Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.
Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.
While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.
This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.
Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.
Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.
CfDs [1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs [2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:
Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.
1. |
Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond. |
2. |
Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:move review list |page= |rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page--> |rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request--> |closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request--> |closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place--> |reason= }} ~~~~ If either the
are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the |
3. |
If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
4. |
Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: |
5. |
If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.
|
6. |
The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page. |
In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.
If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.
Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.
The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.
Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.
A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
Use {{ subst:move review top}} and {{ subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.
Also, add a result to the {{
move review talk}}
template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}
.
The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.
MRV closer's decision | RM closer's decision | Move review closed as | Status of RM after MRV close |
---|---|---|---|
1. Endorse | Moved / Not moved | No action required | Closed |
2. Overturn | Not moved | Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM | Open |
Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM | Closed | ||
Moved | Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate | Open | |
3. Relist | Moved / Not moved | Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title | Open |
Discussion
“evaluating [participants’] arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.”per WP:RMCIDC which stems from WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. In both the original and revised closing they referred to how “weighty” the arguments were, and how they evaluated that. This is an exemplary closing, actually, which has made my list of Great RM decisions. Bravo!!! Well done!!! — В²C ☎ 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion was closed by a non-admin in favour of the move, even though consensus was clearly not in favour. The closure appeared to have little reasoning or valuation of the arguments behind it. Non-admins are advised against closing discussions where the outcome is likely to be controversial, which this one clearly was. The response to my approach was that "The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. In this case, the guideline's prescription is clear". If the latter were truly the case, there would not have been such a long dispute over its application. Deb ( talk) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
In the RM itself the closer chose to provide no rationale beyond simply linking to the guideline, which ignores the substantial amount of debate (and lack of consensus) on the very question of whether applying the guideline in this case would yield the best title. The closer also seemed not to recognize or acknowledge that policy was invoked on both sides of this debate. Instead, to judge from their three-word closure at the RM, they considered the guideline to be literally the only relevant factor, which again is very much at odds with the outcome of the discussion. In the post-RM follow-up on their talk page, and in comments they've made here in this MR, the closer seems to support quite firmly the position advocated by those supporting the move despite the discussion having failed to reach such a conclusion.
It'd be best to vacate this closure and allow the request to be closed instead by an administrator. ╠╣uw [ talk 17:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The answer of course is that guidelines are just that: guidelines, not policy. It’s right to apply them wherever it makes sense to do so, but not where it doesn’t, and discussion is how we find the line. The idea that a guideline automatically trumps all objections short-circuits that process and is not how we operate. ╠╣uw [ talk 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. This statement reveals misunderstanding of the role of the closer and mustn’t be allow to stand. It is not the role of the close to apply policies and guidelines, but to summarise the participants’ discussed application of policies and guidelines. It is not acceptable to say there is a role, secondary or otherwise, to count votes. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to say there is a role, secondary or otherwise, to count votes.There is clearly a role for counting votes, as the essay demonstrates. Why else would we care about VOTESTACKing? House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. The buttons one has doesn't make a good closer. The close is policy-aligned with current NCROY, and the closer correctly applied close procedures. Directly from WP:DISCARD,
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue., which was done. I do think that an elaborated rationale would have been beneficial, especially for utter shitfests like the NCROY RMs, which I saw from other closes by Compassionate made after this one. Sennecaster ( Chat) 01:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
a consensus did not emerge that applying the guideline in this case would actually improve the titles. Do you have any potential moves in which you think applying the guideline would actually improve the title? IAR is for exceptions, not rewriting guidelines established by broader community consensus. As for the closure, I agree it should have been done by an admin (and I hope this MR is closed by an admin). However, solely being a BADNAC is not a reason to overturn a close. There wasn't a lot to analyze: one side had the support of the guideline, the other argued that we should LOCALCONSENSUS that guideline out of existence. You don't need to write a dissertation to analyze the outcome of that discussion. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding guidelines, we seek to apply them wherever it makes sense to do so, but the idea that the existence of a guideline overrules all other titling considerations or objections, and is the only relevant consideration in RMs, is simply wrong. If it were so then RMs would become unnecessary and we could just mass-apply the guideline to every possible case via undiscussed moves and technical requests — but we don’t. RMs explicitly exist to solicit feedback on the appropriateness of requested moves, when viewed not just through the lens of a single guideline but in the wider context of all our policy obligations under WP:AT. This was not reflected in the closure.
As for BADNAC, an almost entirely unexplained closure by a non-admin of a divided discussion on a controversial request which doesn’t even acknowledge many of the points that were raised or discussed strikes me as sufficient grounds to seek a closure by an admin. The NAC guidance exists for a reason, and as it stands I simply don’t see that we can have confidence in the appropriateness of the closure that was made. ╠╣uw [ talk 18:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Closer
made a "no-consensus close" (with the exception of
WP:NOYEAR), but has also insisted the title remain at the location it was boldly moved to, rather than to title used in the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made
, as required by
WP:TITLECHANGES. The close itself appears reasonable, but the decision on what title should be utilized given a no-consensus close is contrary to policy, and I am opening this move request to request overturning that aspect and moving the article to "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus".
Note that there have been two other discussions on this, at RMTR and the article talk page; the discussion at RMTR is the cause of this move review being opened, as while three uninvolved admins have agreed that the article is at the wrong title, none have been willing to unilaterally move it over full move protection and the objections of the closing admin - they have instead recommended that a move review be opened. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
an article title has been stable for a long time(bolding mine). In this instance, however, "consulate" was never stable for more than a day: the article was first renamed from "consulate" to "embassy" within 15 hours of its creation [4] and remained so for two weeks, with a few later changes, back-an-forth, but always "embassy" was the more stable title. Yet, there was nothing resembling "long time" in this very new article.
If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This move request should be re-opened as closer wasn't able to take into account that the 1982 TV program is the obvious primary topic for "Today (Australian TV program)", which has aired for 44 years in comparison to the 1960 TV program's one year. I support the second move occurring, but the first move doesn't need to occur and this article should be reverted back to its original location at " Today (Australian TV program)", it is the most likely topic being referred to when readers search for this program. Happily888 ( talk) 08:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There were three people involved in the discussion. One person initally opposed the move but later changed their mind and supported. The other two people continued opposing it, of which one never replied to my comment. They stated their opinion for a title, based on incorrect reasoning which is not in line with the relevant Wikipedia policy. My point is: the common name of the subject is its abbreviation and the abbreviation is primarily used for this subject. I have proven this with various different shops and manufacturers as examples, and in discussion with the closer also Google Ngram and book titles. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 14:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reading Beans may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: NoonIcarus, a user recently topic banned for POV pushing, who has been engaged in some page-move wars and who has forced their own titling on the project proposed a move only three months after their past proposal was opposed. As the previous discussion laid out, "Opposition to Chavismo" is actually less precise because there is both "Chavismo" and "Madurismo". Making the comparison to Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia and the other categories are a false equivalencies since the opposition has spanned over two presidencies and has not been against just one individual. The Venezuelan opposition (its common name in the English language) has been opposed to both presidencies. Overall, the "Opposition to Chavismo" title is inaccurate, "Opposition to Chavismo and Madurismo" is a mouthful and having two different articles would be an unnecessary content fork. The title Venezuelan opposition is more concise, precise and is the common name for the movement that opposes both Chavismo and Madurismo. Also, having an article move proposal on such a controversial topic being closed with no involvement is not recommended. The move discussion should be reopened and relisted. -- WMrapids ( talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.
Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.
While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.
This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.
Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.
Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.
CfDs [1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs [2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:
Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.
1. |
Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond. |
2. |
Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:move review list |page= |rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page--> |rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request--> |closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request--> |closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place--> |reason= }} ~~~~ If either the
are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the |
3. |
If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
4. |
Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: |
5. |
If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.
|
6. |
The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page. |
In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.
If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.
Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.
The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.
Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.
A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
Use {{ subst:move review top}} and {{ subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.
Also, add a result to the {{
move review talk}}
template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}
.
The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.
MRV closer's decision | RM closer's decision | Move review closed as | Status of RM after MRV close |
---|---|---|---|
1. Endorse | Moved / Not moved | No action required | Closed |
2. Overturn | Not moved | Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM | Open |
Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM | Closed | ||
Moved | Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate | Open | |
3. Relist | Moved / Not moved | Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title | Open |
Discussion
“evaluating [participants’] arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.”per WP:RMCIDC which stems from WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. In both the original and revised closing they referred to how “weighty” the arguments were, and how they evaluated that. This is an exemplary closing, actually, which has made my list of Great RM decisions. Bravo!!! Well done!!! — В²C ☎ 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion was closed by a non-admin in favour of the move, even though consensus was clearly not in favour. The closure appeared to have little reasoning or valuation of the arguments behind it. Non-admins are advised against closing discussions where the outcome is likely to be controversial, which this one clearly was. The response to my approach was that "The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. In this case, the guideline's prescription is clear". If the latter were truly the case, there would not have been such a long dispute over its application. Deb ( talk) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
In the RM itself the closer chose to provide no rationale beyond simply linking to the guideline, which ignores the substantial amount of debate (and lack of consensus) on the very question of whether applying the guideline in this case would yield the best title. The closer also seemed not to recognize or acknowledge that policy was invoked on both sides of this debate. Instead, to judge from their three-word closure at the RM, they considered the guideline to be literally the only relevant factor, which again is very much at odds with the outcome of the discussion. In the post-RM follow-up on their talk page, and in comments they've made here in this MR, the closer seems to support quite firmly the position advocated by those supporting the move despite the discussion having failed to reach such a conclusion.
It'd be best to vacate this closure and allow the request to be closed instead by an administrator. ╠╣uw [ talk 17:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The answer of course is that guidelines are just that: guidelines, not policy. It’s right to apply them wherever it makes sense to do so, but not where it doesn’t, and discussion is how we find the line. The idea that a guideline automatically trumps all objections short-circuits that process and is not how we operate. ╠╣uw [ talk 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. This statement reveals misunderstanding of the role of the closer and mustn’t be allow to stand. It is not the role of the close to apply policies and guidelines, but to summarise the participants’ discussed application of policies and guidelines. It is not acceptable to say there is a role, secondary or otherwise, to count votes. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to say there is a role, secondary or otherwise, to count votes.There is clearly a role for counting votes, as the essay demonstrates. Why else would we care about VOTESTACKing? House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. The buttons one has doesn't make a good closer. The close is policy-aligned with current NCROY, and the closer correctly applied close procedures. Directly from WP:DISCARD,
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue., which was done. I do think that an elaborated rationale would have been beneficial, especially for utter shitfests like the NCROY RMs, which I saw from other closes by Compassionate made after this one. Sennecaster ( Chat) 01:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
a consensus did not emerge that applying the guideline in this case would actually improve the titles. Do you have any potential moves in which you think applying the guideline would actually improve the title? IAR is for exceptions, not rewriting guidelines established by broader community consensus. As for the closure, I agree it should have been done by an admin (and I hope this MR is closed by an admin). However, solely being a BADNAC is not a reason to overturn a close. There wasn't a lot to analyze: one side had the support of the guideline, the other argued that we should LOCALCONSENSUS that guideline out of existence. You don't need to write a dissertation to analyze the outcome of that discussion. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding guidelines, we seek to apply them wherever it makes sense to do so, but the idea that the existence of a guideline overrules all other titling considerations or objections, and is the only relevant consideration in RMs, is simply wrong. If it were so then RMs would become unnecessary and we could just mass-apply the guideline to every possible case via undiscussed moves and technical requests — but we don’t. RMs explicitly exist to solicit feedback on the appropriateness of requested moves, when viewed not just through the lens of a single guideline but in the wider context of all our policy obligations under WP:AT. This was not reflected in the closure.
As for BADNAC, an almost entirely unexplained closure by a non-admin of a divided discussion on a controversial request which doesn’t even acknowledge many of the points that were raised or discussed strikes me as sufficient grounds to seek a closure by an admin. The NAC guidance exists for a reason, and as it stands I simply don’t see that we can have confidence in the appropriateness of the closure that was made. ╠╣uw [ talk 18:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Closer
made a "no-consensus close" (with the exception of
WP:NOYEAR), but has also insisted the title remain at the location it was boldly moved to, rather than to title used in the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made
, as required by
WP:TITLECHANGES. The close itself appears reasonable, but the decision on what title should be utilized given a no-consensus close is contrary to policy, and I am opening this move request to request overturning that aspect and moving the article to "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus".
Note that there have been two other discussions on this, at RMTR and the article talk page; the discussion at RMTR is the cause of this move review being opened, as while three uninvolved admins have agreed that the article is at the wrong title, none have been willing to unilaterally move it over full move protection and the objections of the closing admin - they have instead recommended that a move review be opened. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
an article title has been stable for a long time(bolding mine). In this instance, however, "consulate" was never stable for more than a day: the article was first renamed from "consulate" to "embassy" within 15 hours of its creation [4] and remained so for two weeks, with a few later changes, back-an-forth, but always "embassy" was the more stable title. Yet, there was nothing resembling "long time" in this very new article.
If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This move request should be re-opened as closer wasn't able to take into account that the 1982 TV program is the obvious primary topic for "Today (Australian TV program)", which has aired for 44 years in comparison to the 1960 TV program's one year. I support the second move occurring, but the first move doesn't need to occur and this article should be reverted back to its original location at " Today (Australian TV program)", it is the most likely topic being referred to when readers search for this program. Happily888 ( talk) 08:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There were three people involved in the discussion. One person initally opposed the move but later changed their mind and supported. The other two people continued opposing it, of which one never replied to my comment. They stated their opinion for a title, based on incorrect reasoning which is not in line with the relevant Wikipedia policy. My point is: the common name of the subject is its abbreviation and the abbreviation is primarily used for this subject. I have proven this with various different shops and manufacturers as examples, and in discussion with the closer also Google Ngram and book titles. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 14:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reading Beans may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: NoonIcarus, a user recently topic banned for POV pushing, who has been engaged in some page-move wars and who has forced their own titling on the project proposed a move only three months after their past proposal was opposed. As the previous discussion laid out, "Opposition to Chavismo" is actually less precise because there is both "Chavismo" and "Madurismo". Making the comparison to Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia and the other categories are a false equivalencies since the opposition has spanned over two presidencies and has not been against just one individual. The Venezuelan opposition (its common name in the English language) has been opposed to both presidencies. Overall, the "Opposition to Chavismo" title is inaccurate, "Opposition to Chavismo and Madurismo" is a mouthful and having two different articles would be an unnecessary content fork. The title Venezuelan opposition is more concise, precise and is the common name for the movement that opposes both Chavismo and Madurismo. Also, having an article move proposal on such a controversial topic being closed with no involvement is not recommended. The move discussion should be reopened and relisted. -- WMrapids ( talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
|