Lekki massacre – Overturn and reopen. Rough consensus that the discussion was closed too quickly. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I believe the consensus for this discussion was improperly determined and thus against WP:RMCI. Of the !votes to "keep as is", I don't believe a single one was based on any policy or guideline. It was also closed as WP:SNOW, but with me and another editor !voting to move (and I even cited one of the naming convention guidelines), I don't think this was a reasonable candidate for a WP:SNOW closure. On the discussion, it did not seem like there would be consensus to move to the original suggested target, but there are WP:OTHEROPTIONS. The discussion was also only active for less than 24 hours. And it shows as a vast majority of the votes are from presumably Nigerian WP:SPAs. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 23:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like wikilawyering because User:Bait30 doeen't like the word massacre. The SPAs are Nigerians who saw a move banner on the top of the page and were so strongly motivated to oppose that they edited Wikipedia, possibly for the first time in their lives. They should be listened to, not dismissed. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.(disclosure: I created the article, then titled Lekki shooting, I did not participate in the RM) The closure correctly assessed that this was a SNOW situation, that indeed elicited widespread IP and SPA editing due to the inflammatory nature of the proposed name. I do think that there is a possibility for a RM to a different title (possibly shooting or shootings), but the suggestion to name this as an "incident" had no chance of flying when reliable sources are unanimous in that protesters were shot (how many and by whom is a matter of some dispute and obfuscation). --Eostrix (🦉 hoothoot🦉) 04:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen. <uninvolved> This was by definition not a SNOW situation and so should not have been closed so quickly. Allow it to run at least seven days to garner more input from editors. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 13:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen This is again clearly not WP:SNOW. The discussion should be allowed to continue. Stormy Chamber (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — Errr. Maybe not snow but the current title is the most appropriate to describe the events of that day.Celestina007 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to "no concensus") (much the same thing). It was definitely not SNOW. There was no consensus to move. However, this is a recent event, quickly all initial sources will be replaced by less-primary sources, and the naming evidence will change. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-open. <uninvolved> Good points are made by everyone here and I'd like to point out a few things which may have flown under the radar.
first time in their lives: Abductive is right here. As annoying as unconventionally formatted comments and !votes may be for the regulars, IPs are human too. Unless you think there's a sockmaster or co-ordinated effort to canvass, arguments should be taken not by number, not by who is giving them, but at face value, on their strength.
not a SNOW situation, discussion should be allowed to continue and There was no consensus: Paine Ellsworth, Stormy Chamber and SmokeyJoe are all correct here. Notwithstanding the apparent validity of the IP !votes, there was no need to invoke the snowball clause.
It's clear that in the aftermath of a recent event, details and naming will change, and that's okay. The IP input should stand, and if they're new or were only stimulated to edit because of a local tragedy, their voices should not be discarded by a no consensus closure. While, due to the amount of time since passed, a re-open or relist and a no consensus closure may be functionally equivalent, judging the closure itself, it is clear that the closure was simply premature. This, combined with the need to retain the IPs' input, is why I'd recommend overturning to re-open as opposed to overturning to no consensus. SITH(talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Two people commented on my proposal to move 'Octavius (disambiguation)' to 'Octavius', with one agreeing and the other disagreeing. Rather than allow more people to chime in – this would've taken time as the page traffic is low – and even though I addressed the arguments provided by the only opposing voice in the discussion, the admin gave undue weight to said dissenter and closed it immediately after the 7-day period expired, with no further meaningful discussion allowed to take place.
The rationale given for the closure was "A challenge to WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS still leaves the argument to change consensus to the challenger", falsely and bizarrely implying that I had not made an argument in the first place. The only dissenting voice in the discussion had already used a similar twisted and circular reasoning without actually addressing the subject matter. When interrogated on this decision, the closer was curt and dismissive, claiming (without explanation) I assumed bad faith and also claiming I was making personal attacks. He showed further undue weight to the opposing party, and demonstrated faulty understanding of WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY as well as of the discussion itself. He finished by baldly saying (without explanation) it was I who failed to interpret the rules properly. Avis11 (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> There was no affirmative argument made in favor of this move, either by the original proposer or the sole support vote. There was only a negative argument made that the other side had not proven that the current status quo was correct. This is not how we generally operate. The nominator needs to provide affirmative arguments for why the current status quo is not the primary topic, not merely challenge others to give reasons for why it is. The closer was correct in pointing that out. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Closure was reasonable, and nom seems to practice a strange form of civility – learned perhaps by editing Britannica? or perhaps Uranuspedia? P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 09:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Weak nomination, strong oppose not well responded to, and the “support per nom” contributed nothing to countering the oppose. It could very well be a good move, you might try a better nomination after six months. Arguing “there’s no evidence” sounds like it’s all rhetoric. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from OP. Did any of you take the trouble to read the entire discussion, which is not that long to begin with? Then opposing party (Calidum)'s main argument (not addressed up til now) was that a Google search for 'Octavius' almost always returns 'Augustus'. This is not true, and the same entry on 'Google scholar' returns nothing of the sort. Thus, my argument trumped Calidum's per WP:DPT, but this guideline was ignored by the closer, who said "your non-collegial exchange in the discussion based on Scholar was balanced by the argument based on Google (search)". Said closer ignored me when I quoted verbatim the relevant passage in WP:DPT for him. Is there nobody here willing to look at this transparently, competently and entirely? Avis11 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, having analysed this transparently, competently and entirely. No such user (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't, nor did you address my case. Avis11 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. His sole argument for closure was "your non-collegial exchange in the discussion based on Scholar was balanced by the argument based on Google (search)", which is at odds with WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Neither you nor anybody else addressed this. Avis11 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before saying someone is 'not getting' your disagreement you have to actively disagree, and to disagree you have to first address the argument in question. This is something you repeatedly refused to do ("move along") ever since you closed the original discussion. You, and apparently everybody who responded up til now, seem to think 'no evidence' was my sole argument in that discussion, or that 'incivility' takes precedence over any of those issues. Avis11 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this helps you Avis11... it is evident that you are either unaware of or in complete disregard of Wikipedia's policy on civility. Civility is part of our code of conduct and one of the five pillars and so actually does take precedence over many other issues. We treat each other with respect and consideration. If we don't, then we don't deserve to be here and just might get blocked from editing. That would be a shame, especially since I've found that nearly everyone is capable of improving themselves in this respect. The first step is recognition of one's own uncivil behavior, and the next step is stopping it. If one is smart enough (and wise enough) to do that, then one can easily figure out the rest. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 07:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the three participants couldn't agree, a relisting to draw further participation would have been the more sensible thing to do, especially given that evidence for the absence of a primary topic with respect to usage is so easy to come by, and given that people have disagreed about the target of the redirect in the past (there has been presumed implicit consensus for the current target since 2011, but it's not as strong as it appears, as there were disagreements in 2010–2011, and for the six years before that the title was occupied by an article, which is now at Eudaf Hen). However, I'm not too keen to see this discussion re-opened – what was written so far was thin on actual arguments and the argumentative exchange that took up its bulk was bizarrely centred on whose job it was to provide said arguments. Let's not get back to that, but if anyone would like to immediately open a new discussion, with new arguments, they should feel free. – Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Eric Ouma – Procedural close – This is not the place to re-argue the move discussion (and this one from January!). Feel free to open a new move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
In today's game the back of his shirt says just Otieno, so this is obviously the last name of his choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikclaes (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Omar – No consensus to relist the discussion. A narrow majority of participants felt that the close was reasonable, if terse. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Not enough number of users had participated in the discussion and apparently, not all arguments were evaluated, which is against the spirit of WP:RMCI. I have two reasons to request move review. Reason 1: In my discussion with the closer here, he gave the impression that apart from my first !vote comment, he did not read any of my arguments. He claimed there was "consensus" and that "the one oppose said "per above", but the "above" was changed to support." The truth is that when the first opposer changed his !vote, I did not change my !vote and kept posting opposing arguments. For example, I mentioned in the discussion that "most of the time, "Omar" seems to be used for persons other than the Caliph, while "Umar" is used mostly for the Caliph," implying that the article was not even the primary topic for "Omar", but no one satisfactorily answered this point. There was an abrupt closure without giving enough time to anyone to answer this point. Reason 2: It was closed merely two days after the nominator tagged the creator of the article to ask for their opinion. Khestwol (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> As much as I do not favor the change from "Umar" to "Omar", that was a reasonable closure. Consensus prevails. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 18:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closer. "Abrupt" closure of an RM that ran for the usual week? What makes you think not all arguments were evaluated when you were the only oppose and no one supported your point? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The closing statement was terse. An explanation can be very helpful to far more people than toss who ask. It would have been helpful if User:Khestwol had reviewed their !vote and made their argument simple and explicit. Although terse, I find the close correct. User:Onceinawhile and User:Alivardi had a good discussion and their agreement is compelling. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Uninvolved). The closer could have provided a more in depth rationale, but the close wasn't unreasonable. The one argument against was that "Omar" is a commonly used name and "Umar" isn't, so it should stay at "Umar" per WP:NATURAL, but NATURAL is irrelevant here because the page remains at the base title and is not disambiguated. -- Calidum 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Uninvolved). The close was proper. Arguments presented in the discussion against the move were very weak. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist <uninvolved/undecided>. The COMMONNAME evidence seems light. I think the discussion needs more input and thus more time. —В²C☎ 22:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (Uninvolved) - Not a clear consensus from the discussion. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (Uninvolved) much of the discussion took place only two days before closure. Other editors should be given more chance to react on the arguments that were exchanged on the 24th. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Twice – No consensus to overturn, defaulting to endorse; closing at this time because the discussion was open for over six weeks, and has now been dormant for a week. BD2412T 01:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closing user endorsed a moved from Twice (group) to Twice, despite twice (12 v 6, also a pun) as many users !voting oppose as keep. I believe the closer applied their own opinion as opposed to just looking for a consensus within the existing discussion. I also believe that too much weight was given to whether each oppose vote specifically cited to an enumerated WP policy. I believe this goes against the spirit of the move discussion and request a review. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk 12:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every time WP:NOTVOTE comes up, it seems the majority assumes bad faith of the closer, and cannot believe it was an evaluation of the arguments but must have been the closer's personal opinion or WP:SUPERVOTE. From my talk where this was piled on:
No, no support for those, given the usage presented
So the supports have WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, WP:NOTDICT, and WP:NWFCTM, and the opposes have WP:ASTONISH. In evaluation, it seemed that the application of WP:ASTONISH was dependent upon treating the encyclopedia like a dictionary; readers looking for "Twice" here are not dictionary readers looking for "twice", and in resolving the close, and I also put a wiktionary link in the hatnote for those readers using the encyclopedia as a dictionary. So both in numbers of guidelines-based arguments and in evaluating those arguments, the conclusion was "move".
And the predictable cries of WP:SUPERVOTE come, and predictably focus on the numbers of votes cast (contrary to WP:NOTVOTE), which is ironic since just two sections [before it on my talk page] I was accused (just as spuriously) of just counting votes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was clearly no consensus whatsoever to rename. The closer has apparently ignored any opinion which did not directly link to a guideline, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia discussion. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ASTONISH, both of which clearly apply here, were very obviously implied in almost every oppose opinion, linked or not. There is no need to link to a guideline to be clearly citing a guideline. Closers whose decision is challenged seem to be very keen on citing WP:NOTVOTE, but frankly when consensus is this clear you cannot just ignore the sheer number of opposing opinions, especially not when they come from well-established and experienced editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review." -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've already identified that I was involved in the table above! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for my benefit, but for the other participants. You should identify whether or not you were involved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I didn't ignore any opinion without a direct link; the table shows the counts, but the conclusion was reached by weighing the arguments presented, not by counting noses. As I said everywhere, WP:NOTDICT and WP:NWFCTM were the stronger arguments (and see also Thrice, Often, and Pointless), and given those, WP:PRIMARYUSAGE showed how to arrange the topics for the ambiguous title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way the table is presented kind of gives me the feeling that my opinion has not been considered. It does really look like that; because I didn't provide a direct link to a guideline all I am worth is a " - ". With the colors it now seems there was more support than oppose, while in fact there was more oppose than support. Now you say you have considered everything, otherwise I might have felt that this was an attempt to quickly discredit many of the opposes. However, I'm sure others might feel that it is possible they have not been taken serious. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The table was created because if the pile-on on my talk page. It shouldn't have been needed at all, since the conclusion was reached on the strength of the arguments, not by vote-counting. But as long as I had to go through the trouble of creating it there before this was kicked off, might as well save the trouble here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The table to me reads just as easy as a vote-count as well, 5v3 in favor of a move instead of the original 12v6 oppose. Whether is is needed or not, now its there and I think its not really showing strength of the arguments, but rather the opposite. Some arguments were picked and others completely thrown out. Its not really helping to convince others of your point so far. --Redalert2fan (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the table came after the close, since the commenters on my page were insistent upon counting votes, contrary to WP:NOTVOTE. Weighing the arguments (none of which were thrown out) contributed to the close. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you made it after the close, but I'm still not sure what it supposed to tell me about weighing arguments or if it is used to count votes after this. If its used to weigh arguments it looks like some were weighed so much that they are worth so much that a 12v6 turns in to a 3v5 which in effect also visually (at least) turns it in to a vote. For this I think the discussion opener has a good point. On the other side if it is used to show a vote because someone else asked for it (even opposite to notvote) it should look like how it was, not include what your thoughts are about it and change it so that at a glance looks like the opposite because of that. Both of these I don't think help explain the reason for this close in a clear way. I'm sorry but the added confusion does not help. --Redalert2fan (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then ignore it and go with the closing remarks or my first comment here: the arguments of the supports outweighed the arguments of the opposes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, maybe relist. I'm Involved - I voted oppose since there seemed little benefit to move the page in the first place - people looking for the group "twice" would likely understand that "twice (group)" is what they are looking for. Any people not looking for the group twice would not get WP:ASTONISHD in this case. I can see the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE side as well, currently there is nothing more applicable to link to. In my opinion this move request was kind of pointless in the first place would be a good summary. However I do not agree with the move based on the fact that there was no clear consensus to do so, and still feel like not all opposes where weighed adequately. But then again moving it back now seems kind of pointless as well since it has little difference. Going by the guidelines that say support I would say let it be, but based on the principle that this was not a good close and still not being convinced every opinion was taken in to account I'm having to go with overturn. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All opinions were taking into account. Obviously not all opinions could be on the same side as the outcome, which seems to be the complaint whenever the outcome goes against the raw count. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention the raw vote count. I'm just raising my concerns by the fact that the moved was closed as consensus to move. You say "Obviously not all opinions could be on the same side as the outcome" Of course this is true, it doesn't have to be stated since 12 people opposed and 6 were in favor. But isn't that at minimum a clear sign of no consensus...? Redalert2fan (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). I've noticed move reviews recently questioning well thought out and thoroughly explained closes by experienced editors, because they did not give enough weight to the number of contrary opinions. A move review should consider only whether a good faith close was reasonable or not, not whether some other close might also have been reasonable, and not just second-guess a close because someone else would have done it differently. Editors' comments are not votes and a considered opinion based on discussion and policy is not a supervote. This close was completely reasonable in that it considered the quality of the arguments in relation to policy and guidelines that reflect broader consensus, without being swayed by sheer numbers, and explained the closer's rationale. JHunterJ did make one mistake, though, in that WP:ASTONISH was given as much weight as a policy or guideline when it is neither. On the other hand, WP:NOTADICTIONARY is policy and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NWFCTM are both integral parts of the guideline at WP:DISAMBIGUATION and were given appropriate consideration. Station1 (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not directly involved)The moment this was brought up at WP:RM/TR I knew it was going to be controversial, so I started the RM and denied the move request. Well I have studied the closers rationale and to me it seems reasonable and the closure used consensus and weighed on arguments per policy and not number of ivotes so I Endorse the move. Megan☺️Talk to the monster 08:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn <uninvolved>. A two-thirds majority opposed the move (12 oppose, six support), per WP:ASTONISH and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, stated or implied. SarahSV(talk) 22:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAPOLICY pointers to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that misread it as applying to a dictionary definition as opposed to Wikipedia articles that could have the ambiguous title were weighted appropriately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Reading the discussion, I am not seeing the consensus that led to the page being moved. Both sides argued equally validate points and neither side was particularly more convincing than the other. ƏXPLICIT 01:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn <uninvolved> One thing that worries me with the table above is the implication that arguments that aren't directly covered by existing guidelines don't count. Guidelines and policies are just crystalized consensus representing weight of multiple previous discussions. Arguments that are not based on guidelines just need to be very strong and have strong enough support to balance against guidelines. To the guidelines involved PRIMARYUSAGE is useful for determining primary topic but is not the only case. I think close undervalued ASTONISH and overvalue NWFCTM. NWFCTM is not a complete counter to ASTONISH and intended to limit the impact of a regional or otherwise biased view I don't think this was demonstrated in the discussion. One of the support arguments even appear to imply that the group does not have long term significance, for example K-Pop Is rather big at the moment worldwide bigger than all the remaining topics. PaleAqua (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - it's not a vote, unless I'm in the majority, then it's a vote, right? RedSlash 19:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. <uninvolved> Apologies to the closer as I see no consensus in that discussion, so overturn and revert the rename. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 02:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (Uninvolved) Discussions are not votes. WP:ASTONISH, part of a supplement to the MOS, simply does not carry the same weight in discussions as our article titling policies. -- Calidum 03:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. <uninvolved> Ridiculous proposal, ridiculously supervotey close. NOTDICT does not say that common meanings of words are irrelevant to titling discussions, and a few !voters plus the supervoting closer have misread policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The !voters who misread the guidelines are the ones pointing to PRIMARYTOPIC and applying it to the dictionary definition of "twice". PRIMARYTOPIC does not say that topics not covered on Wikipedia are considered in determining a primary topic. And as ever, weighing arguments is not supervoting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weighing arguments is not supervoting, ok, but you have entered with preconceived weights for policy arguments that were in question in the discussion. Another test for a Supervote is whether another admin would have closed it differently. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, definitely not. Finding an admin who would've done it differently shows that each would have supervoted, then, and that's just ridiculous. As for "preconceived weights", either you mean I have an understanding of WP policies and guidelines (as befits an admin) or you're assuming bad faith with no evidence. "<whichever vote> per <pick a policy or guideline>" when the policy or guideline doesn't apply gets little weight. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note - to anyone who is voting 'endorse' - where do you see a 'general agreement' (ie a consensus) to move the page? It feels like the voters here are simply looking at the two guidelines and deciding which they put more weight into. However, isn't the point of this project page to look at the original discussion and find what the consensus there was, as opposed to rehashing the arguments presented? No, it's not a simple vote, but when a discussion is twice stronger in the favor of one option, how can you find a consensus with the minority? The number of opinions CERTAINLY plays a role in discussions, the contention that it does not is simply ridiculous. Frankly, I am perplexed by this whole thing. ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk 12:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "voters here". Like the original RM, this is a discussion. The point is very definitely not to look at the original discussion and count votes there, or even to see if there was a local consensus, which, per policy, would not override a community-wide consensus. It's to discuss whether the close was reasonable. A RM discussion may be "twice stronger" in favor of one option if even a minority correctly point to policies and guidelines that represent a true broad consensus among WP editors in general, not just those that happen to show up at one particular RM. If a minority point out that the word "twice" would likely never be an encyclopedic topic per policy at WP:NOTDICT and that the group Twice is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per that guideline, while others cite WP:ASTONISH, which is neither a policy nor a guideline, an experienced editor may come to the reasonable conclusion that general WP-wide consensus favored a move. Station1 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So why have a discussion at all? Shouldn't we just ask a couple of experienced admins what they think, and then make a decision based upon what they say? I would argue that the opinions of editors actually matter and cannot be overruled by a well-meaning admin's own interpretation of policy. You're just describing what a supervote is - "the consensus is x, but based upon policy, I think y is a better argument". That's against the spirit of WP, at least as far as I can tell. Since when do we ignore blatant and obvious consensus? ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk 18:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, frustrating sometimes, aint it. Even though I think this RM closure should be overturned, a policy represents a community consensus, so when any editor correctly cites policy in a discussion, that will often override any local consensus that might be obvious. So "the [local] consensus is x, but based upon policy [formed by community consensus], I think y is a better argument". That's not against the spirit of WP, El Cid of Valencia, that is the very spirit of WP. Doesn't apply in this case though, imho. That's my take anyway – I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 03:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And see WP:NOTVOTE: "It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. ". So "the [raw numbers favor] x, but based upon policy [which has consensus], [it appears] y is a better argument" is very much the spirit of WP. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of see what you guys are getting at, but the fact remains that a consensus is a general agreement on what action should be taken. If the closer just picks the argument they like better, it's ignoring the community's discussion. The discussions have to matter, otherwise, you just have a small number of well-meaning admins deciding policy by themselves and ignoring the opinions of the community (experienced editors with reasonable opinions based upon policy, by the way). The number of opinions is absolutely important to determining a consensus. Otherwise, you just have decisions being based entirely upon the personal interpretation of the closing admin. Again, if it was completely based upon an admin picking which policy they thought applied more so, there would not be a need for move discussions. Move discussions are started for controversial moves, so that the community can have a discussion, applying policy and guidelines to a set of facts. If the discussion is going to be ignored, you might as well get rid of move discussions and instead just have everything go through requested moves. Do you see the issue? I don't care about Twice or Thrice or Force but I don't understand how this close was compatible with the spirit of WP. WP may not be a democracy but it's not supposed to be an oligarchy, either. If you have admins who ignore the opinions of 12 editors because they think it makes sense to take a certain action, we have a small group of individuals making decisions in spite of what the general consensus ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk 13:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the plain meaning of consensus is "general agreement." On Wikipedia, however, "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," per WP:CONSENSUS. It's rather unfortunate that we use the term "consensus" to describe something that's clearly different from the plain meaning of the word, but nevertheless we do. -- Calidum 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also "the discussion's arguments are going to be read, evaluated, and weighed to reach a conclusion" is not the same as "the discussion is going to be ignored" if you disagree with the conclusion. -- JHunterJ (talk)
Fully endorse (uninvolved) as a textbook example of applying the principles of WP:NOTAVOTE and global/local consensus. The question was asked, how do we get to consensus to move in this discussion? There were 18 !votes total: the nom, 5 supports, and 12 oppose. In reviewing the discussion, I agree with JHJ's table above in terms of how to weigh votes. The nom and 9 of the oppose votes carry no weight because they were not based in fact or policy, instead being based in speculation (what's likely/unlikely) or preference (WP:NWFCTM). That leaves 5 support !votes based essentially on WP:ATDAB policy evidenced by WP:PRIMARYUSAGE (it has 1 million views over the last year, all other articles combined had less than 100k [1]) and 3 oppose !votes based on the WP:ASTONISH section of WP:MOS guideline (the reader will be surprised to get to this article if they search for "twice", and will instead expect a dab or some other article). On the numbers (after discounting), the supports have it 5-3, and that gap widens once two other factors are considered: (1) WP:ATDAB (policy) > WP:MOS (guideline), and (2) the PRIMARYUSAGE argument was backed by data (pageviews), whereas the ASTONISH argument was not backed by any evidence of what readers expected to find or whether they were actually surprised, just assertions that they'd be surprised. Essentially, I just fully agree with JHJ's analysis in the closing statement and his later elaborations: there is consensus to move once the signal is filtered from the noise. Lev!vich 06:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Closure was policy-based. I will say that I agree with Necrothesp that closers should not be sticklers about enforcing directly saying the right "magic words" for votes to be counted as policy-based; sometimes people are simply unclear at expressing a reasonable idea, and sometimes a genuine IAR / common sense issue outside of normal policies is afoot and should be legitimately considered. That said, I ultimately agree that a substantial majority of the oppose votes are ultimately not policy-based, even given the above allowances for phrasing. Most of the oppose voters are citing the English word "twice", which is irrelevant since there is not and should never be an encyclopedia article on that subject; and there is also essentially an argument from incredulity, that it's surprising that a Korean band could be relevant or important. Per WP:CSB, we should trust the stats; a group with thousands and thousands of page views that are not faked (as can be ascertained from a simple Google search) clearly outweighs a single Christina Aguilera song that gets single-digit pageviews per day. As the support voters noted, it is the overwhelming, uncontested primary topic by pageviews. Yes, this Korean band really is the primary topic, and the fact that a lot of Anglo Wikipedia editors aren't directly familiar with them shouldn't be held against them somehow. I'd never heard of Twice-the-group until today either, but it's clear enough that they're entirely relevant enough to quality as the primary topic. SnowFire (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). I must applaud JHunterJ for an exemplary close. It’s sad that this is in review, and with so many Overturns! Maybe editors will learn what PRIMARYTOPIC means, that we have NOTADICT; there is no ISADICT consideration for historical significance. The page views are overwhelming evidence of the group being the PT. And ASTONISH/JDLI are not strong arguments. Consensus did clearly oppose the proposal, but what counts is WP:CONSENSUS, which clearly favored the moved, for reasons explained in the closing statement. —В²C☎ 00:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Coronavirus disease 2019 – Reclosed as "no consensus" (and therefore, not moved). Participants in this MR were divided themselves. While the close itself was generally deemed reasonable, there are open concerns whether the RM participants correctly weighed WP:COMMONNAME against (an interpretation of) MOS:ACROTITLE. Since this MR has been dragging for two months, there's no point in relisting. The "no consensus" reclose just opens the path to revisit the article title sooner. No such user (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The close, and much of the opposition, was focused on the misconception that MOS:ACROTITLE forbids us from using acronyms as article titles (edit: in most, but not all cases), when it in fact says the opposite "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject." WP:NCMED likewise allows common names in certain instances. It was also pointed out in the RM that many medical articles (HIV and polio, for example) use acronym titles. I raised this point on the closer's talk page but it has gone unaddressed. -- Calidum 01:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed this out below, but WP:POLCON ("if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence") should be noted up front. In this case WP:COMMONNAME is part of our article titling policy while the MOS is a guideline. -- Calidum 14:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to relist. <uninvolved> Such a discussion should be allowed to continue per Amakuru on the closer's talk page. A consensus might emerge if given the chance, so that RM should be relisted. At the time of closing I don't see a consensus either way, so there was definitely not a consensus to "not move" the article to the proposed title. And there is a possible consensus (rough?) to move the article under COMMONNAME, a title policy. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 02:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I !voted in support of the proposed move, and am disappointed that this view did not prevail, but the closer in this case acted correctly. There is a clear absence of consensus for the move, and there is no particular trend in the discussion to suggest that a consensus would develop given additional time. Although any editor could have relisted the discussion once it elapsed, none did, and no discussion is entitled to relisting after it has run its allotted number of days without yielding a consensus. BD2412T 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sound like a broken record having to repeat this frequently here and at WP:DRV, but consensus is not a vote. We consider the strength of the argument. When one side misreads guideline entirely, their comments count for less. -- Calidum 03:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The claim that opposition votes "focused on the misconception that MOS:ACROTITLE forbids us from using acronyms" is entirely false. Zero editors made that statement. The first several opposers who cited ACROTITLE pointed out exactly which part of that policy supported their vote, and it's safe to guess that the few who cited it without explanation did so because it seemed covered by those above (a common practice in move discussions). It doesn't appear that there was any misreading of the guideline either, as claimed directly above. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn(relist) was Overturn. <uninvolved> I was a bit surprised that WP:CONSISTENT didn't appear to be brought up directly in the discussion, though it was alluded to in the request itself: The article on the pandemic has already been renamed to COVID-19 pandemic, so this article should probably be renamed as well. It did get brought up during in a discussion with the closer. I think arguments related to WP:CONSISTENT should be considered in the close. PaleAqua (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to relist on more thought. I think some more discussion in the RM could be helpful. PaleAqua (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). I think the argument that there are exceptions of WP:COMMONNAME for diseases name is true and that is reflect in vote before, which majority of users that involved oppose to move to just acronym title and i agree with BD2412 that opposition votes only focused by "MOS:ACROTITLE forbids us from using acronyms" in totally false. WHO and most of health agencies tend to prefer long-form names for all disease and virus names unless there can be translated into the native language for example SARS (in wikipedia title is Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, not just SARS). 180.241.205.155 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddorse but no consensus (involved) I opposed the move but on 2nd thoughts maybe this was weak since I was thinking about "coronavirus" in general rather than the 2019 one. The supporters pointed to COMMONNAME and the likes of HIV while the opposers pointed to ACROTITLE and the likes of Severe acute respiratory syndrome. While I agree with the idea that this shouldn't have been closed as "move" it wouldn't have been closed as "not moved" but rather "no consensus". I still (weakly) think the pandemic should be moved to Coronavirus pandemic (which was closed as consensus against) but that's different to this in that there was no "2019" proposed to be in the title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> I think the community made the wrong decision on this one, but community discussions are about what the community decides to do. The discussion was properly done and closed correctly. Note that the impact of this decision is trivial, I doubt any reader will be much hindered for very long. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think relisting from here is not a sensible option. The discussion happened and is now over. Too much time has passed. Also, the discussion was hindered by the weak nomination. “should probably be renamed” are not words associated with a well-prepared and persuasive nomination. From here, now, it is a better to give it the standard resting time, and then allow someone to re-propose a rename with a better rationale. The better rationale should address the objections evident in this completed discussion, with a view to moving forward. The standard waiting time is disputed, but between 2 and 6 months. That waiting time should count From the close of this review, as there is no strong argument of a severe problem with the current title, and these things tend to distract from content improvement. Allow a fresh proposal proposal after two months after the close of this review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as no consensus (involved). Looking over the entire discussion, there was very clearly no consensus for a move. And it's always bad when a Move Review nominator begins with a false statement. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, none of the opposers in the discussion said that "MOS:ACROTITLE forbids us from using acronyms as article titles". Acronyms are certainly allowed in titles, but as MOS:ACROTITLE states, consensus has rejected acronyms in article titles even in cases where the subject of the article is more known by the acronym. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself wrote, "There's well-established precedent on Wikipedia of more common acronyms not being used in article titles as an exception to the general rule on using the most common name for the title." So while it might have been a stretch for me to write what I did, your and others' interpretation of ACROTITLE -- that it essentially overrides WP:COMMONNAME -- is still wrong. See also WP:POLCON, "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence." In this case the MOS is a guideline and COMMONNAME is policy. -- Calidum 14:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Article titles incorporates MOS:ACROTITLE by reference. The guideline does not override policy, it compliments it with additional details and nuances. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This was a tricky one, and the closer missed it. The key is that opposition was mostly based on ACROTITLE, but ACROTITLE is not a basis to oppose here, and these opposes should have been (un)weighted accordingly, while the strong basis in policy favoring of the move should have weighted the supports favorably. Instead, the closer appeared to evaluate plain consensus (rather than WP:CONSENSUS) by counting !votes. It’s an understandable rookie mistake that needs to be rectified. —В²C☎ 00:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ACROTITLE and the general titling policy does say that they should only be used if the subject is primarily known by its abbreviation and its primarily associated with it. The 1st is clearly satisfied but the 2nd is less so so I don't see a clear consensus either way to move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. <uninvolved> Per Born2cycle AsarteaTrick|Treat 07:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist <uninvovled> --IWI (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think reopening the old discussion is a mistake. The old discussion happened and there was clearly no consensus. It would be much better to just wait a couple of months and then open a new discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn <uninvolved> ACROTITLE appears to be not relevant, common name argument could easily have prevailed if it hadnt been closed --49.180.100.63 (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
