss out on important move requests all the time, you shrug and move on because we can't keep every request open for months waiting for everyone to chime in. Red Slash 05:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist I wasn't involved in the discussion but figured it would certainly be a lot longer considering the past discussions to move American Broadcasting Company to the ABC title itself were a lot deeper, more involved, and considered the gravity of moving an article with WLH numbers in the thousands. But looking at a couple of the votes specifically, one of them was from an editor with fewer than 200 edits (most of them in mainly one talk page, not at all in article space for several years), one was from a British editor with no skin in the game complaining about the opposers as having a 'US-centric worldview' and nothing else, and then one simply saying 'as above'. Considering that the WLH for either the US or AU orgs are well into the ten-thousands combined with sources, this definitely needed much more notice and much more time, and much better consensus than 'per nom' (see Disney Jr. for an example of a recent discussion which was properly done even if I opposed the move as pointless because we're not a marketing arm of The Walt Disney Company or any corporation). This doesn't involve an obscure Asian version of an MTV video channel whose links are less than 50 at the most with none of its website being used to source items, but two major news organizations which are used in thousands of articles as sources, and the close and overall botching of the move definitely requires a much deeper discussion. Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to one was from a British editor, I didn't think that we discounted arguments on the basis of nationality. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or if they have "no skin in the game". TarnishedPath^talk 08:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk @TarnishedPath thanks for the back up. Not sure what 'skin in the game' is, sounds like an Americanism to me. I'm off for a cup of Earl Grey and some crumpets now, followed by possibly some fish and chips and delivering a few googlies. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Endorse. < uninvolved > There appears to be a good bit of overreacting to this move request, and after reading all of it, I still cannot figure out why. Seems clearcut to me, and I would have closed this RM the exact same way. Who cares about the 5/2 count, the args were greater on the support side. This closure was perfectly reasonable and in accord with the closing instructions. What's with all the freakin' freak outs and block for??? Please, everybody just calm down! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Paine Ellsworth, I believe there was a very good reason for the block, and your arguments are a bit on the emotional side. When an editor is asked to stop, they should probably stop--and note that I unblocked immediately after being assured that it would not continue, for which I am grateful. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You did only give me four minutes to stop, which personally I felt was a little short given it took me five minutes to notice, but nevermind BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Forgive me please, editor Drmies, I really am not the emotional one in this discussion, and have noted a good deal of seemingly unjustified and heated emotion on the closer's talk page. I have asked for a calm down, and I would dearly appreciate it if everybody would just dial it down a notch or two, so this move review can get to the gist of this matter. Your block of the closer, one of WP's best page movers, appears to have been just a teensy bit unjustified, but please don't go into it here. I don't really need an explanation, but my talk page is always open, when and if necessary. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I think the block was about stopping the script since unlike a bot, there wasn't a clear off switch. Regardless of how this discussion goes, a lot of editors have flagged more efficient tools BilledMammal (and various page lurkers) can use going forwards. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You, and other editors, may be interested in participating in participating in this discussion that I opened at WT:BOTPOL about the link correction feature of Move+. I believe that it is currently the most efficient tool for this, although there are some modifications and additional features that I intend to add to improve it further.
  
  Regarding the block, if I hadn't been active at the time I would have agreed with it - before stepping away I even considered leaving a note saying "I'm currently AFK. If Move+ starts breaking things, or otherwise needs to stop, block me" - but since I was active I wish they had waited a little longer. Waiting ten or fifteen minutes would have been reasonable in my opinion. However, it doesn't really matter, and this is the wrong location to discuss it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uninvolved) the discussion was active for more than 7 days, the minimum required. A RM banner was placed on the article for the duration of the discussion. Given the high amount of visitors, one would think more would participate in the discussion. No further notifications are required in the RM process. The last substantial discussion was years ago and consensus can change over time. This nom was backed by figures rather than 'it should be this way' nom like we saw in the previous discussions. After determining the quality of arguments, the close is reasonable and I would have closed the discussion in the same direction. (although I would utilise the aid of other editors to help update the links via dabsort tool. In my experience when dealing with similar moves that had thousands of links, there would be a minority portion of them wrongly linked in the first place and this would be an opportunity to correct the links). – robertsky (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (uninvolved). I don't think this move was appropriate considering by far, the American station is the primary topic, and gets much more page views than the Australian one. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uninvolved): It's clear from the RM discussion that those supporting the move were both numerically superior and had stronger arguments than those who opposed the move. Consensus in the discussion is clear. TarnishedPath^talk 04:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Consensus policy states: Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. I am only seeing one argument that uses Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the original discussion supporting the move, which is that of the nominator. It seems disingenuous to suggest one side had "stronger arguments" given that. I would be interested to know which multiple arguments you are seeing that I am not. Οἶδα (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw no strength of argument in the oppose votes. I did see a couple of move voters rebutting the oppose votes, without answer. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist <uninvolved>: Besides the dearth of explanations (only two arguments were put forth that included mention of Wikipedia policies and guidelines), the original discussion had little to no actual back-and-forth. You create a requested move discussion and wait patiently but receive only scant engagement to this end. Irritating, I know. Nonetheless inappropriate for a non-admin closure of this magnitude after such little development. Nothing about the discussion could be described as fully developed. I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves that. So I am inclined to co-sign Extraordinary Writ's message. The discussion is evidently waiting to happen. Unfortunately it took watchlists getting loaded with thousands of backlink changes to awaken it. Οἶδα (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One week is typical. Two weeks is long. This was longer than that. I wouldn't have blinked at closing it. Red Slash 05:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per User:Paine Ellesworth. The objections to the RM on the talk page seem to have been a lot of excitement that some procedure or convention wasn't followed, but a less excited/excitable look at this situation doesn't make it obvious that there is anything that wasn't followed. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (uninvolved): It's clear that the move was rushed. It was opened only 2 weeks before and no previous editors that opposed it before were notified that a new review was ongoing. Previous consensus thus still needs to be included unless new information is presented that invalidates that previous consensus. No such new information was presented. Ergzay (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 weeks is not rushed for a RM, as they generally go for a week. Also, there is absolutely no policy requiring previous editors that opposed be notified. In fact only notifying editors who opposed previously could be considered WP:CANVASSING if editors who were previously supportive of a move weren't also notified. TarnishedPath^talk 07:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath In the last two reviews there was only opposing viewpoints so that would still be a full notification of all previously involved editors. Ergzay (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the previous two RMs had less participation. If you were suggesting that all previous RM participants should have been notified (which there is exactly zero policy requirement for) then I would expect to go back further than two RMs. In any case that is not a policy based argument that there was anything deficient in the RM. TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that past discussion participants be notified for any discussion on Wikipedia. If someone cared that much about the ABC article(s) in question, they were free to put those articles on their watchlist. The mere fact that notifying past discussion participants is permitted in many cases (so long as it is neutral) does not impose a requirement to do so, and failing to identify any policy-based argument that it was a requirement here, it is not appropriate to use the fact that was not done as a "deficiency" in the move request by the opener. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <involved>. Clear majority to move (hardly "50-50"!) and clearly superior arguments given the Australian one is a national broadcaster and this is not USpedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I was the one who relisted the ABC discussion and after having a look at the pageviews, you can see why the US one is more popular than the AU one. I also stated that the page should have been move first so that other people like Rodw and Onel5969 can also fix it. I was thinking that its fine for one to fix the links if there are less than 100, but 10,000? Maybe relisting the discussion would help because of the large pageviews between the US and AU news agencys?. One reason why Wikipedia doesn't work by (only) counting votes. (I have learnt it in my first time closing RMs.) JuniperChill (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist: This looks like a coup to me. Small participation, short duration, closing editor accused of bias, !votes in favor ignoring these criticisms. Calls to shut this down with the argument "everything was done properly so this should not be reopened" completely miss the point that this was hustled through with minimal participation. I see two sides use various statistics to bludgeon their opponents, completely missing the point: that both sides have a case. To me, it is clear that AUS visitors to Wikipedia expect the AUS ABC while US visitors expect the US ABC (and it's unclear what international visitors expect). To me the solution is obvious: there is no primary topic, meaning ABC News should redirect to the disambig page. CapnZapp (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uninvolved). Overdue move. Supporting arguments were sound per WP:WORLDVIEW/WP:GLOBALIZE and brings the title into line with Consistency principle per WP:CRITERIA. This is EN.WP, not US.WP. If it were only a tie between US/Aus then I'd be more reticent but as the disambig page now lists many news orgs and channels/outlets using "ABC" (Philippines, Albania, Spain), it's beneficial (or at the very least does no harm) for the US article to be explicitly labelled. PRIMARYTOPIC may have applied 5 years ago but I think that is now eroded far enough to no longer apply. The fact that the American article grabbed the "ABC News" title in 2003 when the overwhelming majority of contributors and visitors were US-based (and there was no Consistency principle) does not mean it is appropriate to retain that today ("first-come-first-served"), given global internet penetration and global users/contributions. Hemmers (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist so we can have a proper discussion. There was one argument to move based on a misunderstanding of the source information - oddly it was even stated as a reason to move "The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts" - which, yes, does say that the US ABC News gets seven times as many viewers as the Australian one. Even though the move !vote was based on serious misunderstanding of the source, its logic was rebutted by an !vote in which it was pointed out that we apply different criteria when assessing which articles are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only that one !vote quoted appropriate policy - the other comments were not policy based, and/or were not focused on why a title was the primary topic or why the primary topic status should be changed. There was no accurate policy based argument to make the move, though there was one correct policy based reason not to make the move. When discussing and deciding which title should be primary we follow the guidance at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, which if followed would have clearly indicated that the US news station is clearly primary in terms of number of readers (the data is currently lost because the page has been moved - but if I recall it was something like 16.1K compared to the Australian 3.3K, and the number of links in and out was in the thousands compared to the hundreds for the Australian station). I think an incident like this should flag up that a requirement of EVERY move request should be that the stats are examined or displayed before a close can be made so we don't make obvious mistakes like this in future. Also, that if there are more than 1,000 links that need changing (or whichever number is agreed), that only an admin experienced in move requests should close the discussion. It appears that considerable disruption was caused by the amount of links that needed changing, and the mover encountered a number of complaints, a whale sized trout, and was briefly blocked. What's done is done, and it appears to me that everyone involved in this was working with the best interests of the project at heart, but we need to learn from this incident so something like this doesn't happen again. SilkTork (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you on this. I think all page moves that do require a significant amount of changing links should require an administrator to close the discussion and not by a non-administrator. I think an amendment to the process should be made in order to prevent situations like this from happening. Soafy234 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is flawed. There are a number of admins here endorsing the close. What's next, scrape WP:NAC? – robertsky (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Silk is right. Admins (vs trusted laymen editors) should be closing the toughest moves... not the toughest decision-wise, but logistically. This one was screaming for an admin close. I don't think BilledMammal realized the scope of how many things would have to be changed.

The substance of the close itself, however, is flawless, and should not be overturned. Red Slash 05:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The substance of the close amounted to "moved". No further justification was provided in the closer's statement. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even admins would find it hard to work with 10,000 links logistically. The last I checked, admins don't have a magic tool to update 10,000 articles at once. (Move+ as it was, was the next best tool followed by dabsort, other than getting a BOTREQ done). – robertsky (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the data is currently lost because the page has been moved - but if I recall it was something like 16.1K compared to the Australian 3.3K

Because the ABC News is still a redirect to ABC News (United States), it's possible to get the values by setting "Include redirects"; see here.

It appears that in the past year articles related to "ABC News" have been viewed almost 399,000 times. Of these 219,000, or 52%, were to the American publication. The next largest was the Australian publication with 50,000, or 12%.

the number of links in and out was in the thousands compared to the hundreds for the Australian station

These are still available; adding together the linkcount for both ABC News (United States) and ABC News, we get 11,000 links. The Australian publication gets 7,000, and the Spanish newspaper gets 3,000. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are more skewed than that. Looking at the '8 digit' citation, the majority (7.742M) of the 13.039M users were counted because they were using an app an average of nine minutes a week, and then all their secondary news outlets were also included in the total. Contrariwise, they only mention the 7.3M times five (36.5M) half-hour top program from their citation but neglect to mention the many other programs produced by US ABC News, the daily 2 hour 2.777M Good Morning America program, the daily 1 hour 2.364 million for The View, the daily hour-long GMA3 morning program at 1.329M, and the nightly half-hour Nightline (0.787M). ABC News US is well into the 8 digit range of daily viewership, and all of these shows are top-rated in their respective timeslots. Those five times a week shows aren't even comprehensive for its television programs, ABC News also produces 20/20, a two hour show once a week. I'm not aware of the data for the ABC News website but I suspect it's not zero.--Noren (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I just involved with discussion regarding the article name change and many "supporters" comments are just adding "per nom", "per above", etc. without any other reasonable argument why the American ABC News must not be primary topic, and some other comments saying that they "support" the move because the opposer comment are US-centric worldview. IMO, this discussion should be reopen again to attract more users to discuss the name change. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"supporters" comments are just adding "per nom", "per above", etc. without any other reasonable argument why the American ABC News must not be primary topic. I also failed to see any reasonable argument from you as to why American ABC News must be the primary topic. Your argument was merely that when searching ABC News on the internet (presumably you mean Google or some other search engine) that more results come up for the American ABC News than for the Australian ABC News. That happens because presumably you are in America, because when I search for ABC News on the internet, the absolute opposite occurs for me. That is to say your subjective experience of using search engines is not universal and hence wasn't a good argument. The other oppose argument was that there had been too many discussions and therefore the status quo should remain. Again, not a good argument. Both of the oppose arguments were weak arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I only see one other argument, which is from the nominator, one which I believe is flawed. So why do you wish to truncate the discussion on the topic? I can understand if you agree with the move result, but I do not understand being satisfied with the discussion (or truly lack thereof) that led to it. The RM discussion was not rushed, but it developed virtually no back-and-forth or scrutiny from a limited group of editors and not community consensus on a wider scale. The magnitude of this move review should indicate that. As I stated above, I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves more than two arguments put forth. You seem to disagree. Οἶδα (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed by @BilledMammal in a comment above, [t]here have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation. 7 participants in a RM discussion is not exactly smaller than general. I've seen quite a few RM discussions with participation smaller than that. The RM discussion went for fully two weeks, which is longer than the 7 days that they generally go for. There was a banner up on the page and anyone who was interested could have participated. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've seen a plethora of RM discussions of this magnitude that received the attention and deliberation they deserved. I don't care that you've seen other discussions get rubber-stamped without deeper consideration. Other stuff exists, I am aware. I'll repeat myself again, this generated little engagement from a limited group of editors and not community consensus on a wider scale. I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves more than two arguments put forth. You proudly disagree. Οἶδα (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn / re list (not involved). I was not involved whatsoever in the discussion. However, based on the discussion that did happen, there was not consensus whatsoever. Whenever there are moving page discussions, there is more than "per nom" / "per above" on why a page move is needed and not just a few words. I do think that if the discussion were to be reopen, the editors that did edit the page should be pinged (even if it not required) to see if they changed their mind or not. In addition, we should also consider the previous discussions that happen years ago on this same subject which can be found here: Talk:ABC News (United States)/Archive 2.

Soafy234 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn / resist (not involved). The only meaningful vote/comment is the one from the IP. The rest of the discussion is basically lacking valid arguments and there is no real consensus. --Cavarrone 13:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"per nom" is a complete sentence Red Slash 05:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM. --Cavarrone 07:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (not involved): a reasonable close on both the numbers and the arguments. Lots of move discussions a closed on a similar basis - I feel this has only come here because the page has higher traffic. St Anselm (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (not involved). The two opposing arguments are not convincing — the first falls afoul of WP:CCC, and the second is incomprehensible. This move was advertised to multiple wikiprojects and nobody offered any better opposing arguments in the generous amount of time that the move request was left open, so I doubt anything good will come from relisting it. Einsof (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist/uninvolved, I was surprised to see such a limited discussion when the edits to prepare for the move hit my watchlist due to citations to the American ABC. While this may ultimately be the outcome, it needs broader discussion to call it consensus.

Star Mississippi 17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uninvolved). While I kinda get the concerns about the number of editors who commented, this discussion was open more than long enough for an RM. And while this has been discussed in the past, it appears the last RM was in 2017, so that argument holds less weight. I’m also disappointed with tone of some of those arguing against the close here; calling it a coup or saying an editor’s opinion doesn’t count because of where they reside doesn’t help your cause. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Discussion had a reasonable participation and was open for two weeks, which is plenty of time. Five editors supported the move and only two editors opposed. Maybe the supporting arguments could have been better explained, but the same could be said about the opposing arguments. There was only one reasoned opposing comment, the other was just WP:STONEWALLING. There was a clear consensus to move. Vpab15 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there was one reasoned opposing comment as their argument was that search engine results are evidence for a primary topic. Please see my rebuttal of 103.111.100.82 above. TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (uninvolved). I'm surprise to see the discussion regarding the page move from ABC News to ABC News (United States). While there's a enough majority vote to move the article, most supporter voters lacked the reasonable argument why the page should be move, other than "per nom" or "per above". Maybe the discussion should be relist to have more editors involve in the discussion to reach more clear consensus. 103.144.14.16 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this IP address geolocates to Indonesia like 103.111.100.82 above. TarnishedPath^talk 10:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And both to Bandar Lampung BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal, what are the odds of two different editors from Bandar Lampung being interested in a yank and an aussie broadcaster? TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors here (and elsewhere) do not seem to realise that "per nom" etc is a perfectly acceptable argument and always has been. It merely means that the editor completely agress with the nominator and does not feel the need to reiterate the same arguments in slightly different language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you that "per nom" is acceptable, and when closing I have always given such !votes equal weighting with the nomination. In this case the nomination was based on a significant error - the nom was arguing that the Australian ABC News was getting an equal audience to the American one, when the source used was saying that the American ABC News has a seven times greater audience (comparing weekly Australian figures with daily American figures). As such any "per nom" !vote in that discussion carried little weight, as the person supporting the nomination had not checked, and was making the same error. It is the role of the closer to read and understand the arguments, and to weigh how they apply to the greater consensus of our guidelines and policies. It is not the job of the closer to simply count. A bot could do that. We don't use bots to close discussions because it requires a human to read, check, understand, and give weight to the arguments. SilkTork (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom's argument was The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts; the sources provided showed the Australian source had 13,000,000 users per week while the American source had 7,000,000 viewers per night. When closing I interpreted this as them arguing that they had comparable audiences, and since this wasn't self-evidently contradicted by the sources, and no editor opposing the move presented an argument against it, I had no basis to consider the argument invalid.

Here, you introduce the argument that the American source had seven times the viewers, but this isn't self evident based on the sources, and as closer it would be inappropriate of me to introduce new arguments. I say it isn't self-evident because it appears that both sources are talking about unique users. This means that you can't multiply the American daily figure by seven to get the unique weekly users, as some will have watched on multiple nights. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not say that ABC News Australia has 13,000,000 users per week, the source says that ABC, the parent organisation, has that number, including other sources, such as the Kids channels. The source says: ABC News has weekly users averaging 7.7 million. But, the main point here, is that even if the source was saying 13 million a week, that still doesn't match the 49 million a week of the US ABC News. And even if it did match the US ABC News, what really matters to us is the readership of the article. The local audience doesn't matter as much as the Wikipedia audience. These are established articles so we have clear evidence of the readership, [1], which shows that the US ABC News has more readers than all other ABC News articles put together. When deciding which article is primary it is the Wikipedia audience/readership that we consider, not the audience/readership on other platforms. That is the established way of deciding these things, and is laid down in our guidelines. This is pretty much a slam dunk No Move because the Wikipedia audience/reader figures are so much higher than not just the Aussie article, but all the ABC News articles. We traditionally have also taken into account Google hits, though we don't rely on those unless it's a new article. We prefer using Wikipedia's actual viewing figures for existing articles. We also take into account links in and out, as that tends to indicate importance of the topic to Wikipedia itself, and the potential disruption which would be caused by moving an established article with thousands of links. The nom's argument, even if accurate, carries little weight, which is what the second oppose comment was saying. Wikipedia discussions are always closed by judging consensus formed by reasoned arguments which follow existing guidelines and policies. We don't just count the numbers. The main guideline for this RM discussion is WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY which lists the four main indicators - WikiNav (not usable at the moment because of the page move - but I looked at it before the move, and it was very clear that the US article was primary); Wikipedia article traffic statistics, which I link above, and which shows that no move should take place by our criteria; usage in English reliable sources such as Google, etc, though Google can be tricky, as Google these days may provide response according to location and personal preference; and incoming wikilinks (of which the US article had thousands compared to the hundreds of the Australian one). Points to note include: "A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience." which directly addresses and supports the comment made in the second oppose. The nom statement did not address the points which by agreed Wikipedia consensus we consider when deciding which article is the primary topic, while the second oppose made some very telling and on point comments. Now, I understand it can be difficult to close a discussion which has four supports and only two opposes as being in favour of the opposes. A question I sometimes have asked potential admins is how they would close such a discussion. And the best answer is the one who says they wouldn't close it or relist it, but would add their own oppose comment clearly explaining the relevant policies and guidelines which support an oppose. Whatever happens here, BilledMammal, I hope you will take these comments on board, and moving forward consider how the arguments in a discussion are properly reasoned in line with policies and guidelines, that sometimes putting your own comment in can be more appropriate than either relisting or closing, and that when closing what is likely to be a contentious topic (reversing the trend of previous RMs is always going to be a contentious topic, renaming an article with thousands of incoming links is always going to be a contentious topic) give a clear closing statement so people can see the rationale behind your judgement. SilkTork (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source says: ABC News has weekly users averaging 7.7 million You're right, I misread that - although 7.7 isn't the full picture, it misses the ABC news app etc.

the US ABC News has more readers than all other ABC News articles put together

That is true, but only just - 52% to 48%. Further, the US ABC News only has four times the views of the Australian one, and the community has no set definition of much more likely than any other single topic; in some circumstances it has accepted four times as sufficient to meet that requirement, but in others it has rejected it.

of which the US article had thousands compared to the hundreds of the Australian one

That isn't correct; the US article has 11,000, the Australian has 7,000, and several other ABC's also have thousands.

However, the biggest issue is that no editor made these arguments. What you're asking me to do is to introduce novel arguments, and then rule that the arguments I just made are the "right" arguments - to WP:SUPERVOTE.

Further, even if these arguments had been made by one of the editors opposing, I wouldn't have been able to give them additional weight for two reasons. First, it is reasonable for editors to argue that 52% doesn't sufficiently meet the definition of more likely than all the other topics combined, and editors have successfully argued that in other discussions. Second, I interpreted the supporting arguments as implicitly arguing that there is no primary topic by long-term significance, and since there is no consensus on which aspect takes precedence I wouldn't be able to give either sides !votes additional weight.

I will take your comments on board in the future, but aside from leaving a closing comment there is nothing I would have done differently in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 million daily viewers does not translate into 49 million a week. If the same 7 million people watch ABC news (US) every day, they still only have 7 million actual viewers each week. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp WP:PERNOM disagrees a little bit, but if an argument has already been made, you agree with it, and there's little to add I see little value in padding personally. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What SilkTork said. I have no problem with "per nom", but it cannot strengthen a bad case. Srnec (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved): The supporting arguments are clearly stronger, and the opposing arguments are clearly US-centric, a frequent issue on Wikipedia. This wasn't a discussion to determine which ABC News is the primary topic – it was a discussion to determine if the American one is, and there is clearly no consensus that the American one should remain the primary topic. The obvious solution is to disambiguate both. MClay1 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking at the same RM as I am? The first oppose comment reads This has gone through many requested moves and all of them were to keep the status quo. What is "US-centric" about that? The other, posted by an Indonesian IP with imperfect English, reads: While ABC News owned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had considerable more audiences in absolute terms than the U.S. counterpart with similar name, we don't considered that, because without specify the country that originated when we searched on internet, "ABC News" is overhelmingly referred to the American one instead of Australian, even when we included the digital and social media platforms. How is it US-centric to (mistakenly) assert that the Australian ABC is more watched than the American one? Or to inform us that the American ABC dominates internet search results in Indonesia? Srnec (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
US-centrism is the basis behind many of the opposing comments in previous RMs referred to by the first comment (and also in comments on this discussion). The nonsensical IP comment is possibly rooted in the same thing – what metric are they using to determine that ABC News overwhelming refers to the American company instead of the Australian one on internet searches? Most major search engines are American and results are often tailored to the user. When I search in Australia, I get the opposite result. It's not a good argument. MClay1 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's comment is no more nonsensical or irrelevant than the nominator's. That is why performing the move was wrong. The whole RM is just bad. It is not a solid basis for a major change, which is what this was given the number of pageviews, incoming links and prior RMs. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Endorse (uninvolved). It's never been a part of Wikipedia closing policy to have to read through all the previous RM attempts. This move request was posted publicly, crossposted to the relevant projects, even relisted!!. What more would you want? See you in six months when someone requests to move it back, but until then, the ayes have it, and this move was correctly closed. (Side note: come on!!' This is more than two entire weeks! How long were they supposed to leave it up for?) ... (Second side note: let this be a lesson to all y'all: "this has been requested and rejected before", in and of itself, is not' a valid argument that will lead to you convincing anyone. Indeed, only one opposer even attempted to make a convincing point as to why to oppose the move. Come on! What could anyone do with this request but to close it as moved? Only one person even attempted to justify why it should not be moved!) Red Slash 05:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "only one person who opposed the move" is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion. Cavarrone 07:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion. This has been claimed over and over again, however I don't see that this is a correct statement. The oppose voter who cited primary topic used their subjective experience of search engine results as evidence for their claim. That is not in line with policy. TarnishedPath^talk 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP questioned the assumption that (current) TV audience counts towards being a primary topic, referred to WP:PT1, and also directly linked a previous discussion about that point. Is this a irrefutable argument? Probably no, because the IP should had linked some evidence corraborating their point. But is it a policy-based argument? Certainly yes, up to the point that the policy is actually linked. But if you want make the point the whole discussion at that stage was extremely poor, I second that, and that's the reason the closure was premature. Cavarrone 09:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An RM being open for two weeks and having 7 editors involved does not speak to a premature close. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If almost all the comments are flimsy to the extreme, anecdotical and non-policy based, it actually is (WP:NOTAVOTE). At best at that stage there was a NC because of the general inconsistency of the comments, but I am not advocating that, as the most reasonable option was to relist the discussion. Cavarrone 10:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per above comment by Necrothesp above, "per nom" is a perfectly valid argument and always has been. Editors shouldn't be forced to rewrite what someone else argued, when they entirely agree with it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist (uninvolved) because the sheer length of this discussion relative to the discussion it is reviewing means the "closure" has failed to actually close anything. I think on principle I would consider the closure reasonable, but closures, especially ones that result in over 10,000 edits being made to implement them, need to be broadly accepted by the community and if people are writing 50K of text about whether the closure is valid then it hasn't been. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is not based on any Wikipedia policy as far as I can see. St Anselm (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion did not convince the broader community that the action is right (WP:CONLEVEL). It convinced (also debatable given that consensus is not determined by a simple counted majority) a limited group of editors in which the quality of arguments have now been called into question and resulted in this massive pushback. In determining consensus, we must consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines (WP:CONSENSUS). In a discussion with virtually no back-and-forth or scrutiny and with arguments from both sides having already been demonstrated above to be flawed or even innaccurate, I'm not sure how you can conclude that consensus was reached. The discussion is patently waiting to take place. But instead we waste our time listening to desperate attempts to frame the discussion as being fully developed with ample quality arguments that have been broadly accepted by the community. The magnitude of this move review is becoming preposterous. It is fine to be in agreement with the move result, but let us not suppress community discussion and consensus building. There will never be a convincing argument to that end. Οἶδα (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question - per Wikipedia:Move review - is whether the close was "within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion". The fact that there is pushback from people who feel like they missed out in having their say is irrelevant. You are making WP:CONLEVEL mean something it was never meant to mean: there was nothing in the discussion or the close that "overrode community consensus on a wider scale". St Anselm (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And BilledMammal did not reasonably interpret consensus in the discussion, as outlined repeatedly above by Srnec and SilkTork. Refer to these posts and perhaps respond to them (you have not). Οἶδα (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the issue. But you won't receive any interesting responses, just editors obfuscating the fact that they wish to stifle discussion. Unfortunately, several editors here are unwavering on the topic. They are adamant to suppress community consensus on a wider scale. Because apparently what constitutes consensus to them is a discussion from a limited group of editors that resulted in virtually no substantive discussion (only two arguments were put forth that included mention of Wikipedia policies and guidelines). And when you demonstrate that it has not been broadly accepted by the community nor is it sufficient to cause the revision of over 10,000 articles they will just tell you that plenty of other paltry discussions have been accepted as consensus in the past so we needn't go into the matter further. Οἶδα (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Look, if the community wants to establish a policy requiring that RM requests be held open for a longer time, or held open for a longer time with respect to some particular class of articles (based on number of incoming links, page views, past discussions, or whatever else), that's fine, implement that policy. As it stands, however, this was a policy-compliant close, and a fair reading of consensus in the discussion. BD2412 T 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per WP:CONLOCAL and Pppery. My inclination is that this was the "right" outcome but given the scale of the change and the amount of discussion in the initial move request compared to here suggests there's more the community wants to consider in this matter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not the way move reviews are supposed to work, is it? St Anselm (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely think it's the purpose of move review to assess if the correct consensus was determined as determined by appropriate weighting of policies, of which Consensus and its subsection about Local Consensus being one that is relevant here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I find the closer’s arguments reasonable and I do not believe there is one clear primary topic here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uninvolved). The closer accurately evaluated the consensus. The mere fact prior discussions did not come to the same conclusion does not mean that consensus here was not different. The discussion was listed appropriately at all applicable areas, and others had their chance over 2+ weeks to comment in favor of or against the move proposal(s). I believe BD2412 puts it very well above. If the community wants to discuss different requirements for how long move requests must be open, or for a required notification of all past editors if a new move request is opened on a page they had previously commented on a move request, then that's fine. But this closure was made in line with current policies and procedure, and people feeling bad/regretting that they didn't go to comment before it was closed does not change that fact. This MR here is not the place to re-hash the arguments in favor of or opposed, and even the "new" information that was presented does not actually support overturning (weekly viewers cannot be extrapolated from daily viewers, for example). Thus the close should stand, and normal procedures for beginning a new move review followed if editors feel it is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per above. I had mistakenly thought that this was settled, but it seems to not be the case. For a majorly disruptive page move like this (with so many incoming links), perhaps there should be a mandatory extended discussion period and a central watchlist rather than solely relying on project notices. Sounder Bruce 01:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion period was already extended. As for central watchlist, there is the WP:RMC for now. Anything beyond is a separate discussion on refining the WP:RM process. – robertsky (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus). The discussion was inadequate. The nomination was confusing with obliquely presented facts, to a fault. The sole pertinent question of “is there a PrimaryTopic” was not sufficiently examined.
As the nomination is at fault, do not relist, but allow a fresh nomination after a short pause. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close was clearly correct; the arguments for the move were stronger and had 5-2 support. None of the "overturn" arguments here have brought compelling and factually-accurate arguments; the larger participation here is thus not cause to relist. In particular: (a) because the move is moving a DAB page to the previous title, the temporary "broken links" are not an inconvenience; (b) the two-week listing period was sufficient, and longer than most moves; (c) while the "8-digit viewership" argument in the nomination is confusing, it is beyond dispute that the two stations have viewing figures that are comparable in scale; (d) neither the 2011 nor 2017 move requests have compelling arguments against this move; in general the appeals to a prior consensus do not justify a relist. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]