Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM) ( Discussion with closer)

Like several other recent RMs, this one was proposed to bring a title in line with consensus reached recently at WP:NCROY, namely by removing the "of country" disambiguation from the title because it's not necessary for disambiguation. Also, as Amakuru argued in Support: "someone shouldn't be given an artificially long title just because we think nobody's heard of them". The RM and post-RM discussion at the closer's Talk page have all the details, but the gist is the same as with the other similar recent RMs: Support has a much stronger basis in policy, and closer did not weigh the !votes accordingly as they are directed to do at WP:RMCI: by evaluating their 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. В²C ☎ 05:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (uninvolved). As closers of similar RMs have noted elsewhere, there doesn't seem to be a single correct weighting of criteria or interpretation of policy that must apply in instances like this, NCROY notwithstanding. Proponents of both viewpoints correctly raised points of policy and applications of WP:CRITERIA in support of their preference, and given the very divided views of the respondents the finding of no consensus is appropriate. That said, applicable guidelines must indeed be considered, but reasonable arguments to the contrary also cannot be disregarded simply because a guideline exists ( as someone recently pointed out). It's also worth noting that no one invoked NCROY at all in the discussion. ╠╣uw [ talk 12:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn This one's difficult only because WP:NCROY #3 currently says only to use a country title if the name needs to be disambiguated, which is a very clear, easy to apply rule, which specifically applies here, but nobody brought up NCROY specifically in the discussion. I almost made a neutral argument here, given as a closer I would not have known to look up the rule if I was not familiar with it, but I'm going to overturn considering the fact the nominator and two of the supporters toed around the rule, and, importantly, the closer has closed similar discussions in the past. At the moment, I think the only correct way to oppose one of these discussions would be to show that the person needs to be disambiguated. SportingFlyer T· C 15:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I re-reviewed my !vote above after Jessintime noted the guidance at WP:CONSORTS. I still think an overturn to a move is a more correct reading of consensus - CONSORTS really doesn't provide much guidance at all, but the arguments of those opposing were that it was more recognizable and that it was consistent, but I'm persuaded by the rebuttals, and after reading Wikipedia's guidance, that consistency does not matter with regards to disambiguation, that "of Spain" is not the COMMONNAME (which is what the recognizable part links to), and that we're generally veering away from using country disambiguators. SportingFlyer T· C 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (uninvolved) essentially per SportingFlyer with a couple additional thoughts. First, that the supporters did not explictly link to WP:NCROY does not mean that they didn't echo that guideline's content... most/all of the supports here could have added "per WP:NCROY" and not needed additional changes. Second, even if we accept a pure numbers consensus, this would be a local consensus that contravenes the recent large RfC at WT:NCROY#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles? and WP:CONSORTS bullet point #5. Hence, overturn. Ed  ^{[talk]  [OMT]} 16:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I've re-reviewed this as well and stand by my thoughts. I'm also surprised to see others say that there is "almost no guidance" provided in our existing guidelines. The name is unambiguous, meaning WP:CONSORTS bullet point #5 applies, and the recent RfC makes it crystal clear that we favor "shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed." CONSORTS can/should be updated to make it clearer how the RfC guidance applies, sure, but that doesn't mean we don't have enough to go on right now. Ed  ^{[talk]  [OMT]} 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • You are assuming that "the name" is Maria Antonia Ferdinanda and that "of Spain" is disambiguation. As I read the discussion, both of those points were disputed. Srnec ( talk) 04:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I see exactly one oppose that could be read that way. Ed  ^{[talk]  [OMT]} 01:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

        Are we counting votes now? I was referring to Walrasiad's !vote and Celia Homeford's comment at 14:45, 22 January 2024. I also noted that Amakuru did not respond to Celia and that Seltaeb Eht, in disputing with Walrasiad, admits that reviewing the sources in the article, it seems she much more often known as de Borbón if anything. Indeed, in the Diccionario Biográfico Español she is María Antonia Fernanda de Borbón. This is certainly not evidence in favour of the status quo, but it is evidence against one of the underlying assumptions of supporters, since "de Borbón" is closer to a surname than a disambiguator. Srnec ( talk) 22:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (uninvolved). The guidance at WP:SOVEREIGN to "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed" doesn't apply in this case, because the person in question was a consort. The guidance at WP:CONSORTS is mixed. The first bullet point states "Many consorts are known in English as '{Name} of {Place}'" while the fifth bullet point states "Sometimes the name by itself is unambiguous or primary usage." I don't feel any of the arguments in the RM - those made in support or those made in opposition - were particularly strong (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME was thrown around but no evidence was provided) thus I think the no consensus close was appropriate. I'd says those wishing to see the article moved should look into the WP:COMMONNAME (or show their work) at a future requested move, or seek to change and/or clarify the guidance at WP:CONSORT. Jessintime ( talk) 17:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (uninvolved). WP:NCROY provides almost no guidance for this case beyond WP:AT: Deceased consorts are referred to by a name by which they are commonly known and There is no agreed-upon general convention for deceased consorts. So the question is a general article title one, not a guideline specific one. The balance of arguments justifies the close. I specifically note the arguments that "of Spain" is functionally like a surname and that names of that form are not normally truncated simply because it's possible to do so. This form is the first example given at NCROY: Many consorts are known in English as "{Name} of {Place}" ... where {Place} is the country or House of origin. In other words, arguments were raised against the notion that the title is "artificially long" and the closer did a good job of weighing them. Srnec ( talk) 21:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Point well made, except there was no evidence presented by Opposers that for this particular consort the "of Spain" was part of their COMMONNAME. The only reason "of Spain" was ever in this title was because that used to be the NCROY guidance, not due to any WP:AT/CRITERIA guidance. Since that guidance has been removed from NCROY, there is no remaining policy or guideline basis to retain "of Spain" in this title, certainly none raised in the discussion under review. -- В²C ☎ 04:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  But neither was any evidence provided that the proposed title was the common name. The whole argument for moving was that "of Spain" was unnecessary disambiguation. But what if it isn't disambiguation? The discussion mostly proceeded on the basis of contradicting assumptions and with very little backing evidence. Srnec ( talk) 22:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, but the assumptions made by Supporters was consistent with a recent consensus decision at NCROY, so Opposers had the burden to show the current title was the COMMONNAME. -- В²C ☎ 21:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (uninvolved). I am generally supportive of dropping unnecessary disambiguation, so take that for what you will. However, there is no consensus: The recent RfC changed WP:SOVEREIGN, not WP:CONSORTS. Thus, there is no basis to discount well-reasoned opposition to the move. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Joga (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM) ( Discussion with closer)

As explained in the user talk above, I don't think this was a good application of WP:DETCON. If two people are actively disagreeing, a third provides a support for one of these but doesn't explain further, the closers should be free not to think in terms of how many or few people were convinced, especially when they themselves recognize that the argument stated is strong. The spirit of the consensus policy - Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given - needs to take precedence over the headcount as such, or indeed the idea that 2:1 is determinative local consensus. -- Joy ( talk) 10:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• A very difficult close and really hinges on whether the closer thought Amakuru's argument was valid. Since participation was limited, I'd be happy to give my own view on this in order to get a better consensus. SportingFlyer T· C 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, we had one relist already, and the close came within 24h of the last recorded comment, so it wasn't even settled in that regard. I sympathise with the idea that some of our processes can be glacial and at some point we might as well cut them off, but I think another relist and trying to encourage more participation would make more sense than this kind of a close. (I need to keep reminding myself to employ more explicit pings when I post questions in these discussions.) -- Joy ( talk) 15:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (uninvolved). A reasonable close based on the strength of arguments and community consensus as reflected in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. After a relist and a month, it wasn't too likely the discussion was about to attract any new participants. Station1 ( talk) 07:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  If the procedural solution advocated here is to not go for trying to attract more participants after a month and just go with the status quo, why isn't the same principle of keeping the status quo applicable in the closing of the RM in the first place?

  Also, while you are certainly technically uninvolved in this particular RM, this is the same kind of an issue I've been discussing with you at length at Talk:Saba_(island)#Requested_move_8_August_2022 / Talk:Saba, and we had the same disagreement about the interpretation of the primary topic guideline, what WikiNav statistics mean, and how the partial title match guideline is applied in reference to human names, so in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO I don't think it makes sense to be disclaiming involvement. -- Joy ( talk) 08:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  On your first point, I didn't say anything about keeping the status quo. On the second point, I've been involved in many, many RMs, as have almost everyone who comments at MR. Often the same issues come up again and again. When someone labels their comment "uninvolved" at MR, it's understood that they did not participate in the particular RM being reviewed. Station1 ( talk) 19:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (uninvolved). The closure was reasonable, and the closer was not obliged to relist. Participants considered page views, clickstream data, the degree of weight to assign to Kartam Joga and Soyam Joga, and the significance of Joga, Uttar Pradesh. The interpretation of clickstream data was subject to uncertainty and discretion because of unknowns like the amount of traffic below the minimum cutoff. The surnames were not irrelevant (according to the counterargument to WP:PTM) but also possibly not worth full weight (at least according to Amakuru). The overall page views of the song and the apparently low notability of the village were arguments in support of the move. Overall the majority had sufficient basis for their bottom-line conclusions, for a closer to find consensus. Adumbrativus ( talk) 09:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Pākehā settlers ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM) ( Discussion with closer)

This proposal was to move "Pākehā settlers" to "European settlers of New Zealand", with 15 supporting versus 9 opposing, and, according to the closer, the support rationales being somewhat stronger: See below strong, policy- and guideline-based arguments for moving to the proposed title along with fair rebuttals and almost equally strong rationales that are opposed to this page move.

Despite there being significantly more editors supporting than opposing and those editors having stronger arguments, the closer found no consensus to move.

I also believe that the arguments for moving are considerably stronger than what was stated in the closer's assessment. Follow-up on their talk page was unproductive as they just repeatedly emphasized that the topic is "contentious" in the real world when asked to elaborate on their reasoning. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

JoelleJay ( talk) 00:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (involved). A significant majority of editors supported moving this article, and the closer found that the arguments in support were stronger; it's baffling that this was closed as "no consensus". BilledMammal ( talk) 09:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think it's worth noting that the nominator of this request reached out to this editor, who helped draft this move review. I'm unsure of whether this formally counts as canvassing, but either way this user has been heavily involved in the development of the move review and is not just involved in the move itself. Turnagra ( talk) 09:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it's good that you are concerned about this, and thank you for that! Both editors are involved and obviously concerned very much to find the highest and best title for the article. Their intercommunication on the nom's talk page and the sandbox work seem like just one editor helping another. Some things to remember are a) both involved editors appear to be heavily invested in a page-move outcome, and b) there were a significant number of strong opposing arguments that weighed heavily against moving the page. So I still think that more discussion is needed to build consensus for any particular title. Thanks again, editor Turnagra! P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 11:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

My assumption is that involved !votes aren't given as much weight here in general, so informing the move nom that I was considering MRV shouldn't make a difference. I also avoided referencing by name or linking to the RM directly on BilledMammal's TP specifically because I wanted to be as vague as possible to anyone who might be watching that page. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (uninvolved). The primary questions that divided the discussion appeared to be COMMONNAME (or, more broadly, recognizability) and TIES. To my eye, the discussion did not appear to come to a clear consensus on which title either policy would favor. Some commenters provided sources arguing that "European settlers" was the more common term, while others criticized the quality and applicability of the methodologies used to find those sources; to my eye, I think JoelleJay's argument about the usage gap in academic sources was the strongest COMMONNAME-related argument to have been made, but I think it's also reasonable to be cautious about a COMMONNAME finding due to the overall level of controversy surrounding the appraisal of different terms' commonality. The TIES argument didn't seem to break the deadlock either, with editors divided over whether the topic had specific TIES to New Zealand and of how to weigh the TIES question against the COMMONALITY one. Other, less prominent, strands of the discussion also appeared to lead in multiple directions: for instance, the analogy to lakh/crore language made a compelling case for avoiding regional terminology, whereas WP:CONCISE was leveled as favoring the use of "pākehā", and WP:PRECISE proved divisive in its handful of mentions. Given the lack of unanimity on how to interpret the relevant policies, I think a "no consensus" closure is a reasonable read of the discussion. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ ModernDayTrilobite, there was not a "deadlock" on COMMONALITY vs TIES: there was a 15-9 majority in favor of moving on the basis of wider recognizability, and the closer stated even they considered the supporters' arguments stronger. Even in circumstances where arguments are deemed equivalent in strength, a majority in favor of one side should result in closure supporting that side: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.

  On top of this, no oppose !voters rebutted or even acknowledged the term usage frequency findings I provided, which were generated with specific search terms that directly addressed the complaint about the initial search results: namely, I included multiple alternative formulations of "settlers" and "European" and introduced a very heavy bias for "pākehā" by not counting any hits that used "European settlers" but had "pākehā" written on the same page regardless of context (e.g. discussion of modern pākehā rather than the settlers), while retaining any hits for "pākehā settlers" even if they also mentioned "European". And unlike both the nom's and the supporter's GS searches, my search was restricted to .nz domains. No subsequent !voters even brought up reasons to discount the frequency searches, so the complaint about methodology shouldn't be given much weight anyway. The same is true for CONCISE, which was only brought up by one editor and was strongly rebutted with the fact that all four other elements in the title criteria supported moving the page.

  I would also note that beyond the search by the supporter that wasn't even specific to pākehā settlers, no evidence was provided that "pākehā" was used more frequently in recent NZ sources, nor even that there were official initiatives to use that term. There were vague gestures at "culture wars" regarding naming, but no sources backing up that this actually IS controversial. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (no consensus). The adoption of indigenous language in New Zealand English is clearly a thing, and attempts to do the same with New Zealand topics is clearly controversial, perhaps to be perennially. I advise an RfC on the broader issue. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ SmokeyJoe Does it not matter that this adoption is not reflected in recent NZ sources at all? Or that the closer stated the support arguments were stronger? JoelleJay ( talk) 03:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  User:JoelleJay, I see “Pakeha” in recent sources in the current references. What do you mean by recent? I wouldn’t measure by less than decades. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pakeha&year_start=1700&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=0 Shows the term to be well used. Also, I consider WP:RETAIN and WP:TITLECHANGES to be very big impediments to a rename like this. Without doing a careful argument weights analysis, I see clearly that the balance is not nearly strong enough to call it a consensus to move, definitely not.

  If someone wants to try yet again, I advise them to to write a more persuasive nomination that addresses all the counter arguments, and even that they being with an RfC. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ SmokeyJoe, the criterion isn't that the term must have been used at all, it's that it's the term used in the formal English spoken in the country, and to override Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles and to comply with When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, there obviously should be evidence that the term is the most commonly used current variant.

  "Pakeha" alone is also not the topic in question; we already have pakeha. The topic is "pakeha settlers", which refers to the Europeans who settled in NZ. As I demonstrated in my analysis of academic sources from the last 5 years that are hosted on the .nz domain, the usage preference is 6:1 in favor of "European settlers" in the context of NZ. The queries were:
  "European|British settlers|colonists" of "New Zealand" -pakeha (yields 1560 hits)
  and
  "pakeha settlers|colonists" (yields 256 hits)
  Note that this is discarding any hits for "European settlers" where the website also contains the word "pakeha" at all, even if it's not referring to "pakeha settlers". Meanwhile, all hits for "pakeha settlers" are counted regardless of whether they appear on the same page as "European settlers" or whether the "settlers" are even in the context of New Zealand. Actual XOR parity in search terms yields 3 hits for "pakeha settlers": that is, 3 .nz-hosted scholarly results from the last 5 years mention "pakeha settlers" without the term "European|British" appearing on the page.

  There was no evidence presented demonstrating a preference for "pakeha settlers" in any sources, nor was there evidence that using "European" instead of "pakeha" settlers is or would be at all controversial in NZ. It certainly doesn't seem so given that the NZ government itself uses "European", including in its census.

  Also, respectfully, it should not matter whether people at MRV consider RETAIN or TITLECHANGES to be relevant when those points were not brought up in the RM itself. It is my understanding that MRV should consider whether the close itself accurately reflected the prevailing P&G-based arguments. The closer noted the "support" arguments were stronger, and there were significantly more supporters (all pointing to COMMONALITY/RECOGNIZABILITY/etc. with some also noting the fact that TIES necessarily applies to the British origins of most European settlers, and others noting that this page would be the sole outlier in the series of articles concerning "European settlers of [X]" (CONSISTENCY)). JoelleJay ( talk) 23:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Also want to point out that, as multiple !voters stated, TIES comes right after guidance that includes an example of when we shouldn't use a national variety of English even when it's clearly predominant: we explicitly are to avoid using "crore" even in the prose of articles on Indian topics, despite that term certainly being preferred in Indian English-language sources and despite it having a couple hundred million more Anglophone WP users familiar with it than those familiar with "pakeha". No one was able to answer how "pakeha settlers" was so different a situation that it would not only be acceptable to replace every mention of "Europeans" with "pakeha" on NZ-related articles, but that this was acceptable in a title. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  User:JoelleJay, I see your points, and you may be right, but I don't see consensus in the discussion. I recommend rearguing these points in a later RM, or RFC.

  WP:RETAIN and WP:TITLECHANGES, policy that advocates for the status quo and stability, are two examples of things that should be considered implicitly by all closers, and by MRV. Basically, if you want to change the title from the first non-stub version and long term stable title, the burden on making the case is higher than on rejecting it.

  I've re-read the RM after reading all your comments. I consider changing to "relist" but choose not to. "No consensus" is the right summary. At the end for me, it is not the facts or the weighting of arguments, but that no one is persuading anyone, and too many participants have inexplicably strong opinions. That discussion is not an example of consensus decision making. A pause, and fresh air, is the right thing to do. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ SmokeyJoe, you know I respect your opinion and we've agreed on a lot of things in the past, which is why I'm spending so much effort trying to explain my stance, since I think I must not be doing it well.

  Everyone who supported the move supported based on at least the argument for commonality. RETAIN and TITLECHANGES are both on equal footing within the same guideline as COMMONALITY and TIES, and as they are not policy, they shouldn't be taken into consideration much by a closer if compliance with them was not suitably raised in the RfC. The closer themselves did not mention it either.

  RfCs are not supposed to be judged on whether they "persuaded" anyone to change their !vote, although I will note that at least one person was convinced enough by my and others' data to strike the "weak" from their support !vote. I will also note, as I pointed out elsewhere, that I entered this RfC having zero prior involvement with the subject but expecting to !vote for retention of "pakeha settlers", and actively tried to find a way to demonstrate the term's predominance in NZ RS. That's why the search queries are so
  biased to favor "pakeha" results: I sincerely wanted to at least convince myself that this was the correct title (even if I would have never used those query structures as justification for retaining the native title had the results actually supported it).

  The RfC was absolutely marred by some high-temperature opinions thrown into it, including some seemingly bigoted arguments. But the level of contentiousness didn't correspond to evidence that this title would be controversial in the real world in NZ, and indeed the majority of voters didn't engage in either veiled accusations of racism or anti-woke tirades. That editors who have been active on that page in the past have strong, unwavering opinions on the topic is to be expected (as we saw with the multiple oppose !votes that simply referenced the prior RfC's close without addressing at all the new points and evidence made in this RfC), so the fact that many completely uninvolved editors weighed in and strongly favored moving to the proposed title should have been the jolt needed to get this out of no consensus purgatory. Kicking the can down the road to be fought over by the same regulars as before, without the input from the wider community that this received following its advertisement in an ANI report (initiated by one of the opposers), isn't going to produce a clearer result. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for your respect for my opinion. Actually, I think we've disagreed before in cases where I was probably wrong. And this feels like one of those cases.

  I think you're mixing RfC for RM? If there was an RfC please point me to it.

  There was an ANI report? Please link. That may explain the unproductive tone of the discussion that is disturbing me.

  I may have another bias here. I have several times criticised this closer for their closing adventurism bordering on a tendency to supervote, and in this case you allege an overconservative "no consensus". Maybe I should suggest the ideal NAC behaviour of them withdrawing their NAC close (undeclared!) on the basis of a reasonable complaint. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ SmokeyJoe: The ANI report can be found here; it was primarily focused on a different topic area with this thrown in.

  Maybe I should suggest the ideal NAC behaviour of them withdrawing their NAC close (undeclared!) on the basis of a reasonable complaint. I think that would have been a good idea, and asked them to do that both on the basis of the issues with the close and because I considered them WP:INVOLVED - they had previously said it seems to me to be a lost cause to argue that this article should be named something other than "Pākehā settlers" BilledMammal ( talk) 05:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thanks.

  The run of OVERTURNs below definitely suggests a BADNAC. It is not helpful for NACers to insist on their closes and necessate heavy MRV discussions.

  I had not picked up that they might be INVOLVED. Really? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ SmokeyJoe: They participated at a move review of a previous RM for this title, and while doing so made comments, like the one I quoted above, that give the impression that they have strong feelings on the topic that would preclude objectivity. Additionally, the requirement for non-admin closers is that they should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes - I would suggest that the previous MRV discussion is a "related dispute". BilledMammal ( talk) 21:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I see I participated too. I did not specifically remember. I agree with you, UNINVOLVED should be strict, and especially for non admins, and I do assert that I have noticed over many years that nonadmin closers are much more likely to transgress UNINVOLVED than admins.

  I think the close should be reverted (encouraging conversions to a !vote) by the closer, and reclosed by a strictly UNINVOLVED admin. If it is closed as “no consensus”, future proposals should be put through the RfC process. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Just so it's clear, I've not participated in any move request in regard to this title. My only participation was in the previous move review, and as I said on my talk page, I could not care less whether the article's current title remains or is changed to something else. That qualifies me to assess the arguments and determine whether or not there is consensus. We also should remember that a relist is not a substitute for a "no-consensus" decision as long as there has been a fair amount of participation in the RM survey. This RM had been relisted and the adequate participation meant that it was ready for closure. I think that any uninvolved editor would have closed as "no consensus", because there certainly was no agreement among editors that either the current title or the proposed title was the highest and best. Thank you for reading, and all the best to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 06:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Indeed I meant RM, not RfC. I've not participated in many RMs so I don't know what the expectations are for closers (and wasn't sure whether NAC was something to consider, since it seems most move discussions are NACs?). Now I'm uncertain whether RMs are gauged differently than RfCs or AfDs -- the endorses suggest the closer's assessment, the arguments, and the numbers are less important than relitigating the move proposal itself, which isn't how it works elsewhere. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The support arguments had a numerical majority, but several support !votes were not based in policy, and the oppose arguments were clearly stronger anyways (MOS:TIES clearly applies here, and I am not convinced Google searches are an accurate representation of language used by a community where there are clear arguments against. There were also clear arguments that this is a controversial change.) SportingFlyer T· C 10:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  MOS:TIES applies to both the current and proposed title. -- Spekkios ( talk) 08:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (involved). JoelleJay's argument for overturning is basically what I would say: there were more support than oppose voters by a significant margin, and the closer acknowledged that the support arguments were stronger. That's enough for a rough consensus to move. Loki ( talk) 20:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (uninvolved). LokiTheLiar has a point, or rather two: the closer themselves stated that the arguments for the move were stronger than those against (calling the latter "almost" as strong), plus the movers had a clear majority – a point which the closer failed to acknowledge and discuss at all. If both numbers and strength of argument go to the same side, that side should have it. (Well, maybe not automatically, but in that case I'd still expect careful deliberation about why to disregard both these factors, and that didn't happen here.) People also pointed out in the discussion that MOS:TIES doesn't apply here, or at least not as strongly as MOS:COMMONALITY. My impression is that these arguments weren't convincingly addressed and refuted by the other side, but it's another point which the closer didn't address at all. Gawaon ( talk) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (involved). The detailed arguments submitted by JoelleJay are strong and overwhelmingly convincing. The main title header Pākehā is the same in English Wikipedia and in Maori Wikipedia. However, that is not the case for the country itself, which appears as New Zealand in English Wikipedia, but as Aotearoa in Maori Wikipedia. The currently existing header is, of course, the correct one for Maori Wikipedia, but English Wikipedia is intended to serve the entire English-speaking world, not merely New Zealand, and the term easily understood throughout the English-speaking world is the proposed form — European settlers in New Zealand — not the existing form. No other Wikipedia entry about the New World uses the indigenous term for a specific country or the immigrants to it. Finally, a difference of one or two votes may still count as "no consensus", but it should not require a supermajority to move a title, even if the matter does raise points of controversy. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (involved) That move request was a mess. There were multiple instances of badgering (as we've also seen in this move review), admittedly from both sides but primarily from those in favour of the move, and several of the arguments cited fairly problematic views. Arguments which sought to demonstrate that "European settler" was the common term were weak due to claiming that the title was meant as a specific term as a whole (ie. treating "Pākehā settlers" or "European settlers" as the noun, rather than "settlers" as the noun and the first term as an adjective) rather than a descriptive title, for which quantitative searches would be less useful. The claims about a need to use English similarly hold no water, due to the term's common usage and ties to New Zealand English. Ultimately though, the fact that discussions were still ongoing after several months clearly demonstrates that a consensus hadn't been reached, and the closer was right to finally put that unproductive discussion out of its misery with a well thought out and clearly explained close. Turnagra ( talk) 10:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (involved) - Move requests are not supposed to be resolved based on a nose count of editors, and no evidence has been presented that the "quality" of the support rationales outpaced the quality of oppose rationales to the extent that the former represented an actual consensus. (We have seen reiteration of arguments from the RM in this venue, but that isn't the same thing.) If we were to accept move requests every time an RM achieved a bare numerical majority, the titles of enwiki articles would be even less stable than they are at present, and even more editor time would be spent on back and forth RM discussions. In my view, this would not be in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (uninvolved). As others have pointed out, it's hard to reconcile the closer's statement that the arguments in favor of the move were stronger than those opposed to it with the actual close. Jessintime ( talk) 03:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Further comment: Paine Ellsworth's (the closer of the requested move in question) statements at a 2022 move review on the same subject seem to cross the line when it comes to WP:INVOLVED. In particular, his comment that "I will say that Māori words have given New Zealand English its individuality since early in the 19th century, so it seems to me to be a lost cause to argue that this article should be named something other than 'Pākehā settlers'" [1]. Jessintime ( talk) 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (uninvolved, except for calling out a back-and-forth that was going nowhere, while I was trying to make sense of the discussion). I don't remember how I found the discussion, but I remember leaving it without casting a !vote, unable to decide which side was making more sense. I looked in a few times after, and did not see any side getting an upper hand over the other. Numbers should matter too, but there is no set percentage and it was not so overwhelming as to allow no discretion to the closer. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 04:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (uninvolved) Per Jessintime: ... it's hard to reconcile the closer's statement that the arguments in favor of the move were stronger than those opposed to it with the actual close, even with the qualification of "almost equally strong rationales". To summarise the position to move, WP:COMMONALITY, WP:GLOBAL/ WP:RF and, WP:COMMONNAME/ WP:RECOGNIZABILITY were cited. A range of search evidence was presented to show that Pākehā settlers was substantially less commonly used than the proposed, European settlers in New Zealand (and similar terms). In opposition, some reference was made to WP:CRITERIA (particularly WP:CONCISE and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY), and MOS:TIES. While much was said to rebut the evidence offered in support, there was little meaningful evidence of actual usage offered to oppose - eg this search of GS for variations of New Zealand European does not effectively counter a similar search for European settlers in the context of New Zealand. The evidence of usage presented by the supporters has reasonably withstood a robust examination. WP:COMMONNAME/ WP:RECOGNIZABILITY carries much more weight than WP:CONCISE. Notwithstanding the argument of MOS:TIES v WP:COMMONALITY, that guidance does not override the policy of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Furthermore, WP:TITLEVAR at WP:AT links to MOS:TIES. WP:TITLEVAR is clearly commenting largely on spelling variations but also states: Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between the British fizzy drink, American soda, American and Canadian pop, and a slew of other nation- and region-specific names. MOS:TIES and WP:COMMONALITY are both part of MOS:ENGVAR. As with any rule, law or like, these two section should not be read in isolation from each other but within the fuller context of MOS:ENGVAR. It is quite clear that citing MOS:TIES in opposing the move is not in accordance with the spirit and intent of the guidance. It is a WP:PETTIFOGging argument. There is no inconsistency in the WP:P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:TITLEVAR was indirectly mentioned as the previous RM and close was mentioned and cited as an argument [to oppose]. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Cinderella157, I'm afraid I don't understand this argument, which also seems to animate your interventions elsewhere in this discussion. Are you saying that the close, and the Oppose votes it took into account, should be set aside because they linked to TIES rather than TITLEVAR? That doesn’t make any sense to me, since both sections carry similar provisions - TITLEVAR reads, f a topic has strong </nowiki> ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English. Furthermore, this a subsection of WP:ENGLISHTITLE, which specifies, it must be remembered that the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase. These guidelines, read together and in the context of the rest of our P&Gs, tell us that where a specialized term is used by high-quality sources in a variety of English closely tied to an article's topic, it should be used in WP article titles. Yes, other considerations also apply, but what RECOGNIZABILITY actually tells us (my paraphrase) is to use source-based, clear, informative titles that would be recognized by someone familiar with the subject which is a perspective taken by many Oppose !votes. Your assertion that those opposed to the move are trying to "override" RECOGNIZABILITY is an unrecognizable caricature of the arguments presented, at least as I read them. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This and this comment I made below largely addresses the question. The arguments to retain the existing title are based on an interpretation of MOS:TIES v move arguments based on WP:COMMONALITY. Policy and guidelines must be considered within the full context of a particular section or document and the relationship to superior policy. When citing particular text, this should not be cited out of context in a way that misrepresents the fuller context. WP:TITLEVAR, the superior policy, is patently clear about the use of common vocabulary (eg soft drink v fizzy drink v soda v pop - a matter of WP:COMMONALITY) as distinct from variations in spelling of the same word (eg colour v color or defence v defense - a matter of MOS:TIES). Where you would quote: If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English .... It continues, (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense). The sentence in full is clearly talking about spelling variations, while what then follows considers vocabulary and choosing a commonly recognisable name over region-specific names. Thank you for identifying WP:ENGLISHTITLE, also at WP:AT which only reinforces why the oppose argument based on an interpretation of MOS:TIES is inconsistent with the superior policy. Where you quote from WP:ENGLISHTITLE, it more fully states: On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language. However, it must be remembered that the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase (example: coup d'état or coup d'état). Coup d'état is clearly a term that has been assimilated into English at a global level, as opposed to a term that has been assimilated into a regional variation but is unrecognisable or poorly recognised outside the region. A particularly pertinent comment was made in the discussion to effect, that this is En Wikipedia and not NZ Wikipedia. You would state: ... our P&Gs, tell us that where a specialized term is used by high-quality sources in a variety of English closely tied to an article's topic, it should be used in WP article titles [emphasis added]. In the first instance, this falls to MOS:JARGON: Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Obviously, there is no opportunity to explain this specialised term in a title but more importantly though, we should minimise jargon and the proposal does just that. This is however, a digression from the arguments that were made in the discussion but it does lead into the matter of WP:Recognizability, which is a short-cut to the section of WP:AT, Deciding on an article title. The subject of recognisability is more fully expanded upon in the section Use commonly recognizable names. This tells us we generally [prefer] the name that is most commonly used and For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below. The evidence presented tells us that even within NZ, while the present term is often used, it is not the most commonly used term - even before we consider the need to use globally rececognisable vocabulary. To summarise, what I am saying is that citing MOS:TIES to oppose the move misconstrues/misrepresents the spirit and intent of the superior policy at WP:AT and particularly, what is patently clear in the section at WP:TITLEVAR. Arguments citing MOS:TIES should be discounted (per WP:NHC and WP:RMCIDC) because they do not reasonably reflect the superior policy to the point that the misrepresentation is a logical fallacy flatly contradicted by the prevailing superior policy. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (uninvolved) Personally I would have voted against the move, based on the overwhelming use of the term Pākehā in NZ itself, and in correspondence with our practice for naming, e.g., NZ species articles. However, that is not what a move review is about; it should focus on whether the closer's interpretation was correct given the discussion at time of closing. Based on the arguments presented and the balance of votes, I see insufficient justification for a No Consensus, and the article should have been moved. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (uninvolved, but I had voted in similar RMs at the time) Not only the RM discussion but this discussion right here demonstrates that there is no consensus. Daveosaurus ( talk) 19:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment (involved). I don't have a firm view on this review as it is unclear to me exactly how RM consensus should be determined. Further, it is unclear to me whether there is a bias towards the status quo in RMs and, if so, whether Wikipedia has a consensus that supports such a bias. That said, how might the impasse be resolved in the event that the no-move closure is not overturned? I reiterate my comment in the RM that "With regard to MOS:TIES, the (frustratingly) very generalised wording of "use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation" lends itself to widely varying interpretations, some of which conflict with the more specific wording of COMMONALITY." I don't see a good way forward until that text is elaborated on to reduce the widely varying interpretations. But participants with strong views (on either side) in RMs such as this one, and in other debates about the use of NZ English in WP, may be loath to initiate an attempt at revision because it might well backfire on them by resulting in a change opposite to what they hope for. Nurg ( talk) 22:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as closer of the move request. I don't usually endorse my own closes explicitly, yet due to the appearance of controversy here I think it is best in this case. Having been accused of being "involved" in this title change both here and on my talk page, I strongly reiterate that I could not care less which title is chosen. I was not specifically asked to reopen the RM on my talk page if the discussion is carefully inspected. Had I been so asked, I would have considered it even though I believe that a "no-consensus" outcome was the only possible choice for this RM. There was adequate participation and no firm agreement/consensus that any change should be made. So this closure was the only possible outcome in this case. Thank you for participating in this review, and all the best to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 06:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I was not specifically asked to reopen the RM on my talk page if the discussion is carefully inspected. - Yes, you were; you made a similar comment on your talk page, in response to which I explicitly asked if you would be willing to reverse your close and let a different editor - one who had not previously expressed that they felt it was a lost cause to argue that this article should be titled anything other than "Pākehā settlers" - re-close. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

You asked if I would be willing to reverse the closure, and my answer was yes if there were a good, sound argument to persuade me. All I had seen that far was one editor trying to reargue the RM on my talk page and another trying to make me feel as if I had been involved and invested in the RM. Sorry if there was any miscommunication there. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 15:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

You said And I have not yet expressed any opinion at all about whether or not I'd be willing to reverse my closure, because I have not yet been asked to do so.

To which I responded Then let me ask you; would you be willing to reverse your closure and let a different editor close?

You didn't accept that request, but the request was made. BilledMammal ( talk) 09:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorry if there was any miscommunication, as already said. I took your accusal of pre-involvement personally and should have handled it differently. Let me again assure you that I could not care less what the title of that article is or turns out to be. My only hope is that editors will continue to discuss the issue, and that only the highest and best title is seen at the top of the page. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 17:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Question: Paine Ellsworth, when you said that oppose rationales were "almost equally strong" as support rationales, what did you mean exactly? Many people above are interpreting that as "support rationales were slightly stronger than oppose rationales". It could also be interpreted as "the two were about equally strong", without commenting on which was stronger. Could you clarify? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, the arguments were almost equally strong, and while I did see a bit less strength overall in the oppose rationales, they were quite strong enough to lead me to conclude that there was no consensus for any action. Supporters need to work on addressing the opposers' concerns and strengthening their rationales. Then they can try again in a few weeks if they still want to rename the article. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 15:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Which concerns were not addressed? Which support rationales were not strong enough, and why? JoelleJay ( talk) 22:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Opposers' whose concerns need to be addressed are the ones that were not convinced enough to strike out their oppose rationales and support the rename. It appears that none of the support arguments were strong enough because opposers remained steadfast in their opinions. It will not be easy to sway opinion on this matter. And that's why taking more time and having more discussion on an informal basis is needed. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 07:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This seems a fairly novel interpretation of WP:CLOSE & WP:DETCON; is there any policy underlying it? Rotary Engine ^talk 00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:CLOSE at How to determine the outcome would state: Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. However, this must be read in the fuller context of that section, of WP:CLOSE overall and of WP:DETCON, part of Wikipedia:Consensus, which is a policy document. WP:DETCON would state: 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. We are repeatedly told through WP:P&G that consensus is not a vote, so it is immaterial whether those with opposing views are willing to change their views in the light of well made arguments made against such views. It is a matter of the human condition that many would rather do a King Canute than change their views. The statement by Paine Ellsworth, It appears that none of the support arguments were strong enough because opposers remained steadfast in their opinions is a cause for concern related to this close review. It would indicate that their view of consensus is more based on agreement, and a head count, than strength of argument viewed through the lens of P&G. This would reflect on how they have made this close and why this MR has been initiated. It would provide a substantive reason to overturn their close. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Endorsers would seem to take exception to this, and would agree that my closure was both reasonable and in accordance with WP:RMCI. Those are the main considerations here at move review. It is reasonable that a no-consensus outcome was found. Those who have voted to overturn are ignoring this and seem to find that the page move should take place. Such an outcome would reflect the ignoring of strong oppose rationales in the move request. More informal discussion is needed before any move request should be successful. Please let's try to stay on track here. Again, the main thoughts should be "Was the closure reasonable?" and "Was the closure in line with the closing instructions?" A "yes" answer to both would indicate endorsement of the close. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 03:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Paine Ellsworth, my uninvolved overturn comment does consider whether the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI and particularly WP:RMCIDC was followed. My comment assesses how I would close the RM (IAW RMCI). Therein, I observe that citing MOS:TIES is not a strong rationale (but rather, a red herring) since when viewed in the fuller context of prevailing policy at WP:TITLEVAR, the spirit and intent of the policy is clear. Consequently, there is no conflict or contradiction between MOS:TIES and WP:COMMONALITY when read in the full context. There is no weight to an argument that MOS:TIES supports retaining the present title. Unfortunately, while those opposing the move have indirectly referred to WP:TITLEVAR through direct reference to the previous discussion and previous close, they have chosen to ignore the fuller context and the clarity it gives. Since there is a clear indication from policy and conventions, the close has not been made within the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. Consequently the close was not reasonable. The answer to both your questions is no - indicating the close should be overturned. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree to disagree. The opposers' arguments were much stronger than you appear to perceive. There was no consensus in that survey, and I don't think that a denial of the opposing rationales' power and strength is appropriate. You haven't proven that the close was unreasonable just by rearguing the merits of the move request. No agreement is equal to no consensus, so this title issue needs more discussion informally on the talk page of the article. At least, that's my take; I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 08:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This is really not a great argument. If, given the disparity in numbers, one wants to demonstrate an absence of consensus (or a consensus for the minority), one needs to show how (in the context of policy) the arguments were sufficient to overcome that disparity; not just assert such. This has not even been argued, far less shown.

The opposers' arguments were much stronger than you appear to perceive, There was no consensus in that survey. Why? Don't just assert. Explain. Rotary Engine ^talk 09:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

My job was just to close, not to participate or !vote. When I closed the move request, I found that the arguments on both sides were almost the same strength. That is the key. Numbers matter not one iota. That explains why there is no consensus in that survey. Editors could not come to agreement and need to discuss more at an informal level. Thank you! P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This, again, is assertion, not explanation. Rotary Engine ^talk 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Paine Ellsworth, WP:RMCI would state: Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters [prevailing WP:&G], so that they have the ability to make these assessments. WP:TITLEVAR, the superior policy, is patently clear about the use of common vocabulary (eg soft drink v fizzy drink v soda v pop - a matter of WP:COMMONALITY) as distinct from variations in spelling of the same word (eg colour v color - a matter of MOS:TIES). Per WP:NHC (through WP:RMCI), the closer is to discard irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy ... [and] ... those that are logically fallacious. Pākehā is clearly a matter of vocabulary and not spelling, to which national ties applies. A number of editors asserting otherwise does not make it true or reasonable. To assert that it does would fall to WP:VOTING. Please explain how the argument of MOS:TIES reasonably carries any weight in the fuller context of WP:TITLEVAR and that it should not be discarded. The reasonableness of the close pivots and whether it complies with WP:RMCI, pivots on this. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Please see my response above to editor Rotary Engine. Move review is not a place to reargue the move request. Thank you! P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This assumes that opposers' concerns were actually reasonable and consistent with P&Gs, that they were all coming to the proposal as neutral uninvolved participants rather than as editors who had been invested in the topic for a while beforehand (and thus much less likely to change their minds), and, crucially, that all of the supporters were already invested in the topic and came to their conclusions without reading any of the arguments. It also assumes that supporters must convince oppose editors in order to achieve consensus, as if the latter's opinions are much more important (and carry 1.67x more weight!) than those of editors who !voted support from the get-go. That makes zero sense.

And actually it sure seems like the concerns about determining which term was the predominant native variety of English in NZ were addressed early on, given that there was no rebuttal to my GS .nz search results and methodology from the oppose !voters but explicit endorsement from at least four supporters (including one who upgraded their !vote from "weak support" to "support"). JoelleJay ( talk) 07:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

From your pov there is the assumption you describe. From an opposer's pov the assumption goes the other way. Individual argument strengths are indeed variable. It could happen that opposers will convince supporters. You'll never know if you don't discuss it further informally on the talk page of the article. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 07:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I completely agree with P.I. Ellsworth's comment here per my endorse above. I felt both those supporting and opposing made valid arguments, but when reviewing the close David Eppstein's comment about the tyranny of the majority stood out to me, especially given this is a contentious topic, as did the comments of several of the people clearly from New Zealand, especially Nurg's comment, who said they use Pāhekā as a preferred term, even though they did not support the move completely as proposed. It was a tough move review, and no consensus is clearly the best result. I also do not believe google searches are necessarily de facto proof of which is the correct term to use, especially when you compare a very specific term with a more general term, and that a discussion cannot be overturned on that argument alone. SportingFlyer T· C 15:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

A claim of a "tyranny of the majority" is not a policy-based argument and so should not have factored into the close or this review. Personal preferences of editors should play no role in evaluating ENGVAR, though I'll note that the majority of editors I could identify as NZers supported the move.

"Pākehā" is also not the term in question. The term is "pākehā settlers" (and contextual equivalents), which is supposed to refer to the specific group of primarily European-born colonists of NZ. We already have the page pakeha; the use and self-identification of current NZers as "pakeha" is not relevant to whether historians of NZ colonization refer to the original Europeans settling it as "pakeha".

Regarding comparing a "very specific term with a more general term", how exactly should we determine the prevalence of "pakeha settlers" to "European settlers" in the context of NZ colonization? If google searches aren't proof for the latter, then they aren't proof for the former either, so per our P&Gs the title should default to the more recognizable term until the local-only vocabulary can be shown to be much more dominant than the explicit example of "crore" in Indian English. No one has presented that evidence! Additionally, the whole point of doing GS searches limited to .nz domains was to narrow down the context to "European settlers" in "New Zealand". These searches yielded a large body of recent academic discourse from NZ directly on the article topic, and they overwhelmingly prefer "European settlers" in prose [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], even in sources that do nominally acknowledge "pakeha" as a native term [8] [9] [10], primarily use "pakeha" to refer to modern European NZers, [11] [12] or use "pakeha" sporadically. [13] JoelleJay ( talk) 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

What? This comment makes no sense. Which "assumption" are you referring to? And none of this is "from my POV", one or more of the assumptions I describe are objectively necessary to arrive at your conclusion!

You still haven't explained how the opposers' arguments were strong enough (or even how you assessed "strength") to override a strong majority, other than to vaguewave at your assumption that support arguments "didn't convince" anyone. That approach implies that no excess of support !votes would be capable of changing your close if they didn't manage to convince the editors who had already !voted oppose, which a) would require those editors to have returned to the discussion and weighed in on subsequent arguments (something that largely did not happen on the oppose side and thus would be an impossible standard to reach); b) means you, as closer, are automatically assigning much greater weight to early oppose !votes than to early and late support !votes combined, even though support arguments were sufficient to convince a majority of editors who hadn't already participated.

Your expectations for an RM therefore seem to be completely at odds with our P&Gs on determining consensus. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Forgive me for my <sigh>, please. I've been closing discussions for a long time, so I do consider myself to be an experienced closer, one who dot's i's, crosses t's, knows editors and knows P&Gs. Not for anything, but it strongly appears that you are too invested in this title issue to be objective, which just means that you're forgiven. I assessed the consensus (lack thereof) in this RM to the best of my ability and must stand by my decision in this case. As you can see here, I am not the last word on this issue. And I'm not here to reargue the move request, I'm just here to help editors find the highest and best title for this article by assessing their arguments and by giving my findings. Hopefully, this MRV discussion will be helpful to you and other editors for future less formal discussions about the article title. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 04:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Unlike you, I entered the RM completely uninvolved with the topic and continue to have zero personal opinion on whatever vocabulary NZers use or its appropriate use as ENGVAR on WP. What I do care about is proper and consistent implementation of policies and guidelines. Your close objectively violates at least one (NACD: Non-admin closers should indicate their non-admin status with the {{ nac}} ("non-admin closure") template in the comment for the closure ... Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. -- you yourself called this topic "controversial"!), directly contradicts the language quoted several times here regarding determining consensus, and imposes novel requirements for consensus like "editors must convince editors on the other side to change their !votes". And you continue to refuse to explain how the strength of arguments, their numerical support, and their rebuttals contributed to your close. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to successful (uninvolved). There is a clear rough consensus among the respondents in support of the move, and the close does not reflect that. Particularly concerned by the WP:INVOLVED aspects of the closer having previously voted in an equivalent RfC; as raised by Jessintime. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  To be clear, my own thoughts on the questions posed above, "Was the closure reasonable?", "Was the closure in line with the closing instructions?" are "No" to both. Rotary Engine ^talk 06:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment/question. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus says "The desired standard is rough consensus". It also says "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". Two points of interest are "rough consensus" and "predominant number". Question to Paine Ellsworth: In what way, if any, did these statements influence your close? Nurg ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, "rough consensus" in the closing instructions influences my closes by making me look for either a good, solid, "smooth" consensus or situations where consensus has not been reached yet. I've learned to shy away from a situation when I sense a rough consensus, well mostly, and I usually leave closure to a more experienced editor/admin. In this case I did not see consensus, neither rough nor smooth.

The "predominant number" refers to a significant number of editors who agree with a good argument made by another editor. While this is usually an easy task when deciding consensus, it can also be quite difficult. Closers are required to look for this and must be able to discern a "responsible Wikipedian" from someone else. Closers must go beyond just the editors they "know" and find out if an editor they don't know would be considered a responsible Wikipedian. Again, this is usually easy, but not always. The necessary research is actually one of my favorite parts about closures. Sincerely hope this answers your inquiry. Thank you editor Nurg, thank you for asking! P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Which of the responses to the RfC were down weighted for this reason? Rotary Engine ^talk 05:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

None. All involved editors are responsible Wikipedians. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 05:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Did the reasoning outlined above (in statement dated 03:58, 29 February 2024) influence, impact or affect the close of this particular RM discussion in any way? If so, how? Rotary Engine ^talk 05:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Conversely, if the reasoning outline above did not influence, impact or affect the close, in what way is it a substantive response to the question posed by Nurg at 22:11, 28 February 2024, which was explicitly about this specific close: Question to Paine Ellsworth: In what way, if any, did these statements influence your close? Rotary Engine ^talk 09:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The desired standard is  rough consensus, not perfect  consensus. ... If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.

You agree a) that numerical predominance is determined by assessing the number of "responsible" editors who agree with a good argument, with "responsibility" judged by the closer digging into editor backgrounds(...); b) that not only were the support arguments "good", they were slightly stronger than oppose arguments; and c) that all participants were "responsible" and thus their !votes count toward numerical predominance. There was a 62.5% supermajority in favor of the proposed move, with all supporters referencing at least one of the "good" rationales.

Yet here and elsewhere you have maintained that the number of responsible proponents of good support arguments didn't matter because those arguments were not strong enough to convince editors who had already !voted "oppose" to switch their !vote to "support". Where is the P&G basis of this latter interpretation, and how is it consistent with the above-quoted info page on consensus policy? JoelleJay ( talk) 07:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sufficient to say to both of you that I continue to consider the RM closure to be that there was no discernible agreement among editors in that survey. More discussion among editors informally is required to proceed. For me that is the end. For you I'm not the last word on the issue. I think everything that can be said has been said, so you have my sincerest apology if I was wrong. Time to wait and see. And I am very grateful to all the editors who have endorsed my closure – thank you beyond words! P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 08:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Respectfully, this is not a substantive answer to the questions asked. Per WP:ADMINACCT, Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested. In the current context, the RM closer is in locum administratoris, and the policy applies. It is understandable that, when a number of questions have been asked, the inclination to further answer may be reduced; but the requirement to do so is not.

Despite asserting that the close was good, there does not appear to have been much substantive response to the requests above. This aligns poorly with the policy. Rotary Engine ^talk 09:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

They are a non-admin closer. Administrator requirements do not apply to them, surely. Nurg ( talk) 09:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The requirement to be accountable applies for any action taken in the place of an administrator. This includes closing discussions & assessing consensus. Per your link: Non-admin closers are accountable to the policies at WP:ADMINACCT and WP:UNINVOLVED. In this instance, behaviour seems poorly aligned with both of those policies.

Non-admins are not less accountable for the absence of the mop. Rotary Engine ^talk 09:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok, I was wrong. I withdraw and apologise. Nurg ( talk) 10:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No apology necessary. Our policies are famously Byzantine. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Paine Ellsworth has met his WP:ADMINACCT responsibility, having responded expeditiously to numerous questions throughout this process, including several times on the idea of numbers and strength and supporters convincing opposers. You may not think his justifications were good justifications, but his duty is to explain his thinking the way he sees it, not to make questioners satisfied, nor to continue in back-and-forth repetitively. If the justifications are unpersuasive or insubstantial, that's for reviewers to consider in their own judgment. Adumbrativus ( talk) 11:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Respectfully, opinions on the substantiveness of responses "may vary". Agree that this is not a matter for this forum. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (uninvolved). Supporters collectively had reasoned justification, particularly evidence from New Zealand sources, for their position that European settlers is common, and more common than Pākehā settlers, in New Zealand English. This was not overmatched by the minority's evidence for the opposite position. I would therefore find a consensus to move. This consensus, as always, is not a generalised judgment about Māori terms writ large, but specific to the particular names for this particular article's topic. Adumbrativus ( talk) 11:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – my argument in the RM applies equally here. The previous RM is not so long ago that the arguments expressed therein are made less relevant; indeed, as I said in the RM, the only appreciable change to the situation is a change of government in NZ to one that's less friendly to Maori culture. Wikipedia is not a place to import culture wars, and – seeing the volume of NZ-related move requests happening as of late – one would be naive to think that there's not an element of that happening here. Sceptre ( talk) 18:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM) ( Discussion with closer)

With three editors against and three editors in favor (without including the nominator), it's too close of a margin to determine a consensus for a move. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

 Note: This move review was submitted while the page was at Guyana–Venezuela crisis (2023–present). I've moved the page back to the title that was decided in the RM, to avoid confusion. – Hilst [talk] 12:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse A difficult close. While split on the votes, one of the opposes noted the page needed to be moved somewhere and another just argued semantics over what pages should be at "crisis" which is easily disproved by a simple search of article titles. So there's clear consensus there needs to be a move, and the only question is where, and the article was moved was to the title with the most support. A no consensus would lead to an odd result where there's agreement for a move. Depending on the result of this move review, if it's endorsed, I have no problem if another move review is created to an alternative title. SportingFlyer T· C 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. < uninvolved > Guidance in WP:RMCI was met and closure was reasonable. Nom seemed to agree when, after the closer explained their closing statement on their talk page, the nom responded with "Although I still disagree with it, I think it's reasonable." I don't think this should have been brought here to MRV. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 14:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply