Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 June

<2013 May	Move review archives	2013 July>

2013 June

[edit]

Revolution (The Beatles song)andRevolver (The Beatles album)– closureendorsed.Most of the overturns votes are based on saying thatWP:PDABshouldn't be a guideline. However this discussion is about whether the close was correct or not. Saying that PDAB shouldn't be a guideline is a discussion for elsewhere, not here, and has no bearing on whether the close was correct. I find no arguement in the opposes for this close being incorrect rather than the PDAB close. As such I find there is clear consensus to endorse this close. –Dpmuk(talk)04:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

These closes appear to simply be a "supervote" applying one new guideline section,WP:PDAB.Apteva(talk)02:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combining these two move reviews, as they are highly related, and will likely have similar remarks made about both. --tariqabjotu02:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin"Supervote"? Ha. No move review is complete without that word. As I more diplomatically stated in the move request closures (especially atRevolver (The Beatles album)), the opposition had virtually no reason for voting the way they did. Most of their remarks were, rather transparently I must say, fueled by indignation over the closure ofthe discussion at the Village Pumpthat led to the institution ofWP:PDAB.The fact that this guideline is "new" is irrelevant (to say nothing of the guidelines that other relevant WikiProjects have had for awhile). It's there now and it's in existence, and if people feel it should not actually apply to these particular articles, they need to provide a reason they feel that way. In theRevolver (The Beatles album)discussion, that reason was confusion wrought by unnecessarily redirecting readers to a disambiguation page. But, as I stated in my closing remark there,Revolver (album)may continue to redirect to the Beatles article (as it does now). In theRevolution (The Beatles song)discussion, opposers (some of the same people, I might add) were less circuitous about the source of their positions, with gems such as "sometimes that means ignoring dumb rules", "WP:PDABwas based upon a "hidden" consensus between twelve editors that will affect millions of pages? ", and" this [referring toWP:PDAB] is just a joke ". I'm sorry, but we would have chaos if we allowed people who disagreed with the closure of a particular discussion to perpetuate their disagreement as rationale for preventing the resulting consensus from taking effect. And, no, it is not my place to decide whetherEdJohnston's closure at the Village Pump was proper or improper. --tariqabjotu03:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Endorse(caveat as original RM proposer) An admin helicopter was justified here since there are two areas ofWP:LOCALCONSENSUSaffecting the RM. (1) The past text ofMOS:ALBUMwhich had the concept "primary album" (now removed) previously conflicted withWP:NCM"Unless multiple albums of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example,Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album)is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth "(2)Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles.The unusual "ambiguous disambiguation" or "partial disambiguation" used in a very few (5? 10?) high profile articles in WP Albums/WP Songs/WP Bands is something of a microculture making perfect sense to those in project, but pointlessly confusing for non WP Albums/WP Songs/WP Bands passing readers not used to the concept of "primary plant" "primary footballer"John Smith (primary footballer)(sic) vsJohn Smith (footballer born 1939)etc. which are unknown elsewhere. Which is why WP:PDAB was clarified at Village Pump, exactly for this occasion.In ictu oculi(talk)03:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment– the close seems sensible, but the RMs were in error, I think, in including "The". They should have beenRevolution (Beatles song)andRevolver (Beatles album),as evidenced by the tens of thousands of web pages and lots of books with phrases like "best Beatles album" without the "The". And if we really wanted to include "The", why did we capitalize it, when we don't do so in article text? Can we fix that now please?Dicklyon(talk)03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did think about the "The" issue (having closed the odder-soundingNetherlands in World War IIwithout the "the" ), but the article about the band is actually atThe BeatlesnotBeatles,and "(The Beatles album)" seems to be in line with other instances of this kind of disambiguation (e.g.Because (The Beatles song),Girl (The Beatles song),andI Need You (The Beatles song)). However, I would totally understand and potentially support dropping the "The" from the disambiguators in all those article titles. --tariqabjotu03:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same, but apparently it isWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesstandardCategory:The Beatles songs.In ictu oculi(talk)03:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at the project:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Parenthetical_disambiguators.Dicklyon(talk)04:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse– in addition to my comment immediately above. I can't believe this is still open. We already discussed and fixed the problem I mention above (removed "The" from the parenthetical). It will be interesting to see if the PDAB RFC results in any change or clarification, but it's hard to see how it could lead to a better result here, where "(Beatles song)" is such a useful disambiguator that to replace it with "(song)" would just be silly.Dicklyon(talk)01:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I think the nominator is calling for an RfC onWP:PDAB,on the question of its standing, or breadth of support. Fair enough, I don't think that Village Pump discussions are particularly representative of the community, or that the discussions there are well informed or carefully considered. The village pump is a place for ideas, and not for formal resolutions. On the "supervote", the closes do not look at all likeWP:Supervotes,and do look reflective of the content of the discussions. --SmokeyJoe(talk)14:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closeI made a three pages essay why PDAB, and therefore this RMs, is completely wrong. Unfortunately I didn't bring my USB and I don't have internet at home due to my telephonic company's mistakes. If I am able to post it, I will post it, (but it was aboutThriller,notRevolver).

Now what I can remember I wrote, is that the moves the admin performed are incorrect, he is not solving the problem, he's moving it. Which is the sense of moving "Revolver (album)" if it will still redirecting to the Beatles album in the first place, is like movingThrillertoThriller (disambiguation)and the redirect left there, the only thing this is doing is informing the reader what they are reading with the title, isn't that the function of theWP:LEAD?Second,WP:PRECISIONstillapplying, third Oculi cites that "never has existedWP:PRIMARY(INSERTOPICHERE),like primary albums, songs, plants, cities, footballers or etc., who says they cannot be created in first place. Citing WP:NFX pages is not productive, first NCM was created ten years ago, with consensus? I don't know, I started editing in 2009, secondly, what he is citing was added without consensus (at least in NCM, see the history of the page), third, those pages contradicted withWP:MOSALBUMuntil last month a non-member of the project removed it once again without consensus, fourth,WP:NCMstill contradicting itself, withAnthrax (band),sixth if there aren't "primary cities and footballers" whyPelé,Pelé (footballer)andParisare located where they are if there are many other links of the same topic? seven, what determines the primaryness(?) of a topic? whyUnited StatesorPariscan be there without a single problem, but "Thiller (album)" is incorrect, when it is what most people is searching? eighth, why is this relevant to a page aboutWP:Disambiguations?it is relevant toWP:ATin the first place.

There are multiple burocratic issues here, first of all the page clearly states there are occasional exceptions and common sense must apply. Second, Tariq moved the pages, not under consensus of the respective pages, but under a pseudo consensus atWP:VPPand he uses the guidelines as policies and therefore unbreakable shields (hasn't many of his RM closures ended here recently?). Even his attitude is incredible for an admin, in that sense I should be one. He posted about this in his talk page "If the WP:PDAB is eventually reversed, only then I might reconsider.", so even if it is reversed, we have to wait if he wants to reconsider his actions? He speaks English, right? "Might, can, should, will or must" are not the same thing; "While I'm hesitant to validate a sudden wave of move requests in accordance with WP:PDAB, you're going to need to do better if you want to stop them": "Prepare your anus, I don't care your opinions or if there is no consenus to move (like in Revolver), I reserve the right to perform the moves regardless your opinions or community's decisions, because PDAB already exists, and as such I can do whatever I want, I am an admin right? If it disappears I might change my opinion on this otherwise, it still being a clear consensus to perform them". I expected this behaivor with Echo RM section: "I am seriously considering listing a move review on this[:] Then go ahead ", translated as I don't care, go there and prove I'm wrong. Anyway this page is not for discuss this, but he shouldn't close RMs if he won't accept people judging his decitions.Tbhotch.^™Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.00:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you felt your points for overturning this move request were strong enough on their own merits, you would have left the first paragraphs alone. It speaks volumes that you felt compelled to go on your tirade against me in your last paragraph.

Let me say this upfront, as you seem completely shocked by this thought: I do not exist to serve you. Yes, I said Imightreconsider if the guideline addition is overturned... because I am not compelled to revisit decisions months and years later (or at all, to be honest); there are other things I need to do with my time. IfWP:PDABis overturned today, sure, I'd likely reconsider. But, if it's overturned around, say, Christmas or in time for, say, the Rio Olympics, I'm not going to entertain the notion, no matter how much you bug me on my talk page. No one (except maybe you) would expect that. (And that even ignores the disambiguation guideline atWP:NCM(mentioned in both discussions) that has been in place since September 2009.)

As I see it, a key problem here is that you feel your indignation toward the creation of theWP:PDABguideline should be taken as gospel. Why should the result of the discussion that led toWP:PDABnot be respected, while your displeasure be? I did not say thatWP:PDABshould be taken as an "unbreakable shield"; in fact, I have explicitly stated in my closures, in my personal response to you (you know,the portion you quoted here), and here in this review, that if a decent reason was provided for why the philosophy therein shouldn't apply, I would have gladly entertained it. However, you squandered that opportunity, opting to instead just rail EdJohnston for his closureonce,twice,thrice.You briefly gave lip service to the historical significance of the "Revolver" song title, but in general you simply objected on the basis that a discussion didn't end the way you wanted. You arrogantly believed that the repetition of your disagreement was sufficient. Well, I didn't believe it was. As I said here, there is no reason for me to comment on the validity of EdJohnston's closure, and so your question on my talk page is irrelevant.

You slip in a mention of the "many" of my RM closures that have ended up here. Except "many" is actually two others, out of themaybe fifty or sixty requestsI've handled over the last week (clearing an oft-neglected backlog). You also forgot to mention that you haven't found those reviews worth your time to comment upon, and didn't point out that both appear destined for endorsements. Instead, you've simply brought them up because you could twist them into an attack on my character. And you did the same thing with my remarks on my talk page. You manufactured a comment ( "Prepare your anus, I don't care your opinions or if there is no consensus to move..." ) from a simple, out-of-context comment restating that you need to provide reasons for circumventingWP:PDAB( "While I'm hesitant to validate a sudden wave of move requests in accordance with WP:PDAB, you're going to need to do better if you want to stop them" ). If you look atthe comment in full,the thesis was abundantly clear.

Really, about the only thing you got correct in your diatribe is that I speak English. Indeed, I do, which is why I don't need you to repeat your ire on my talk page. I read and understood the move requests the first time, and I saw what you wrote (as well as what everyone else wrote). You introduced no new information. You did not point out something that I missed. Instead, you implied, without basis, that your indignation generates consensus. Because, as I said, it is not my job to serve you, there was no chance I was going to reverse my decision on the basis of your whining. The move review process is here for your use if you believe something was done improperly. Yes, I said the same thing to Bkonrad when he approached me with no new information in regards to theEchoclosure, and I will continue to say the same thing to anyone else under similar circumstances. That's because, bottom line:if I thought an action was improper, I wouldn't have made it.The fact that I am telling you to take your consternation to a more public forum discredits the idea that I have a problem with people judging my decisions.

That being said, if your strongest points are simply attacks on the admins who respond to discussions to which you are a participant, all I can say is good luck. --tariqabjotu21:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.The closer made a totally reasonable call in moving. However, if they're ambiguous the bare(r) titlesRevolution (song)andRevolver (album)ought to point to the dab pages.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnThe discussion that gave us PDAB had far too limited participation for such a sweeping change, and the controversy it has engendered is a good indication of that. ThatRevolution (song)andRevolver (album)continue to redirect to the Beatles topics is especially absurd, running roughshod over PDAB and the previous unwritten consensus in support of sub-primary topics (plus some written guidelines, likeMOS:ALBUM). The close has only made the situation more problematic. --BDD(talk)21:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.Since Tariq says there needs to be a good reason...WP:PDABneeds to be ignored not because it is new, but because it does not reflect community consensus. What it says flies in the face ofWP:CRITERIAatWP:AT,in particularWP:PRECISION,all of which indisputably reflect community consensus. It's unnecessary precision. There is no more reason to add "The Beatles" to the title ofBeatles (song)than there is to add "(French city)" to the title ofParis.Whether the words in question are to be added to an existing parenthesized expression or as a new parenthesize expression isnit-picking rationalization,but that's the entire basis of PDAB, and these moves.
These move decisions need to be overturned because they do not reflectcommunity consensusas reflected in long-standing policy, guidelines and practice. These decisions are already used as setting precedent for justifying other similar moves, making countless titles that were previously stable and uncontroversial now controversial, for no good reason. --B2C 18:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much re-arguing the move, which is not what move review is for. In any case, I see nothing inWP:PRECISION(or, more appropriately, the section afterward,WP:NATURAL) that overrides this point. On the contrary,WP:NATURALsaysAccording to the above-mentionedprecision criterion,when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", asQueen (band)is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the termQueen.In these cases,Revolution (song)andRevolver (album)arenotprecise enough to distinguish these topics from other uses of the respective terms (as there are other songs and albums with those names). We don't have this problem withParisbecause it does not have a disambiguator. --tariqabjotu18:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, it takes some really special cajones to make the following statement in this discussion,"if people feel it should not actually apply to these particular articles, they need to provide a reason they feel that way",then try to discount any such reason as "re-arguing the move". Note that you said "they need to provide...", not "they should have provided...". So I provided as you claimed we need to do.
Second,WP:PRECISIONclearly states thatWP:PRIMARYTOPICestablishes an exception to "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". There is no more question that the primary topic of "Revolution (song)" is the Beatles song than there is that the primary topic ofParisis the city in France.
Third, the very existence of a redirect fromRevolution (song)toRevolution (The Beatles song)demonstrates that consensus is that the latter, as a title, is more precise than necessary.
Finally, this is all not to re-argue the move, but to support the argument that your close decision was not consistent withcommunity consensus,and so should be overturned. --B2C 20:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing word games; obviously those policies and guidelines should have been brought up during the RM discussion, so their merits could have been debated there rather than here. (Again, you have avoided the point inWP:NATURAL,to say nothing ofWP:PDAB,that disambiguators [which don't exist inParis] should actually disambiguate.) You, and others who opposed the RMs, spent the whole time complaining that PDAB exists and expressing outrage that the discussion leading to it was not closed the way you thought it should have been, but you all said very little (almost nothing) about what was actually wrong with the proposed move. Now that you were unlucky to have faced someone who didn't think your indignation was enough,nowyou finally want to argue against the move with policy and guidelines? Ridiculous.

You have unreasonably high expectations of closers. Finding and researching points you never raise should not be our job. Overriding other consensuses (PDAB, NCM) without any reason should not be our job. At best, you're arguing that the PDAB closure was not in line with community consensus. But how far up the chain is a closer expected to go? It is not my place to determine that another admin closed a discussion incorrectly. Do you believe I'm also empowered to say that another discussion that led to a guideline supporting your position was improper? No, probably not. If you have a problem with PDAB, you can get PDAB reversed (and you know that discussion is currently taking place). You cannot, or at least should not, go around to various move discussions and expect your unsubstantiated personal displeasure to decide matters. --tariqabjotu20:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse– I don't agree with all of Tariq's closes, but he clearly does try to take into account all the points made in discussion, relative to guidelines and policy. Sometimes he says no consensus, sometimes he sees a consensus that some disagree with. Time to move on. As for Apteva repeatedly bringing RM closes he doesn't like to move review, I think he needs to be throttled.Dicklyon(talk)21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Dicklyon, your last sentence was unproductive. --SmokeyJoe(talk)23:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, he was throttled already. This is at least his 7th Move Review, and he yet to have one overturned. He is unable to see how out-of-step he is with the community, so he keeps it up.Dicklyon(talk)04:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is now indef throttled, so I guess enough others agreed with that comment.Dicklyon(talk)15:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.

Echo– Close endorsed. There is solid consensus here that the closer was well within their purview to close as a move. –Cúchullain ^t/c 18:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

OK, so the!vote tally was 6-3 in favor of moving, but there was in fact no objective evidence provided that showed there was a primary topic. The proposer gave a very incomplete analysis of page view statistics that completely ignored all of the other ambiguous pages. I provided page view evidence that very clearly demonstrated there is no primary topic based on page views (and in fact, going by page views alone, the acoustic phenomenon failed on both counts of the usage criteria in thatEcho (mythology)had more views and the phenomenon was quite a bit less likely than all the other topics combined. Many of the supporters citedWP:PRIMARYTOPIC,but none gave any actual evidence apart from personal intuition. The closer gave as part of the rationale for moving that there wasadequate demonstration that this is the primary topic of "Echo".I dispute this as there was no actual evidence provided to demonstrate there was a primary topic.older≠wiser 15:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closeconsensus was clear. As noted in the discussion we often make exceptions for common words (the example provided was ourapplearticle being about the fruit and not the tech company). Regardless, this isn't the place to re-argue the facts, only to judge the close. And as I said a 2:1 ratio in favor of a move is definitely a clear consensus.Calidum Sistere16:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the consensus was not clear. At least one supporter pointed to the misleading and incomplete page traffic stats. No one provided any other evidence apart from intuition.older≠wiser 16:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment from closing admin"Ample demonstration" [the words I used in the closing remark] was a bit of an exaggeration, pithy because I didn't think anyone would actually waste time contesting such an obvious decision. To elaborate: the subjective points were convincing, and the numerical page-view values were not particularly disparate; at best, they might show that people are less likely to be looking up information about what an echo is than who the mythical figure Echo is (and it's not clear how much of that is influenced by the fact thatEcho (mythology)seems to appear earlier in Google results). But the narrow view ofWP:PRIMARYTOPICas being just about what people are most likely clicking to on Wikipedia misses the point (or else we'd haveApple Inc.as the primary topic ofApple,a point mentioned during the discussion). And, well, c'mon... sometimes something this basic -- the primary meaning of echo -- cannot be proven, and I am perfectly content with the objective remarks put forth during the discussion. Honestly, sometimes common sense needs to prevail. --tariqabjotu16:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A significant difference with Apple is that there is a compound hatnote there that provides a direct link to the company. In this case, if the phenomenon remains at the base page, the hatnote should include direct links to both the mythological figure (which had more page traffic than the phenomenon) and toEcho (Marvel Comics)which had only a shade less traffic than the phenomenon. One problem with having a deeply ambiguous "common" word at the base name is that mistaken links to the pages are not easily identified. I.e., where the disambiguation page is at the base name, mistaken links to the page show up in reports on links to disambiguation pages. Links to articles are not.older≠wiser 16:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok, just see how this plays out. --tariqabjotu21:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.Tariqabjotu correctly assessed the situation, especially with regard to common sense and modern expectations. The analogy to Apple Inc vs Apple (the fruit) dishes the arguments based on Google hits.Binksternet(talk)16:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closeOn the various points and policies raised:

The key one isWP:PRIMARYTOPICbut with disagreement on what that is and how that is determined.

Points made in support include (although they don't explicitly name them)WP:DUCK,WP:SURPRISEand precedents such asapple,plus the view that viewing stats don't tell the full story with a basic concept and likely expectations of what will be found atEchooutweigh just how many people are looking up the basic concept.
Points made against are based on viewing stats showing other articles have higher or higher views.

Google: "the Echo (mythology) article is the only wikipedia article in the top ten results from Google" Not in my google just now for it - it brings upEcho (phenomenon)in the top ten and nothing else.
Number of!votes: Irrelevant, it's about arguments and consensus not head counting.

The prevailing consensus is that the phenomenon is the common and primary meaning of the term and the one people would be least surprised to find atEchoand that this overrides the numbers.Timrollpickering(talk)16:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist.Cutting off discussion less than three hours after the last question was plain old bad form because it looks like a supervote. --Joy [shallot](talk)20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is just absurd. The discussion had been open for sixteen days, more than twice as long as the move request process demands, and there hadn't been any remarks on this topic in the nine days prior to the pair of comments today that you claim I "cut off". So, if I had closed this four hours earlier, would that have been OK? Sorry, but we can't have discussions go on forever; the backlog atWP:RMis already a perennial cause of concern. And, given the number and nature of the remarks and my closing remark, I don't think you know what a "supervote" is. --tariqabjotu21:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I emphatically agree with tariqabjotu on this point. At sixteen days of listing, this RM ran for over twice as long as was necessary. Allowing old RMs to stay open as long as discussion continues would grant every editor the ability tofilibuster.--BDD(talk)03:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the discussion just three hours after that user asked what seems to be a legitimate question. If you wanted to say that his question was not relevant, you should have actually said that and explained it specifically. In addition, there was a 19 June comment that also appears to have gone unanswered. This really could and should have been closed in a less controversial manner. --Joy [shallot](talk)08:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could have? Perhaps. Should have? Absolutely not. Given the outcome, I have no doubt that no matter how many people voted in favor of this move and no many how many days or months passed after the latest comment, Bkonrad would have complained that the move was improper and initiated a move review. The grounds for the move review are horribly faulty, to say nothing of the grounds for arguing that a concept most people probably have never heard of is comparably primary to a phenomenon observed by nearly every human being dozens of times during their lifetime. The fact that I find myself arguing the propriety of this action with anyone, let alone an administrator, exposes the absurd bureaucracy some people on this encyclopedia insist on perpetuating for the sake of aims unknown. --tariqabjotu15:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading into the motives of the nominator for reasons that are not obvious from the move discussion we're talking about. They weren't makingWP:PRIMARYTOPICcriteria up over there; they merely concentrated on one set of them as opposed to the other people who concentrated on another. In any case, simply the manner in which you're discussing this now betrays a bias in favor of one side and against the other, which should have given you pause when thinking about closing the discussion. --Joy [shallot](talk)21:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a bias in favor of the majority side. That tends to happen in discussions, believe it or not. And, when the complainant initiates a review based on the single fact that those who outnumbered his position 2:1 weren't swayed by the evidence he personally provided, um, yes, I have little doubt this move review was inevitable. This request is out of line with the purpose of the move review process, and you're enabling it on the basis of absurdly flimsy accusations. There really is no reason for me to defend myself any further, because this discussion, despite your obstinance, has about asnowball's chance in hellof ending with anything other than an endorsement, as this is a rather standard and obvious close based on the input in the discussion. --tariqabjotu22:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The level of combative attitude you've expressed once again is completely pointless. A 2:1 majority and unanswered questions from the minority with discussion cut off within hours of the last input are simply not signs of a clear consensus.WP:RMCIgives sufficient leeway to closing admins, but the request for review is not frivolous just because it was filed by a person with whom you apparently have issues. They didn't appeal because others weren't swayed by their evidence; they appealed because they believe others did not provide their own evidence. IOW, the claim is that if people fail to provide evidence, their!votes don't count, the ratio is no longer 2:1, and that affects the assessment of consensus. It's not "absurdly bureaucratic" to hear that argument out, it's simply fair. --Joy [shallot](talk)10:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't manufacture ulterior motives; I don't "have issues" with bkonrad. Your use (and bkonrad's) of "evidence" suggests you (and he) have a narrow idea of what constitutes valid rationale. That is, it seems you (and perhaps bkonrad as well) believe that if there is no set of numbers, no statistics, no reliable source that says something is so, it is not so. While potentially applicable to article content, for the purpose of arguments regarding a primary topic, it is not always necessary.

In response to the assertion thatif one could grab a hundred random users and ask them what "echo" meant, one would likely get a hundred responses for the phenomenon, and none saying, "Why, Echo was a mythological oread, of course!"andThe phenomenon really does seem like the better-known and more significant subject,Bkonrad askedAnd where is the evidence supporting such a basic claim besides anecdotes and hypothetical speculation?.Well, how do you expect one to answer that? (Never mind that even bkonrad admitted that his page views are not proof-positive of what the general public would be looking for.) Do you really believe there is a formal study on this matter? Perhaps you should do the experiment yourself if you feel so unconvinced. If two-thirds of people in a discussion accede to a subjective point,that is evidence enoughthat their anecdotal perception of primacy is more widespread than individual; therefore, I will take it as valid rather than discountable -- and I imagine the vast majority of third-party observers would too.

Sorry, but the consensus showed to err on the side of these subjective experiences, rather than on the side of numbers which don't even clearly belie them. If people had presented counter-anecdotes or if more people had agreed that the numbers meant more than the anecdotes about the more common idea, particularly if backed by a clearer demonstration that the pageviews here indicate primacy, I would have had no problem keeping the article put. But that didn't happen, and there's nothing but arbitrary accusations (not even made by bkonrad himself) to suggest that more time was needed to allow that to happen. As I said to bkonrad, watch how this plays out. --tariqabjotu19:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EndorseThis request badly failsWP:IMR.The closer followed the word and spirit ofWP:RMCIand wasn't missing any significant information. As such, the request seems a clear case ofWP:JDLI.--BDD(talk)03:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(didn't!vote) the!vote tally was 6-3 in favor of moving, and the reason the 6 didn't explain it much is that common sense shows that even if the Greek goddess Echo got more views, Echo is still the obvious primary of Echo. (I suspect that the Greek mythology character was in fact getting mis-hits and follow-ons fromEcho (Marvel Comics),we can't let basic physics in an encyclopedia be pushed around by trivia otherwise we'd beWikipedia - the pop culture encyclopedia where every first topic is TV, comics and pop music.Page views don't impress where pop culture is involved, and the 6-3 took that view. Correctly.In ictu oculi(talk)04:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Seems a reasonable close. I am amused at the continued occurrence of intelligent people stating variously "Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" and "Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". If relisted for further discussion, note my opinion that ghits are a terrible way to choose titles; we are not here to support google's front end, and that I think that all the other echos, including the nymph, are named deriving from the phenomenon, and this should be a very strong factor better considered than ghits or pageviews. --SmokeyJoe(talk)14:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.

Sarah Jane Brown– Close endorsed. There is solid consensus here that the closer correctly interpreted the RM. –Cúchullain ^t/c 18:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

I am requesting a move review on the recent move (first move washere,second move washere) byUser:Tariqabjotufor the contested RM onSarah Jane Brown,I am requesting this review because I believe the closer did not follow closing instructions in determiningWP:CONSENSUS.Specifically, the move toSarah Jane Brownviolated several precepts ofWP:CONSENSUS,WP:IAR,andWP:COMMONNAME,WP:CRITERIA,and others:

Key fact: As mentioned several times in the discussion,Sarah Jane Brown,has NEVER been used, in any reliable source, to refer to this person. Thus, this name violates several wikipedia policies:
1. FAILSWP:CRITERIA:this title failsRecognizability,Naturalness,andPrecision(since there is an artist with the same name who dominates google search results for Sarah Jane Brown)
2. FAILSWP:AT,which also states "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." We have not found ANY sources which refer to the subject using this title.
3. FAILSWP:COMMONNAME,which says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's" official "name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Sarah Jane Brown is never used in English-language reliable sources to refer to this person
4. FAILSWikipedia:MIDDLES#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names,"Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised", again, per above.
Fails to followWP:CONSENSUSpolicy, which states "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The blatant violation of this name per the core principles ofWP:ATmeans the closer gave undue weight to those arguing forSarah Jane Brownin spite of zero reliable sources ever using this moniker. The closer admits that this was a!vote count, which also violatesWP:CONSENSUSdetermination, which is not supposed to be a count of votes.
This close also violates another part ofWP:CONSENSUS,which states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." There *were* a majority of people!voting for Sarah Jane Brown, but *all* of those!votes should be discarded perWP:CONSENSUS- we can't just ignore naming policy because of some imagined and yet-to-be-proven "sexism".
This closing also fails to adhere to the rules outlined in closing instructions, which states "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also 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." These instructions also state "Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." This title is in violation of almost every naming policy and guideline we have, so the only defense left for this move isWP:IAR.IAR was explicitly invoked by the participants, so it is proper for the closer to invoke it here. However, IAR is not a carte-blanche to just pick a winner based on!votes. Thus, I conclude this close also
Fails perWP:IAR,which states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In invoking IAR, the discussants, and the closer, must demonstrate how ignoring all of the titling rules/policies will help improve the wiki. Giving an article a title that no reliable sources EVER use is a patent failure to improve Wikipedia - specially when there are alternative options proposed, even if none of them are perfect. IAR needs to be backed up by some evidence that you are making the wikibetterby ignoring the rules. No-one has demonstrated why titling the article with something the person in question is NEVER CALLED is helping anything at all.
When IAR was invoked in the discussion, it was usually used to argue forSarah Brown,which, given we are ignoring-all-rules,would be a much better option here,even thoughSarah Brown (actress)is more popular thanSarah Jane Brown,so we would only have to ignore ONE rule to move to Sarah Brown, which would beWP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Besides that choice, any of the other parenthetical disambiguators would have been better FOR THE USER, for example Sarah Brown (born 1963) or Sarah Brown (nee Macauley).
Finally, we get to the behavior of the closer. After the first close, I attempted to ascertain why the closer had ignored the arguments about no-reliable-source-usage of this title. My concerns were dismissed and I was told to go to MR. Other editors joined in, asking for more explanation from the closer, who replied with dismissive statements like"Again, if you have a problem with the closure, please take the matter to WP:MR,where I can more easily ignore your entreaties."After feeling "browbeaten", the closer reverted their first close, and then a bit later, re-did the same close, with a different, more complete closing statement, but also one which shut down any possibility of engaging/discussion on the issue, so the only choice for someone who feels the close was incorrect is unfortunately to bring this to move review. I also feel this is unfortunate; through discussion with the closer, I felt it might have been possible to get them to consider other options, such asSarah Brown,Sarah Brown (born 1963),Sarah Brown (nee Macauley),Sarah Brown (women's advocate),any of which would have been preferable to this title which goes against almost every policy in the book.
The closer was closing a contentious RM, on a page that had been up for move 5 times in the past, so they should not have been surprised at all that their decision was questioned, nor acted so irritated when people did so in good faith.

Thus, I recommend overturn and relist, to allow a clearer consensus to emerge on a rename target. Given this move, and the fact that the actress article was recently moved toSarah Joy Brown,consensus may rapidly move to preferSarah Brownfor this article as primary topic.Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)14:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

CommentI agree that there are strong policy (and common sense) arguments against either Sarah Jane Brown or Sarah J. Brown. The policy leads to Sarah Brown with some parenthetical descriptor. Or simple, plain,Sarah Brown.I have preferences among the descriptors, but not very strong preferences. Given the closer's attitude I wonder why on earth he decided to take on the task.Dingo1729(talk)16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn and relist~~Endorse close- while I congratulate the closing admin for finally agreeing to explain their decision, they agree themselves it does not meet with any policy and is not very satisfactory. As someone who was one of the "anything-but-Sarah-Jane-Brown" camp I'd obviously prefer a different outcome. Obiwan makes an interesting and very pertinent point that Wikipedia's otherSarah Browncontender has been very recently renamed, which suddenly allows us the option of making the (ex) British PM's spouse the primary target. I imagine this could now gain support from the "anything-but-wife" contributors. There were some creative solutions put forward later on in the discussion and perhaps it would be possible for earlier contributors to look at these.Sionk(talk)16:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Vote' changed, in the interests of moving forward and not rehashing the same arguments. The rename has solved the primary problem of the original name being woefully inadequate. There's nothing to stop a new rename discussion about the newly available option(s).Sionk(talk)13:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closeThe close was well within the remit of closing a move request — there was very strong consensus by the community to move, and to ignore all rules, period. Even several of the oppose!votes wanted to move it somewhere, anywhere but "wife of Gordon Brown." The admin who closed this listened to the voice of the community. They should be commended for that. (note: I've never!voted or edited that article or its talk page.)First Light(talk)18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closeWas the best solution given the awkwardness of disambiguating that title. Obiwan's consistent badgering is a far greater problem than the current title of this article.Reso lute 19:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist.(I was involved in the RM discussion and opposed the move). There wasnopolicy based argument favoring "Sarah Jane Brown" which is absent from usage in reliable sources to refer to this topic. This is a blatantWP:SUPERVOTE.The "wife of..." title is not ideal, but at least it's much better than "Sarah Jane Brown" in terms ofWP:AT WP:CRITERIA,starting with natural and recognizable. --B2C 20:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I was not involved in the RM discussion, though probably would have!voted for "Sarah Brown (born 1963)". I have mixed feelings on this one, but torn between that it is best to just let the title stand for awhile on the grounds ofWP:IARor relist but without moving back first. There definitely was strong consensus, though local on the choice of names. The policies that argued against the move to the particular title chosen are mostly in the form of "avoid" or "recommend" against. There seems to be consensus among the!voters that the title moved to is better than the previous title. I'm concerned that someone chose to be a closer that does not want to discuss their close. If this MRV results in a overturn or relist, I am against the title being moved back to the old one first before being relisted.PaleAqua(talk)20:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closethere was a consensus to use this title. Is anyone disputing that, because this seems like a rehash of the move request, which isn't what move review is for. As a note I voted in the move request for the undisambiguated Sarah Brown.Calidum Sistere21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (consensus to move to something),there was consensus to move away fromSarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown),but recognizeno- or weak-consensus for any particular new title.There was very little support for doing nothing, but with a large number of options for the new title, it is unreasonable to expect the discussion to coalesce onto one very quickly. I recommend that the new titleSarah Jane Brownbe endorsed without prejudice to further discussion~~after two months~~.--SmokeyJoe(talk)00:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some or most ofObi-Wan Kenobi's points are correct and strong enough to justify an immediate fresh RM. There is no need to "overturn" where that means returning the article to the previous title. --SmokeyJoe(talk)02:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.Clearly there was consensus to move, and agree with First Light on the closer exercising reasonable latitude in deciding the best of the remaining options. The prior title simply was bad. The new title, while not perfect, is better.user:j (talk)00:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, is the new title better? I also agree, btw, that the closer had latitude, but he just chose the wrong latitude. For example, if you had two links, one from the old title and one from the new title, do we really expect a user/reader to know her middle name, when it is never mentioned in any news stories about her? The current name was stable for around 5 years I think. What makes you think this one is better? It may actually cause her to be DOWNGRADED in google search results for Sarah Brown, believe it or not (redirects vs articles don't work the same way). I'm just still missing how this close, and the selection of the name, was within a mile of any given naming policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had I been involved in the original move discussion, I believe I would have preferred your proposal above ofSarah Brown (née Macaulay)(although, whilenot unprecedented,I'm not sure if that style has been widely discussed in the past for use as a disambiguator in article titles). But that would be for some future move discussion. Likewise, if a future consensus determinesthisSarah Brown to be the primary topic, I could support that move taking place with an appropriate dabhat pointing to the new disambiguation page. Unfortunately, the best option available from this discussion reasonably was the one implemented by the closer. And to expound a little further on my endorsement of the close, I think the parenthetical previously used was dreadful: it wasn't her name, it wasn't succinct, and it didn't take into account the other activities she is known for (both before and after her husband being prime minister). As for Google, I'm not sure that I could care less about the impact that intelligent, reasonable, and good faith Wikipedia edits might have on the search engine optimization efforts of other individuals named Sarah Brown or Sarah Jane Brown, bless their hearts. All that being said, I wouldsupportreasonablyholding a new move discussionsooner than would normally be the case, but I would not support undoing the already implemented move prior to that point (or even after that point if no consensus were to come from said future discussion).user:j (talk)09:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

commentI grant that it is within discretion to read a consensus to move "to something". However, the result is really terrible for users - and the world at large. I noted earlier that in the first 5 pages of Google results for "Sarah Jane Brown", this Sarah did not show up (I didn't look further). Now, however, due to this rename, "Sarah Jane Brown" on the first page of google links to the wikipedia article. I think this is a grave error - Wikipedia is highly valued by Google, and so we've just bumped "other" Sarah Jane Browns, who actually go by that moniker, to the second page of google search results - all for a name that is NEVER USED IN ANY SOURCES.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close.It was all a reasonable closer could do. There was strong support for a move from the sexist and demeaning title to something neutral, and the option with the most support was "Sarah Jane Brown". I voted for a move to that because it was less problematical (in the dynamics of that particular discussion) than arguing for "Sarah Brown". If someone proposes a move to "Sarah Brown", now that the article is safely away from the sexist title that diminishes Wikipedia, then I'll support that move. --Anthonyhcole(talk·contribs·email)09:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RelistThere was an awful lot of bad faith assumptions and a lot of knee-jerk!voting against the current title ondislikegrounds which is problematic at the best of times but had a tendency to lead to people supporting whatever option seemed to have existing suppot just to inflate consensus in order get rid of the then-current title rather than addressing whether or not the altenative is used (as pointed out it isn't), is recognisable (again not) and if it misleads ( "Sarah Jane" is a common double barrelled first name, once again pointed out). If the purpose of an article title is to stop giving some people a jolt and hang recognisability and usefulness then it succeeds (but even better would be to move all articles to a randomly generated set of characters and end all the discussion). If it is to meet criteria and policy then it is a worse name. In addition it's since come to my attention that the discussion was potentiallyselectively notifiedon Twitter[1].Timrollpickering(talk)10:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this canvassing is a real problem, but I think some people think it's ok as long as their goals are noble. Please join discussion at the canvass policy page, we are framing up different language around off-wiki canvassing (which is for now strongly discouraged by policy)--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)12:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one example of a very public invitation that makes no recommendation either way - I'd hardly say that was a problem.Sionk(talk)12:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications don't have to make recommendations to be biased - the location of the recommendation can have the same inherent effect. Note the account that tweeted it.Timrollpickering(talk)13:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I see it was also notified on the Gendergap mailing list by one of the participants in the discuson.[2]Timrollpickering(talk)13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We want to see informed input from people with an interest in these areas. Bring it on!Sionk(talk)13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We want to see discussion on a level playing field, with decisions made on the basis of the issues and policies at hand not the ability of one side or the other to generate turnout. SeeWP:CANVASS.Timrollpickering(talk)18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no level playing field. With (let's be very generous and say) more than 75% male editors, there is no possible level playing field in the purely gender arena (not to mention all the others). I want to see a level playing field. People who care about a topic should have the opportunity to be informed of discussions that are happening. No one is telling them how to!vote. If you think that "the location of the recommendation can have the same inherent effect" perhaps one should examine that statement, it is very revealing and not in the way you intended.heather walls(talk)00:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your point about how "Sarah Jane Brown" is misleading? Are you saying Jane is not her middle name? In the absence of the article being able to be immediately moved to simplySarah Brown,using her actual middle name as a disambiguator seems to be more natural and more preferable than parenthetically appending "wife of Gordon Brown" to her name. It's not a matter of not liking the latter, as best as I can tell from those who participated in the discussion. Whilewp:ncdabdoesn't necessarily favour parenthetical disambiguators over natural ones, the latter makes considerably more sense for living persons as illustrated atwp:ncpdab.As forpointedlysuggesting the article should simply be renamed to some random sequence of characters rather thanSarah Jane Brown,I'd suggest that, perhaps, you've lost perspective if you really think that would be preferable.user:j (talk)11:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's misleading because it implies that's a name actually used for her. It's particularly bad because it looks like a double barrelled first name (they're not always hyphenated) and it's utterly unrecognisable. Parenthical disambiguation attached to a form of the name actually in use should always be preferred to fishing out obscure middle names to create unrecognisable titles. And my point on random characters that was a rhethorical point; I suggest, perhaps, you've lost comprehension if you really think that is support.Timrollpickering(talk)12:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J, you invoked the naming guideline above. Have you readWP:MIDDLES?What does the last line say? dont use middle names to disambiguate if they aren't used in RS! You can't invoke a policy or guideline to defend your POV, then when you realize it doesn't work, invoke IAR - that's not how it should work. What policy-based argument is there for putting the title at the current name? please quote me the language. The only one I could find was IAR, but there were many other options presented besides SJB here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)12:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our naming essays and guidelines, especially when it comes towp:official,wp:middles,and the ones I cited above, sometimes contradict each other in practice (especially in more difficult instances such as this one). That's the reality of having them written by different folks at different points in time, with different ideas and differing consensuses. Such is (wiki) life. That being said, where one prefers natural over parenthetical disambiguation, another says the former isn't advised. I can't give you a "policy-based" argument because none of those are policies, they're only essays or guidelines. The one policy in question here iswp:at,which states: that the title must "precisely identif[y] the subject, [be] short, natural, and recognizable." I believe "Jane" does a better job of that than "(wife of Gordon Brown)," but, as I stated earlier, I might have preferred your proposal of the "née" solution. None are perfect, but most — including the solution the closer went with — are better than where it was.user:j (talk)20:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If at leastsomereliable sources referred to her as Sarah Jane Brown, you'd have a case. But they don't, so you don't have a case. This is WORSE for the reader, as no reader KNOWS her middle name is Jane, since no sources have ever referred to her in that way. I've already outlined about 5 different policy-based reasons why this was a bad close, the most important being, that WP:CONSENSUS is not a popularity vote, but rather a measurement of arguments against policy. The closer didn't do this, and openly admits that he didn't do this. This is particularly bizarre coming from this closer, as they had previously performed a difficult closure onBurma,which as I've stated earlier I disagreed with the end result, but the policy-based arguments he used were good - Burma was chosen for thegood of the user- WP:CRITERIA was what sealed the deal. Sarah Jane Brown is TERRIBLE for the user - any parenthetical would have been better, and if you want to IAR, just ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and put it at Sarah Brown. Those who say "endorse but relist immediately" are making a weasely argument, basically admitting the name chosen a poor one. I'm not arguing against this close because I wanted "my" solution (which, however, I still think is best: Sarah Brown (women's advocate), as I found at least 8 different reliable sources that refer to her as exactly this, and her ongoing source of notability *is* about that) - but because of all the options the closer could have chosen, they chose the worst for our readers. Anyone can count!votes, but I find it extremely lazy and anti-user. This whole thing is an example of political correctness gone awry - when I search now for "Sarah Brown", the search result says "Sarah Jane Brown (née Macaulay; born 31 October 1963) is a British author and the founder and president of PiggyBankKids, a children's..." - so even via the two lines in the search result, because of the rewording of the lede, the reader now cannot find this woman who is first and foremost known to be the wife of a prime minister, and even published a book about being the wife of a prime minister.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)21:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsethe general outcome, and while not opposed to another move discussion that is 100% free of non-wife/spouse options, there's no need for an immediate one. Wait a month and let the residual bellyaching subside. Tariqabjotu pickedsomethingfor a destination, that is the important part here.Tarc(talk)13:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close.The consensus was clear enough. Forty-two people responded (note: it was an RfC not only an RM, which was done to attract more participants and allow more time for comments). There were two questions: (1) Should the page be moved? (2) If so, what is your preferred title?

Yes to move(29): SlimVirgin, Soman, Pigsonthewing, Heatherawalls, In ictu oculi, SmokeyJoe, Tarc, Wikidea, Binksternet, CarolMooreDC, ErrantX, Sj, Sionk, Anthonyhcole, Resolute, Ferma, NorthBySouthBaranof, Simon Burchell, Jaytwist, GRuban, Dingo1729, Jayen466, Kauffner, Victoriaearle, Martin Hogbin, Gobonobo, Calidum Sistere, PBS, Ohconfucious
No to move(10): Obiwankenobi, Timrollpickering, PatGallacher, Theoldsparkle, Johnbod, AjaxSmack, Chris Troutman, Born2cycle, Betty Logan, TortoiseWrath.
Unclearor commenting in general (3): Frenchmalawi, Blueboar, BDD

Among the 29 who supported a move, the two titles most often suggested as first or first-equal choice were:

Sarah Jane Brown(14): SlimVirgin, Heatherawalls, Tarc, Wikidea, Resolute, Ferma, NorthBySouthBaranof, Simon Burchell, Jaytwist, Jayen466, Kauffner, Victoriaearle, Martin Hogbin, Gobonobo
Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)(4): SmokeyJoe, Sionk, Gruban, Dingo1729

SlimVirgin^(talk)18:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a discussionWP:NOTAVOTEso raw numbers do not matter. And your desire to split the discussion into separate questions was controversial at the start and de facto rejected by many respondents who did not!vote as such. Focus on the arguments not the numbers.Timrollpickering(talk)18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the respondents did say whether or not they supported a move. The RfC was set up that way to avoid the problem of the previous RM discussions, where the article wasn't moved because there was no clear consensus about which title to move it to, so it ended up not being moved even though people clearly wanted it to be moved. So this time the first question was: Should the page be moved? And the response was clear.SlimVirgin^(talk)19:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was clearly consensus to move the articlefromSarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)but it was less clear what the article should be movedto.The closing admin clearly made a reasonable decision based on the discussion - so I suppose I should be endorsing that decision (it seems a little odd for me to do so as I was one of those supporting it already...) - but on reflection I thinkSarah Brown (née Macaulay)is a probably a better solution here. Rather than wasting time bickering about the decision to move the article, why not try instead a new RM to move the articlefromSarah Jane Browntosomething else? I expect there will be little demand to go back toSarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)but perhapsSarah Brown (née Macaulay)might be favoured? The article does start"Sarah Jane Brown(néeMacaulay)... ".--Ferma(talk)20:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear here (and not directing any invective againstyouin particular, you just happen to be the one that mentioned it)...if we do a new move discussion, any form of "(wife of Gordon Brown)" is off the table, 100%. The consensus on that angle of this is sparkly-shiny clear.Tarc(talk)20:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseThis was a clear choice endorsed by many of the participants. If we didn't have any other articles on Sarah Browns, the new title wouldn't be ideal, but as such, there's nothing wrong with using her actual name asWP:NATURALdisambiguation. I do have two gripes related to the close. First, since it was also marked as an RfC, it arguably should have run for a month, although perhaps that's a bad precedent to set. But I have a bigger complaint with the tone of the close, which was rather rude and againstWP:EQ.If he was unwilling to defend his position for other editors, he probably should not have been the one to close. Nevertheless, he came to the right conclusion. --BDD(talk)21:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BDD. Please check WP:NATURAL, which states clearly "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.". That is not the case here, which is why some of us are against this silly move. NO RELIABLE SOURCES, or even UNRELIABLE SOURCES, ever call her this. That's the crux of the problem. I searched at least 10 pages deep in google, and never found any article, book, blog, tweet, or anything that said "Sarah Jane Brown today did X". So this creates aCitogenesisproblem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)22:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane is neither obscure nor made up. Disambiguating by including the middle name is very common in the real world. --SmokeyJoe(talk)22:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close(Though feel free to move it again to Sarah Brown.) I find this process, and the people who have badgered the other people involved over and over again to be confusing and sad. The previous time this topic was discussed, it was closed with a move agreement. After that close,someone else unhappy with that made some threat/promise I do not really understand and got the closer to acquiesce as well.After this close, Obiwankenobi complained directly to the closer and then began this action. Despite arguments to the contrary, a few people act as if their personal judgement is what's the most important part of this decision.heather walls(talk)00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closeparticularly perAnthonyhcole,SlimVirginandheather walls.There was clear consensus to move away from the old title, and the closer identified the suggestion with the most support. (I, too, would support a new RM to Sarah Brown, but that's not to be decided here.)Begoon ^talk04:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse:per BDD. Consensus in the discussion was clear. Not sure why this is here... -Nathan Johnson(talk)22:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close.The closing admin properly saw thatsomesort of move was wanted by the community, to get away from the "wife of" formulation. Once that decision was reached, the selection of which name to move to was a tough one, but the choice was the most popular among the various responses. I think a new RM can be undertaken for those who wish to provide parenthetical disambiguation, for instanceSarah Brown (née Macaulay).Binksternet(talk)22:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close.Although the title of this article remains problematic, there was a consensus that the earlier version was simply not acceptable. If there is a new RM to move the title toSarah Brown,I would certainly support that.Kauffner(talk)01:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia^{[dubious–discuss]}and so I don't know this for sure^{[citation needed]},but I think that saying "I'm gonna close this the way I wanna close it and I'm not going to talk about it" threw gasoline (or petrol?) onto the fire a bit here.Open another move requestas per Obiwan's well-reasoned explanation for why this title is not good and BDD's insightful disagreement. Isn't what we do when we have no better disambiguator the year of birth? Weird. This is all weird. I have a LOT of respect for many of the editors involved in these discussions, and I wish everyone could continue to have respect for all of them.Red Slash08:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close.I wasn't involved in the debate, but looking through the survey and discussion it seems there was indeed consensus to rename the article, and that (given the many different options being kicked around of what to move itto) the closer reasonably chose one that a number of participants supported. I'm not sure it was ideal, but I'm also not sure any of them were, and in reading the closing remarks it sounds like Tariqabjotu was prescient in thinking some people would make a fuss regardless of the outcome. (I do agree that his statements about being unwilling to discuss it were unfortunate and may merit a corrective warning, but I don't see that as affecting the actual decision itself.)

The Sarah Jane Brown page can be the subject of another RM at some point in the future if people think it's warranted, but I don't think there's any compelling reason to overturn this one.╠╣uw[talk]09:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist.The closer forgot what a consensus is. --Müdigkeit(talk)10:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? In what universe does 3-to-1 in favor of a renamenotindicate a clear consensus?Tarc(talk)14:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first sentencehere.--Müdigkeit(talk)14:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point out editors' arguments in that rename discussion that should be discarded, then by all means do so, I'm curious as to see the hows and whys of your discarding almost 30 editors' opinions. I'm well-aware that it isn't a simple vote tally, but numbers do play a part in determining consensus; if more editors support X over Y, and back that up with something other than "I like/dislike X", then then that's usually the direction a discussion is closed. You can't just wave a magic hand, drop an dismissive "The closer forgot what a consensus is"1-liner, and expect such a declaration to be accepted.Tarc(talk)15:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a good portion ofWP:IDONTLIKEITvotes. Just look at what they are writing. --Müdigkeit(talk)18:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a good portion of "I don't like an encyclopedia project reflecting the norms of 19th-century parochialism" votes. You don't get to dismiss editor's arguments because of mere disagreement, sport.Tarc(talk)20:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look what you just wrote. It is exactly what is wrong. Those votes are based on the editors own moral opinions, they are based on a biasedpoint of view.They are!votes. It is the neutral point of view that matters. And from a neutral point of view, the middle name is normally not used in the sources. And because of that, it mustn´t be used that way.--Müdigkeit(talk)12:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuating sexist norms is about as far from neutral as one can get, I'm afraid. Those votes to move away from such a naming construction are more in line withWP:NPOVthan antiquated folk like you could ever hope to be.Tarc(talk)14:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV argument against Sarah Jane Brown is not an argument for Sarah Brown(wife of Gordon Brown)...--Müdigkeit(talk)17:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your opinion on that matter is in a distinctly tiny minority. Anything else?Tarc(talk)18:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter how tiny the minority is, the strength of an argument based on thefoundations of Wikipediais infinitely stronger than any argument not based on those.--Müdigkeit(talk)19:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.

Ana Ivanovic– Close endorsed. To quote SmokeyJoe, "I see a 'no consensus'. I don't see any likelihood of further discussion leading to a consensus unless it is by exhausting opposing participants". –Cúchullain ^t/c 18:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

I'm wanting somepeople to review my own "no consensus" result, after being asked by some people to reconsider on my talk page (PBSandIn ictu oculi). I hope this will allow greater discussion.jcc(tea and biscuits)16:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This specific close is in the sectionTalk:Ana Ivanovic#Requested Move 3.

So I (and In ictu oculi) do not rehash what we have already written please see the discussion atUser talk:Jcc#Talk:Ana Ivanovic#Requested Move 3.--PBS(talk)16:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, people other you and In citu oculi please.jcc(tea and biscuits)17:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jcc,I did not "ask you to reconsider," nor as far as I can see did PBS. Nor did anyone ask for a move review. This is nearly a month ago, and enough time and bytes have already been wasted in the campaign against this woman's name. Leave it for someone else to bring up again in 6 months or a year.In ictu oculi(talk)18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a "no consensus". I don't see any likelihood of further discussion leading to a consensus unless it is by exhausting opposing participants. --SmokeyJoe(talk)07:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought by the closer, who agreed on his talk page it could be closed. One of the other participants, IIO, above agrees. I think someone should just close this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)13:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the black hole that is the dicritics war. And I see several such warriors participating in that request. However, and sadly, no consensus seems the proper close.Reso lute 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was not opining on the MVR itself; rather suggesting that, since the person who brought this is ok with closing it, and one of the disputants has also said he doesn't need a MVR, and it's already been a month, perhaps an admin should just close this move review without making any further judgement on the move at this point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)20:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In summary of the point I made onUser talk:JccaboutTalk:Ana Ivanovic#Requested Move 3:During the move I asked those who support the move to explain why they support it and in every case it comes down to their own personal preference, not one has justified the move based on the AT policy, so why where those opinions not discounted and the close? --PBS(talk)09:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the logs arehere.However, it does seem like my "no consensus" verdict was the way to go here, sothanks all that have given me their support.jcc(tea and biscuits)16:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have said that before, but why? I asked you in the conversion on your talk page "You say "editors haven't aregreed on common usage" but they did agree on common usage in Reliable English language sources, it is just that some people think that that part of the AT policy should be ignored in favour of their "correct" option. If this interpretation of mine is incorrect, other than the proposer, which other editors who were in favour of the move do you think question the usage that other editors opposed to the move asserted was the common English language usage?"--PBS(talk)16:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said thanks all before, and as much as I would like to be, I am not a mind reader, and believe that asking the other users on here that said no consensus was the right thing to do why they said so would be the right thing to do.jcc(tea and biscuits)19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your said as much when you closed the requested move with "no consensus". I do not understand the rest of your last post. So here is my question to you again. Other than the proposer, who else who supported the move questioned the assertion that common usage in English is "Ana Ivanovic"? --PBS(talk)08:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why no consensus (I believe, I didn't quite understand the phrasing of your question). Anyway, I think its better to let the move review run its course than have our "dispute" all over again.jcc(tea and biscuits)19:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of running the dispute over again. It is a question of your close. Of those who supported the move, who produced any evidence that common usage in English language sources was different from the current article title? --PBS(talk)02:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn.Er, I mean endorse close. Is it a consensus to not move or no consensus to move? Either way, the close stands.Apteva(talk)09:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apteva, the question is not whether the close stands but whether the close was made following the close guideline and whether the close was correct. --PBS(talk)02:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Sadly, the tennis diacritics fiasco continues unabated, but it is much more likely than not that continuing the move request discussion would not have resulted in a clear consensus, just like the one from last year. The matter will need to be resolved in a more general forum. --Joy [shallot](talk)20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The debate did give a clear result so there was no need for the debate to continue. Of those who expressed an opinion AFAICT not one of those who supported the nominators the move request based their support on the AT policy or the naming conventions. --PBS(talk)02:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.

Hillary Clinton– The result of the move request was:Moved toHillary Rodham Clinton.This article has bounced back and forth between these two titles for years without consensus. There is nothing wrong or non-authoritative about a non-admin closure. However, there was no clear consensus for the previous move, therefore the move wasn't a proper result flowing from that discussion. I also don't see a clear consensus here, in which case the status quo prevails, that being the original name of this article.

(The discussion about admin vs non-admin closure made me curious about the admin consensus, although as correctly pointed out, admins are no more authoritative than anyone else in closing these discussions. Anyway, among the 10 admins who expressed an opinion, there was a clear consensus to overturn the move [7 overturn, 2 endorse, 1 relist]. This doesn't sway my closing decision although it does suggest that the prior move would not have happened if an admin had closed it.) ~Amatulić(talk)00:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC) ~Amatulić(talk)00:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to closing comment:After having spent a couple hours looking over the history on this and running up against a deadline to leave for an appointment, I posted a close rationale above that, considering the activity this has generated, now appears sloppy and hastily written. I apologize for that, and I will elaborate further.

This was a complex problem. I discerned four principal areas of contention in this review:

Was the closer qualified to close the debate? Consensus:weak endorse.
While it is true thatWP:RMNACdiscourages non-admins from closing contentious debates, there is no prohibition against it, and the closer did an admirable job of it. I gave no weight to this question in my closing decision.
Result: No effect.
What should the article be called? Consensus:no consensus.
I saw four "endorse" comments that focused exclusively on this question instead of reviewing the RM's close. However, this forum is not intended for continuing the RM debate. The consensus, even among some endorsers, was that there is no consensus on the article title, with good arguments on both sides. In that event, the status quo prevails, and considering the history of past debates, the status quo is the original article title. I saw agreement that this discussion should have taken place more publicly, in which case it should occur on the status quo title.
Result: Lack of consensus suggests restoration of the status quo title.
Should the non-admin close be kept or overturned? Consensus:overturn.
WP:RMNACis pretty clear about discouraging non-admins from closing contentious debates. And it is contentious, especially considering that the prior RMs (4 of them??) also had no consensus. On this point whether the non-admin close was appropriate, after discounting the continued RM discussion comments mentioned above, a clear consensus emerged.
Result:overturnclose, rename to "Hilary Rodham Clinton".
Should the RM be re-listed? Consensus:yes but not right now.
A few people wanted to re-list on the basis of the prior RM being closed improperly. I found other comments more persuasive that further discussion should be better publicized to a wider community to attempt to establish a more valid consensus.
Result:revisitat a later time.

Based on my analysis of those issues (and not really counting #2 because this isn't an actual RM debate), the decision leaned to overturn. I hope that helps make sense of my original closing rationale above. ~Amatulić(talk)21:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally improperly closed (with the wrong template, anyone who is interested) and so I have fixed it.–jcc(tea and biscuits)10:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

This was the fifth requested move for this article, which has long been located atHillary Rodham Clinton.It was a non-administrator close byUser:Obiwankenobifor a contentious discussion with no clear consensus. I think the general viewpoint on the side of keeping the article at its (now prior) location was that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is the name she has long used in her personal and professional lives and it is the name that many of the "most reliable" sources use for her on first reference (such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and so forth). It's also the title used by Britannica and other encyclopedias (whichpolicyrecommends considering when in doubt). The argument on the other side, for moving the article toHillary Clinton,is that — primarily over the past three years — Hillary Clinton has become the more common usage of her name as judged by certain news databases, Google Books ngrams, and general Google searches. A further argument is that it is more concise. The non-administrator closure was, at first, overturned byUser:Good Olfactoryperwp:rmnac,but he later reversed himself on the basis thatUser:Obiwankenobi's closure was done in good faith. Simply put, I don't think anyone could argue there was a clear consensus, which not only makes the non-administrator closure inappropriate, but would make any move inconsistent with our policies and the the intent and spirit ofwp:noconsensus.user:j (talk)05:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note:There was extensive discussion with the closer prior to this move review being opened by a number of parties, including byUser:Huwmanbeing,who specifically advisedUser:Obiwankenobiof his intention to move forward with a move review if necessary. The discussion was preempted by the move being undone byUser:Good Olfactory,which he reverted after further discussion withUser:Obiwankenobi.I think it's clear thatUser:Obiwankenobibelieves his closure was appropriate despite the concerns others have raised, hence this review.user:j (talk)06:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you judge the close on it's merits, and not on the presence or absence of a bit in my user profile.This recent discussionreinforces this particular point, by the way, so please don't put forth the "it's a non-admin close" arguments. Please argue the merits of the case, not the closer. --Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I informed Nathan Johnson and Dennis Brown of this discussion, as they were involved in recent ANI thread about non-admin closures. I also informed all of the participants in the rename discussion who haven't already commented below. -Obi

Survey

Endorseas closer.

When I came into this, it was via the RM backlog which I was attempting to chip away at. I first looked at this one, and decided to skip it, but then after a quick read through, it seemed to be an obvious no-consensus close just based on length of the discussion and many supports and many opposes, so decided to close and started reading more carefully. After my second read-through, and checking the policies more carefully, I was surprised to find that there *was* actually rough consensus on a number of points relevant to the move, but (unfortunately for the oppose side), the oppose arguments were much *less* based on firm policy and much more based on softer issues. For example, many of the "oppose" voters noted it was a name she preferred, or that it referenced her life before Clinton, or that she was "well-known" by that name, etc - all of these are useful, but not as strong as clear policy based arguments, which the supporters were making more of. (If you don't believe me, just read the top-line "oppose" arguments one by one - you'll notice very few actually reference titling policy)

I thus found myself with what was IMHO a clear consensus to move, if we discounted emotion and forcefullness and drama and numbers, and just looked at cold hard policy and cold hard facts (which is what you are supposed to do when judging consensus). I thus felt, provided I explained the close well, that I would be competent to close this as a non-admin. I found rough consensus on a number of points:

WP:COMMONNAMEThat HC was *more* frequently used in reliable sources. There were many arguments about how HRC is *also* frequently used, but very little evidence provided that HRC was *more* frequently used in RS. COMMONNAME is explicitly about FREQUENCY of use. There was strong evidence, such as the ngrams, provided that HC is now *more* frequently used, and that usage has changed over time. Thus, I found that there was rough consensus to say that both are certainly equally used, and evidence that HC was *more* used in RS. In addition, almost every single "support" editor mentioned WP:COMMONNAME, so there was clear consensus from that side that COMMONNAME was an important policy in judging this, and the oppose side did not mount a strong defense against that. Towards the end, some of the oppose editors basically conceded this point, but then said "it's not about # of hits, there are other issues at play". And on that point, I agreed with them - I would not have closed to move purely based on a finding that HC is used 50% more than HRC for example. But there were two other key policy points, on which I also found rough consensus:
WP:PRECISEThat HC was precise. HRC was *more* precise, but HC was precise enough. I didn't see any significant disagreement on this point.
WP:CRITERIAThat HC was concise. No significant disagreement on this point either.

Thus, on three substantive points, all part of the POLICY aroundWP:AT,there was rough consensus and no significant dissent (there was some quibbling, but it was around things like what the word "concise" means, and those arguments ignored the definition given in thepolicy:"The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." It was on this basis that I found a rough consensus for the move. I did not invent any of these policy points, and all of them were extensively argued by people in the move.

There were several arguments by the oppose side made that amounted to basicallyOther stuff exists- e.g.Lyndon B. Johnson,etc. In the close, I detailed many other arguments that I discarded, like twitter handles, etc, as being not based on policy, or not logical, or not workable.

To sum up, before deciding, I ask you to read this, a quote fromWP:CONSENSUS:

"Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." This is exactly what I did. I judged the quality of the arguments for a rename, or not, based on how well they adhered to policy. Simply put, the supporters had three indisputable policy prescriptions on their side, while the opposers did not.

Another point of consensus is the following: "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, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.[2] If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy." Again, there was rough consensus on three policy points, and then arguments made by the oppose side that weren't really based on policy points, except WP:COMMONNAME, but the evidence ended up being against them on that.

So, in a first read, it may look like no-consensus, but if you read it carefully, and think in terms of "Which argument is based on policy, which is based on guidance, and which is based on softer issues", the answer becomes clear (at least, it was clear to me.)

Note: re accusations ofSUPERVOTE.First, I did not have any particular outcome in mind when I decided to close this, and my first hour was spent building a case for no-consensus (FWIW, at one point I even started going down a path ofkeep(vs NC) based on what I thought was a particularly strong piece of evidence, but I abandoned this path based on another counterargument). The discovery and analysis of thepolicy-basedarguments ofWP:PRECISEand conciseness tipped the scales, so I found a consensus to move instead. Secondly, if you readWikipedia:Supervote,it states the following: "it's not a" supervote "to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion." In this case, I closed in accordance with what I know now to be a majority opinion (I didn't count votes, but now have), with rough consensus from both sides on the key issues leading to the close.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An interesting comparison from last year, on a topic that is a lot more debated than this one:

[[Talk:Burma/Archive_10#Requested_move_.28Burma_.E2.86.92_Myanmar.29_August_2012- NOT moved (e.g. kept at Burma)
Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_August_26 User:Tariqabjotu,the closing admin, had to balance a complex and unclear debate about COMMONNAME, but ultimately it came down toWP:CRITERIAvsWP:OFFICIALNAME.Burmawas selected as a result, as fulfillingWP:CRITERIA.The closing admin did NOT find no-consensus, however, in spite of the incredibly messy discussion - they explicitly found that the article should live at Burma. Frankly, it's not a resultIwould have personally agreed with, but it ismorein line with current policy thanMyanmar,so I also would have endorsed the close as being within closers discretion. There are strong parallels here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)20:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closeReading through the move discussion ( including following back to some of the earlier no consensus ones ), it looks likeUser:Obiwankenobimade a good tally of the discussion. A good part of determining consensus is being able to weigh the arguments which looks to have been done here. While I would have rather seen an admin close this—as the RMCI recommend for contentious discussions, I can't really find fault with the reasoning of the close.PaleAqua(talk)06:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close.The RM discussion resulted in no consensus to move, and so Obiwankenobi's closure appears to have been asupervote.In addition, the admin who made the move on his behalf,Timrollpickering,had commented several times during the discussion in support of the move (e.g.here), and should therefore not have used the tools (the target title had to be deleted), given that the result was not straightforward. Tim and Obiwankenobi expressed very strong views recently during the RM atSarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown),and should ideally regard themselves as involved during any similar discussion.SlimVirgin^(talk)07:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close.I had no involvement in the move discussion, nor do I have an opinion on the proposed move. However, it is clear that there was no consensus in the discussion so the close is aWP:SUPERVOTE.Begoon ^talk07:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closeI'm very surprised that the move request was in any way controversial.Hillary Clintonseems to me to be the obvious (and I would have thought uncontroversial) place for the page. I suspect that if the RM discussion was advertised to a very wide audience it would result in a move toHillary Clinton.However, the close, as was, just moved the article from one controversial title to another and looks like asupervote.--RA(talk)12:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adds: I'm not one to make a big distinction between admins and non-admins. I think Obiwankenobi is doing the project a great service by addressing the backlog (in a number of different places). However, I think given the (surprisingly) contentious nature of the RM, it would probably be best to do things by the book. FromWikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions:
"If you are not an administrator you should only close certain types of requests;... Non-admin closes normally require: The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days).... Many editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates. Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved."
--RA(talk)07:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close- This is why non-admins aren't allowed within a mile of discussion (RM, AfD, etc...) closes that aren'tcrystal-clearsnowcases, they don't have the experience necessary or the trust of the community to measure consensus an make the tough call. For move requests, this is clearly laid out atWikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closureas a failure of criteria #1, "Non-admin closes normally require the consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days)."The discussion was fairly evenly split with sound arguments all around, no" i like it "or" it sucks "nonsense. This non-admin cast the proverbial" supervote ", he did not take a measure of the discussion in the slightest. This user has also bee on the...how does one say it without using the m-word...critical-of-women side of several wide-ranging discussions lately, including theNovelists categorization(taking women out of "American Novelists" ) and atSarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown),where editors areattemptingto rename the article to something non-paternalistic and 19th-century. Following those, attempting to butt in to made decisions on whether a woman is more known by her married name vs birth name + married name was an unwise choice. The primary issue is still ignoring the obvious split and lack of consensus, and closing the discussion improperly. But the "big picture" emerging here is IMO troublesome.Tarc(talk)12:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close.As much as Obi-Wan insists that there was rough consensus, there was not. There were arguments made on both sides, and the arguments were based on interpretation of policy rather than positions such as "I just don't like it". The name of the article has been stable for many years, and the default result in a situation where there is no clear consensus isnotto move; a move performed in the face of clear and well-articulated opposition is naturally going to generate strife, whereas a "no move" due to "no consensus" is naturally not satisfying to theproside, but also not controversial. He claims that there were "three indisputable policy prescriptions" on theproside and not on theconside. But of course those interpretations of policyweredisputed in the discussion, and of course therewerepolicy-based arguments on the other side. He defines "concise" as "no longer than necessary", but that is an over-simplification of what is stated in the policy, without even getting into the definition of the word. In short, this was a supervote -- though I do not believe that was necessarily the intent. I believe the close was done in good faith but was misguided and should be overturned.Omnedon(talk)15:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closeThis was an obvious no-consensus situation - lengthy and contentious enough that it should probably not have been attempted by a non-admin. And that was ObiWan's first impression - no consensus. Once he had read through the arguments and decided which side he agreed with, he was no longer a closer - he was a participant. At that point he should have simply added his opinion to the discussion, not closed with a!supervote. I believe that 1) ObiWan's improper closure should be reverted; 2) either Good Ol'Factory's close should be reinstated, or a neutral third-party admin should decide how to close; 3) ObiWan should be cautioned to avoid doing non-admin closures where the consensus is not clear, perWP:RMNAC.--MelanieN(talk)15:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse CloseI was not involved in the original RM discussion but I have read through the arguments there as well as ObiWan's closure statement and the ensuing discussions on his and GoodOlFactory's talk pages. ObiWan made a fair assessment based on the strength (not numbers) of the arguments as they relate to policy to reach his decision. That assessment is no less valid simply because he doesn't wield a mop. The "overturn close" votes are using terms like "lengthy and contentious" and "well-articulated opposition". If that were reason enough to conclude "no consensus", every RM could be filibustered into a no consensus close. Once the extraneous verbiage is removed from the discussion, I agree with ObiWan that there is a rough consensus for HC.--William Thweatt^Talk^Contribs16:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closeThis move has been requested several times before, each time without reaching consensus to move; that there still is no consensus to do so is no surprise, and is clear from reading the current discussion. There are strong opinions on both sides, but nothing approaching a consensus, so the appropriate close would be "no consensus" and no move. The closure was inappropriate, and seems to represent an opinion rather than a neutral analysis, and is therefore asupervote,per Slim Virgin, Begoon and others.Tvoz/talk17:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close.Agree with Omnedon, MelanieN, et al. I think there are various problems here that make it necessary to overturn this, but the most fundamental is that it's inappropriate to move/retitle a stable articlewithout consensus– and the result of the discussion was about as far from consensus as I've seen in move discussions. Good Ol'Factory in his original reversion comments rightly noted that this is not a case where a handful of commentators made flimsy arguments that can be easily overridden by applicable guidelines; it's a situation where there was a large amount of participation from a robust number of commentators on both sides who made convincing, guideline-based arguments each way, and is a classic "no consensus" discussion.╠╣uw[talk]17:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close.- There's nothing wrong with non-admin closures in general but Tarc has a point. NACs at xFD and RM can result in this kind of thing. Becuase RM cases usually are contentious and in this case there was "significant contentious debate among participants[that was]unresolved."The close was in good faith but it falls into the catgeory of a supervote becuase, in fact there was no clear consensus in a contentious discussion. As such MelanieN is correct. Suggest reverting the move, relisting the RM and redoubling the advertisment of the discussion--Cailil^talk18:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close– I have no preference either way but there has to be an obvious consensus to change the status quo... and there is no obvious consensus.Oculi(talk)18:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close- There was no clear consensus and a slight shift in the frequency of use of HC over HRC doesn't justify this supervote.

I agree that, on concision and common name, HC beats HRC. But titling policy is not the only policy bearing on this case. Had I noticed the discussion and contributed, I would have supported thestatus quo(HRC) because she said in 1993 that she wanted to be known as Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that hasn't changed as far as any of us knows. That the subject prefers to be called HRC is a strong and valid reason for us to do so. Trivial factors such as concision or a few more instances of HC in Google are irrelevant compared with respect for our BLP subjects, and the numerous instances of official usage. Regarding this argument:

Wasted time R's summary of the arguments included that HRC was the name she announced that she preferred in 1993 and is her official name, and most opposers concurred

Tvoz: "Wasted Time R's recap below sums up the arguments quite well, and I concur completely"
Huwmankind: "... per J, Tvoz, Wasted Time R."
TonyTheTiger: "I think the historical reasons and BLP user preferences still carry." (I think this refers to the subject's preference, but I've asked for clarification.)
Omnedon: "...per Wasted Time R, Huw, and others."
Tarc: "...has herself emphasized her given name over the last 2-3 decades."
Smokey Joe: "...preferred in formal use by the subject..."
Bellagio99: "Wasted R said it well."

I think we can assume MelanieN and J won't oppose this view either.

There is no policy that explicitly states that, when a BLP subject prefers a given formulation of their name, and that formulation is very well-known and widely-used, and is the formulation normally used in official situations, we defer to the subject's preference. But boilerplate naming policies are always going to be too clunky to handle all possible subtle and nuanced implications of something as sensitive as a person's name. That's why IAR is a policy.

Obiwankenobi said above, "my understanding of consensus is that policy-based-arg will beat a logic-based arg any day, unless you IAR." The oppose voters chose to IAR. Obiwankenobi, for reasons yet to be explained, chose to dismiss their IAR argument, and thereby see consensus where there was none. (UTC)--Anthonyhcole(talk·contribs·email)22:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)(Expanded 08:02, 20 June 2013)[reply]

Commenton the NAC portion. No policy says NAC closures of moves is disallowed, nor that NAC has less authority than admin closes. I wish the admin bit made you "better", but I can attest that it doesn't. Being an NAC doesn't matter in this discussion, only the merits do, of which I have no opinion. I will restrict any further comment to my talk page.Dennis Brown|2¢|©|WER 22:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Either my ears were ringing or I had an orange~~bar~~button, or both. Admins have no special powers in closing discussions. If there was a problem with the close it should be discussed on its merits and not because the closer was not an administrator. No comment on this specific case because I frankly don't give a crap what that article is titled and can't be arsed to read the RM discussion. -Nathan Johnson(talk)22:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain.Although I don't agree with the close - specifically, if I had closed it, I would have found the unambiguous arguments based onWP:TITLECHANGESto be more binding than the hair-splitting aroundWP:COMMONNAME- I do support the closure as a good-faith, reasonable, and judicious summary of the move discussion, and support retaining the move on that grounds.Van Isaac_WSVex^contribs22:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus).Obvious no consensus borderline needing further and wider input. The close was well beyond the nebulous "admin discretion" and squarely intoWP:Supervote.If the closer can't close without going beyond a summary of points already made, it is a Supervote.
On the NAC issue, we are not overturning because it was a NAC, however, NAC closers would be well advised to steer clear of closing less-then-clear discussions. I note that the NAC closer has abandoned usual admin decorum in letting his close be reviewed as it stands, and accepting the decision of the community. For better or worse, this is one of the skills proven or learned from passing through the baptism of fire known as RfA. I stand by my comments in the discussion linked by the closer,Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#Non-AfD_NACs.--SmokeyJoe(talk)00:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it would be more of a supervote if the closer had to gobeyondwhat was in the discussion? A closer is supposed to weigh arguments given. --BDD(talk)16:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what I wrote? --SmokeyJoe(talk)

Maybe I didn't phrase that right. You seemed to complain that the closing statement rehashed the support votes, that Obi-Wan's failure to go "beyond a summary of points already made" indicated a supervote. I was suggesting a better sign of a supervote would have been new arguments on the part of Obi-Wan presented as closing rationale. --BDD(talk)19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to complain of a rehash of support votes. A summary of similar rationales is very good. A failure to go "beyond a summary of points already made" is not indicative a supervote. A closer should not go beyond the points already made. New arguments by the closer are indeed the feature of a supervote. I think I wrote a poor sentence with a double negative that can be misread. I seem to be in complete agreement with you. --SmokeyJoe(talk)07:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On considering other points made below...

On LOCALCONSENSUS versus CONSENSUS:
Note that the applicable titling policy and guidelines are controversial, littered with a history of problematic battles and bad behaviours, and themselves are not unambiguously reflecting of wide community consensus. They are also poorly organised, overlapping, and poorly explained, indicative of an imperfect state, indicative of a weak connection to true community consensus. The RM discussion drew a large number of participants, perhaps a selection more representative of consensus than the self-selected authors of the few lines of applicable policy. Policy is supposed to reflect actual practice. It is simply unacceptable for a single editor, supervoting, to disregard a wide selection of community members in favour of controversial policy.
This close should be overturned as a SuperVote. Further, it should be overturned as it clearly does not carry the confidence of the community. The closer should learn from this, and will probably become a better closer for it. If overturned, the overturn should have no bearing on continued discussion. Continued discussion may find a clear consensus on this title, but it hasn't happened yet. --SmokeyJoe(talk)07:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse close~~(I voted to support the move). Re-reading the discussion I think the closer made a reasonable call to move, based on what he perceived as weak arguments by those opposed to the move -- consensus isn't a vote count so this seems like a fair outcome. Had the closer been an admin I doubt we'd be having this discussion.Calidum Sistere00:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

after reading more about the user who closed this discussion, I am no longer comfortable with him having closed it and would be more comfortable of this wererelistedso someone else could look at it.Calidum Sistere21:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close(although I voted to support the move, so my endorsement might not be too surprising). This is an inherently-difficult choice, and I think the closer did as good as anyone could do. It's such a prominent and controversial person, and the maiden name issue is also so difficult, that you'll never get a snowball on this question. The discussion could have gone on forever. It was the 5th time the same move had been requested (somehow I had previously miscounted it as the 6th), with all previous ones closed as "no consensus". Movement in sources toward the shorter name was evident. It's time to let the article have the other name for a while and see what happens after that. —BarrelProof(talk)01:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closeI did not vote in favor of the move, but I support it. I think that user's preference rather than subject preference for the name should prevail. Without getting into the nitty gritty of all the possibly relevant policies, I think this is a better solution to the neverending debate.--— Precedingunsignedcomment added byTonyTheTiger(talk•contribs) 16:01, 20 June 2013
Endorse close.Likewise, I voted for the move, so no surprise here. But she is known around the world as Hillary Clinton. It is by far her commonest name. Her own preferences are immaterial, as is her "official" name on any organisation's website. Who actually calls her Hillary Rodham Clinton outside official publications and some overly formal media outlets? Would you really say "I hear Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to visit Outer Mongolia"? Really? No, of course you wouldn't. I would hazard a guess that many people didn't even known her middle/maiden namewasRodham. We are merely going around in circles here. Best to once and for all move the article to the name by which she is best known and follow our own naming conventions. --Necrothesp(talk)16:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close.Appalling to see anything resembling consensus to move in that discussion.older≠wiser 16:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relistand publicize to the community more broadly, to avoid an endless cycle of this sort of thing.bd2412 T 17:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and best idea I've heard so far, although I almost think there needs to be a wider policy and naming conventions discussion on whether thewp:officialnamesessay properly handles preferredmatronymicnames and other variants of that concept first. Thewp:officialnamesessay shouldn't — and I believe the the spirit of recognizing common usage doesn't — cancel a woman's preference for hyphenated or joined "First Maiden-Married" or "First Maiden Married" names that are in wide usage. It didn't get discussed as much as it probably should have in the original requested move discussion, but I think the last few comments fromUser:Anthonyhcolebelow in the extended discussion are particularly interesting.user:j (talk)17:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close.I see an awful lot of comments above asserting that there was no consensus, but very little argument in support of that claim. Unless you can actually point out where the closer's reasoning went wrong, simply stating that hewaswrong is meaningless. Remember, consensus is more than just counting numbers. The closer correctly analyzed the quality of arguments, and noted that there was, in fact, consensus on several of the points, and the logical outcome of that agreement is a move.Powers^T17:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close.As the nom and involved editor I wasn't going to participate here, but so many participants have chimed in above (many without identifying themselves as being involved), I figured I may as well weigh in too. First, I commend Obi for providing such a thorough explanation of how and why consensus was determined that those opposing the move and now supporting overturning his decision are almost completely ignoring his solid reasoning.
Those favoring overturning this decision are almost unanimously simply claiming there was no consensus, but what they seem to be mean by "no consensus" is "noWP:LOCALCONSENSUS".However, the closer is tasked not with determiningWP:LOCALCONSENSUS,but with determining communityWP:CONSENSUS.In theory, it shouldn't matter how many people participate in one particular discussion or how many of them favor one side or another. What should matter isthe arguments presentedand how well they are based in policy and conventions. Whether 5 participate with 2 to 3 favoring moving, or 50 participate with 40 supporting moving, if the arguments indicatecommunity consensusfavors the move, then that should be the finding. If not, then not.
If people don't think greater usage of one name in reliable sources, along with that name being more concise, indicates that name should be the title, for whatever reason, then they need to get consensus to update the relevant policies to say that. But right now there is no policy basis for this.
We do lack a clearWP:LOCALCONSENSUSfavoring the move, but, per the arguments presented in the discussion, we have clearcommunityWP:CONSENSUSfavoring the move. And that's what Obi explained in his closing (and again above), and that's what matters.
Great job, Obi. Bravo! I for one, am very impressed, and will hold up this close as an example for other closers to follow. --B2C 20:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, I would remind you that you were directed to disengage from discussion of this move.Omnedon(talk)20:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

will hold up this close as an example for other closers to follow- maybe you'd better wait and see if this close holds up, before you do that. --MelanieN(talk)21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close with several caveats.This is going to fundamentally change the way we treat non-admin closers if this holds up. I would agree with that change, personally; we'll probably have to change the closing instructions if this stands (and again, I think that's a good thing, but maybe you don't).Second, this is big--this has a great chance to prove theWP:Yogurt rulebecause I am almost certain that there will be no successful request (perhaps not even a proposed request) to bring back HRC as a title if you declare consensus was reached to move to HC.(We'll see in a year or two.)~~Third~~Second, it should serve as atextbook case of how to close a move request.Did youseewhat Obi wrote? I don't think I've ever in my life considered any issue ever with as much care and wisdom as he showed.^{[citation needed]}I supported the move for reasons that are clear and I think he did alright closing this, but you probably can't consider my!vote here as valid. Keep in mind, closer, that this is a big deal. Please treat it carefully.Red Slash22:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.‎Obiwankenobi invited me to comment here, but I pretty much said all I had to say in the move discussion itself and in all the ones that preceeded it. I am a bit disappointed that a non-admin decided to jump in and close this, but I don't normally hang around MR or DRV so I don't know whether that was proper or not. Similarly, I never heard of the "supervote" concept until now, so I don't know whether this was a violation of that or not. I do know this this is actually the seventh go-around for this issue - the five formal RM's were preceded bythis discussion in early 2006andthis flap in early 2007,where it was briefly moved before being moved back. I always figured that if it was put up for moves enough times, sooner or later by randomness if nothing else, it would succeed. Regardless of outcome here, though, I would hope this does not cement in place the "Yogurt Rule", which for reasons I gave at the end of the move discussion I think is more than a little arrogant and dismissive.Wasted Time R(talk)01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close, on grounds of improper assumption of closer role.For the first time, I've taken a look at the ongoingTalk:Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)#Requested move 6 (June 2013),and the point others have raised here is valid. ‎Obiwankenobi is an advocate with many posts there, in a long and pretty heated debate that involves many of the same cast of editors who appeared in the Hillary RM (including B2C, Tarc, SmokeyJoe, Kauffner, and the admin who first implemented ‎Obiwankenobi's close, Timrollpickering). It does not seem right that a participant in one debate promotes himself to be the judge in another debate involving some of the same people, especially when that participant is not even an admin in the first place. Note that I'mnotsaying that ‎Obiwankenobi showed actual bias or bad faith; like all conflict-of-interest situations, it is theappearanceof a possible conflict that is the problem, not an actual deed. The situation is even more worrying if, as I suspect, this MR proves inconclusive and the outcome is (like in the video replay review guideline in American sports) to let the original close stand.Wasted Time R(talk)11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, but reject yogurt rule and use of this close as a precedent(I didn't!vote, but think WP:RS look slightly weighted on merits towards Obi-Wan's close). Overturn because despite Dennis Brown's modesty several recent non-admin closes have been of lower quality thanmostadmin closes. What is more of a concern is"will hold up this close as an example for other closers to follow"- that sets alarm bells ringing. As forWP:Yogurt rulethat essay IMHO deserves an AfD or to be clearly moved into a user sandbox, the only thing Yogurt shows is (a) after enough fighting, editors get sick and accept anything, and (b) Yogurt is part of a trend of spelling words closer to native (in this case nearer to Turkish) spelling.In ictu oculi(talk)02:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify - if the issue of precedent and Yogurt hadn't been raised I would be sayingEndorse closethis non-admin close is one of the better non-admin closes, and Obi-wan more competent in this area than some admins. Alternatively those who made them strike their precedent and yoghurt comments and keep to the actual move then no problem.In ictu oculi(talk)02:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your take on the Yogurt rule is possible; it's also possible that it shows that inertia is always difficult to overcome. But regardless, we're going to have some form of precedent created. That always is the case on Wikipedia. And I have no idea what a couple of editor's takes on precedent stated at a move review have to do with whether or not Obi's close correctly gauged consensus. It almost seems pointy to say that, like you're saying "drop this or else I won't support something you guys and Iallactually believe in ". Please clarify this misconception I have.Red Slash05:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have a misconception. My concern is that B2C and yourself are attempting to create a bandwagon here. I have said clearly thatI would like to endorse Obi-Wan's closeand have confidence in Obi-Wan's judgement. But at the same time I echo the comment ofWasted Time R"though, I would hope this does not cement in place the" Yogurt Rule ", which for reasons I gave at the end of the move discussion I think is more than a little arrogant and dismissive."As for point, my point is this - your comment"Second, this is big--this has a great chance to prove theWP:Yogurt rulebecause I am almost certain that there will be no successful request (perhaps not even a proposed request) to bring back HRC as a title if you declare consensus was reached to move to HC. "is highly disruptive. You and B2C shouldn't be making this a bandwagon issue. I hope that the decision goes in favour of Obi-Wan on this, but with clear disowning of any talk of "precedent" or "Yoghurt".In ictu oculi(talk)06:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I could give a rip about the "yogurt rule", seriously. But it's a fine essay and it's a well-reasoned point of view. My point with citing it was that I'll bet that if the move stands, no proposed move a year from now back toward HRC would come close to having consensus. But that's an unproductive thing to say and is mere crystal-ball gazing. Unfortunately, it seems to have upset you, which is regrettable and I apologize for having disturbed you so. I'm not married to that essay and honestly it doesn't really add anything to my argument. I'll strike it out as an olive branch, as it were.Red Slash09:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have amended my first line for clarity to "endorse close, but reject yogurt rule and use of this close as a precedent"In ictu oculi(talk)13:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close,considering the fact that this his the name she'smost well known by.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byCanuckian89(talk•contribs)07:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closeThe article has to be located at some name, and I'm not a fan of "no consensus, default to what was there before". Given the two proposed names, it should be possible to make a decision that puts the article one place or the other, rather than resorting to the cop-out (as the closer said, I had the same issue when closing the latest [also controversial] move request forBurma). And I believe the closure's result is, while not uncontroversial, within discretion based on the arguments put forth. Specifically, the biggest blow to the opposition is that most seemed content with "we debated this just a couple months ago" and "she's been called that for decades". Consensus and usage can change. --tariqabjotu13:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close.Closer is not qualified to make this contentious judgement. --tariqabjotu03:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything in the closer's reasoning that demonstrates he is not qualified to make this judgement? If so, what is it? If not, on what basis do you say he is not qualified? If it's because he's not an admin, have you readNon-admin closures of controversial RM discussions - appropriate?--B2C06:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has to do withthisCalidum Sistere06:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close- the massive wall of text below, and on various user talk pages, demonstrates amply that in not being able to find a simple black and white consensus, Obi-Wan-Kenobi began to tease apart the shades of gray. Shades of gray, however, are just that, and equal no consensus.Victoria(talk)16:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.I've only skim-read the above comments, but I've thoroughly read the RM discussion and there was no consensus to move the page with the strongest opposition argument being that it is the name still most commonly used on first mention in high-quality media, and the strongest supporting argument being that the shorter form is the most common usage over all in recent coverage. The "yogurt rule" so favoured by the nominator is not a rule but an essay written by the nominator inviting tendentious editing. Combining this with the history of this article I would strongly support a moritorium on new RM discussions for this page for at least a yearandthere has a been a clearly demonstrated shift in usage relative to now (both conditions must be true). Neither title is incorrect or misleading so keeping it at whichever title will not harm anyone.Thryduulf(talk)18:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.I believe this will be a first, but I do not see that the closer gave adequate weight to the various considerations. And whenever there is "rough consensus from both sides", the status quo stands. I do though, commend the closer for jumping in and hope that they will attempt more closes, as the backlog has only gotten longer.Apteva(talk)02:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnIt appears the closer has a vested interest in relation to the close, and there clearly wasn't any consensus to move.AniMate 04:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseA majority of editors in the discussion supported the move, and their arguments were based on policy. Some oppose voters made very weak arguments, such as procedural complaints. That's enough for me to say consensus. It wasn't a strong, blowout consensus, but so what? And, recognizing B2C just kind of came up with the Yogurt Rule, I think there's a very real chance that it will prove to be a valuable principle, and that a Hillary Clinton title would be more stable. Obi-Wan probably should have left the close to an administrator, but the right decision was made. As an active RM admin facing a significant backlog, I appreciate the help of non-admins in good standing helping out, and I don't appreciate editors latching onto that status to object to a move theyjust don't like.--BDD(talk)21:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some support!voters made very weak arguments, such as procedural complaints, as well. I don't think procedural concerns were the crux of the argument for those on either side, though. Likewise, there were policy arguments madesupportingthe article remaining at the title including "Rodham," as well. Culling those two points of your endorse, it seems to boil down to, in yours words, "a [slim] majority of editors in the discussion supported the move," which I'm sure is just as inaccurate a summary of your logic as is your unconsidered dismissal of those opposing the move withwp:idontlikeit.user:j (talk)23:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not really an inaccurate summary of my logic. Some people like to bandy aboutWP:NOTAVOTE,but when both sides make policy-based arguments (which is really the norm), the majority opinion should be preferred in absence of a compelling reason not to. Besides the danger of endorsingsupervotes,ignoring majority opinions is only going to irritate and alienate editors. Yeah, it wasn't a huge majority, but would one more editor chiming in with "Support per whoever" be enough for clear consensus? Two? Three? How much of a majority is necessary? And whatever you think of the yogurt rule, it's applicable here. Not counting anyone who would feel wounded over this decision, we're unlikely to see a new RM to re-insert the middle name. --BDD(talk)05:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narrowly more editors "chiming in with 'support per whoever'" than the alternative does not a consensus make, clear or otherwise. Which is one of the reasons why twice as many of the editors inthisreview who did not participate in the original discussion have voted to overturn the close. (By my rough math, for those uninvolved in the original requested move, it's twelve to overturn, five to endorse. Including those who participated in the original discussion, it's 21 to overturn, 13 to endorse.)user:j (talk)08:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close.An article has to have a title, whether a consensus for any particular title exists or not. Obiwan has given an exceptionally well-reasoned analysis of the issues involved in selecting this title. Various recent events, including the establishment ofa "Hillary Clinton" Twitter account,suggest that subject now wants to be referred to this way, or has at least made her peace with the fact that people will continue to refer to her as Hillary Clinton whether she likes it or not. Her 1993 name-clarification announcement is pretty stale at this point.Kauffner(talk)01:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing extended rehash of her Twitter handle.user:j (talk)00:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Twitter myth was thoroughly debunked in the requested move discussion. It would not technically have been possible for her to have chosen @HillaryRodhamClinton, nor would it have been possible for her to have used "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as her display name. Both are considerably longer than Twitter permits (in order to maintain backwards compatibility with SMS character limitations). Further, her official biographies (ignoring the fact that "official" is a dirty word due to an essay here) continue to refer to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference, so I don't think her 1993 statements can be described as "stale" nor discarded.user:j (talk)01:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's 15 characters for the username, 20 for the display name.[3]So she could be "HillaryRodhamClinton@HillaryRClinton" if she so desired.Kauffner(talk)04:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made my point for me by pointing out how absurd both of those look. Her name isn't "HillaryRClinton," it's Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have not, even once, seen "Rodham" reduced to an initial on anything from the White House, her Senate office, nor the Department of State. I think it would be reasonable to assume, when it can't be spelled out, she'd probably rather it be omitted. Thankfully, we can have article titles much longer than fifteen characters here at Wikipedia.:)user:j (talk)07:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paying attention to twitter reflects very poorly on us with respect to the building of a respected, authoritative, reference work. We should be looking at reputable reference and academic publications, not recently fashionable social media. --SmokeyJoe(talk)08:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you don't know the half of it. They have this thing nowadays, it's called "the news media." It's like some sort of newfangled version ofActa Diurna,if you can imagine that. This was huge in the US media, withHillary Clinton Twittergetting almost 76,000 GNews hits. I linked to theWashington Post`s version above.Kauffner(talk)09:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight, Hillary Diane Rodham has never legally changed her name. It has always been Hillary Rodham. She went by Mrs. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton beginning in 1982 to help her husband get elected. She went by Hillary Rodham Clinton beginning in 1993 and throughout her political career, although in 2008 her presidential campaign, and not her, referred to her as Hillary Clinton in 49 states. In New York she was still called Hillary Rodham Clinton. But she is clearly best known as Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that is the name used as author for all of her books.Apteva(talk)16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So her campaign couldn't get her name right? Surely she is better known as a politician than as a book author.Kauffner(talk)21:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let go of the Twitter myth, Kauffner. It, by far, is the least persuasive argument that was made in the original move request, and it's even less persuasive here (as this is not — at least it is not supposed to be — a revote). As was previously pointed out to you, her preferred name wouldn't fit if typed properly. But it's really quite irrelevant, as Twitter is probably the least desired method for us to source an article title from, especially when there are sources such as, say, the New York Times.^[4]user:j (talk)21:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if they allowed 22 characters, she would gone have with "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but a display name like "HillaryRodhamClinton" would have cramped her style? Hey, believe that if it makes you feel happier. Whether Twitter handles in general are a good source for names is beside the point. This one has been hugely publicized and analysed. I thought if I took an example that was currently in the news, it would be more likely to strike a chord. As far as theNew York Timesgoes, both theWall Street JournalandUSA Todayare more widely read.Kauffner(talk)23:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn.Bad close, basically a supervote by non-admin. Obiwankenobi should get a trout for this, and I will make sure to watchlist the following pages so that I can bring up his fractious bulldozer style at article moves:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Obiwankenobi,Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Obiwankenobi.There were too many oppose votes based on solid policy and on BLP preference to conclude anything except "no consensus". Obiwankenobi has made a farce of process.Binksternet(talk)22:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold and closing the discussion is okay. Butrunning and hidingto avoid scrutiny after is another.Calidum Sistere22:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calidum, who or what does this comment refer to? You can't possibly be talking about Obiwan, who engaged in the present discussion vigorously and repeatedly, and only stopped because he was criticized for engaging too much. --MelanieN(talk)23:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@SlimVirgin, what does Tim have to do with this? GOF reverted my close, and moved the pages, then reverted himself, and moved the pages back, so Tim's work has already been undone twice by another admin. I don't think he needs to be dragged through the mud here for simply enacting a close.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)07:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarc: "This is why non-admins aren't allowed within a mile of discussion (RM, AfD, etc...) closes that aren't crystal-clear snow cases" Where do you find this guidance? The most recent thread I could find on this, hereWikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#Non-AfD_NACsseemed pretty clear that non-admins closing discussions was ok, and even welcome, even for controversial closes. They gave several examples of non-admins closing highly controversial discussions, like Ireland/Republic of Ireland. Also, I don't appreciate your bullshit characterization of what I did during the novelists fiasco. I never once ghettoized a woman novelist by removing her from a category with men and leaving her only in a category with women, and I de-ghettoized at least a hundred, developed a de-ghettoizing algorithm, and am currently working with a developer on category intersection which will solve this problemen-masseif it works. In any case, what happened there is completely irrelevant to this close. Shall I drag in your multitude of insults over the years to (basically, everyone) to discredit your comments here?
@Everyone else: You may notice Tarc's subtle character attack and name calling. This is rather droll, coming from someone who has a whole website out there devoted to cataloging his well-known bullying ways. I won't even quote some of Tarc's most foul utterances, but suffice to say they are not for the faint of heart.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)13:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My "guidance" come from both common sense andWP:NAC,which you can review at your leisure. As for the "whole website", I presume this is in reference to Daniel Brandt's blog? Brandt is a boogeyman from Wikipedia past, long known for "doxing" many admins and editors but sadly also known for some laughingly inaccurate summations. The small bits that are truthful are entirely off-wikipedia, i.e. beyond your purview. We're talking aboutyouractions here, anyways; less deflection on your part would be good.Tarc(talk)13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnedon, I realize it was you who was making the terminology discussions around "concise". I've readWP:ATseveral times, and the description of concise, is, well, concise. It says: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." So I think my interpretation of the arguments for conciseness was in line with policy, and your arguments went beyond it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)15:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the survey section above, you only used the first four words of the sentence and clearly gave that as the full meaning. It is not. In any case, the fact that the sentence follows the word "conciseness" doesn't somehow provide a new definition of the word.Omnedon(talk)16:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've corrected that to have the full definition above. I don't think it changes a thing. I looked at this issue of conciseness quite carefully, as I mentioned it was one of the policy points that tipped the scale in my mind, and if you look again, you will see that MANY of the support!votes mentioned it, while only 2 by my count opposed it - you, and J. J said concise means "as brief as is encyclopedically possible." - this is an interpretation, not covered by policy, no-one else took it up, so I discounted it. You said "It's not only about brevity -- concision strikes the balance between brevity and comprehensiveness". In my original analysis, I also discounted your argument - first because no-one else made it, even those on your side, and secondly, because the policydoesn't say that(in fact the lede ofWP:ATsays: "the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." so they use SHORT to fill in for CONCISE). In general, if a wikipedia policy uses a word, and then defines what we mean by that word right after, that holds more weight than a dictionary definition of a word.

However, even if I do grant you that, and we assume concise really means brevity + comprehensiveness and that is what was fully intended inWP:AT,you didn't follow up that argument to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton is somehow less concise that Hillary Rodham Clinton - e.g. that HC is NOT a comprehensive, brief description of the subject, and no-one else took up that argument either.

Concise andWP:PRECISIONwas a weak point in the oppose argument, while thesupportside hammered on it again and again,~~and so it's not surprising you're now harping on it and trying to lawyer your way around it,~~but in my neutral judgement, theopposeteam did not put forth a good case why HRC is eitherprecise enoughvs HC (with WP:PRECISE, the explicit goal isprecise enough, but no more), nor did they make a strong case why HRC is somehow moreconcisethan HC. If such arguments had been made, I would have considered them.

My assessment, as stated many times, is that HC beats HRC for precise and concise, the support votes hammered this point home, and there was little resistance. What was *not* sufficiently recognized, IMHO, in the discussion, was the fact that some people were arguing from policy, while some people were arguing from "other stuff" - but it's the job of the closer to judge adherance to policy, and then guidance. "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

The resistance that was there toconcisewas of the formWP:OSE- e.g. we haveDwight_D._EisenhowerandLyndon B. JohnsonandBoeing B-17 Flying Fortressetc. I personally am not against WP:OSE arguments, as they demonstrate a consensus elsewhere in the wikipedia, and if broad enough, can be used to demonstrate a global consensus. However, WP:OSE arguments cannot compare to a clear, crisp, policy-based argument. You have to weigh the weight of different types of appeal to authority, and appeal to policy is the strongest of all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are bordering on being offensive. I am not trying to "lawyer my way around" anything; you have spent a great deal of effort parsing policies, but when someone else does it, they are lawyering?. I have assumed good faith on your part; you need to do the same.

The definition of "concise" has figured in several other discussions in which I've been involved. It is frequently misunderstood to mean the shortest possible title. As for the phrase "as short as encyclopedically possible" -- this IS an encyclopedia, so that is a clarification, not an interpretation. You do not have the right to discount an argument simply because only one person makes it, or because it is not made with a large number of words again and again.

You used the phrase "hammered away" when referring to theproside, as if you somehow feel that repeated application of the same argument over and over is supposed to make it more valid. There was disagreement throughout the discussion as to what reliable sources to use, and which should have most weight, and there were arguments on both sides using that same principle as a basis.

As for "short" "filling in" for "concise" in the nutshell of WP:AT -- for one thing, "short" is one thing and "shortest" is another. In any case, the nutshell is just that; it cannot encapsulate the entire policy.

You mention thatmanysupporters use an argument while only two opposers use it -- yet you have many times dismissed the idea of vote-counting. This is a form of vote-counting; it seems to matter to you very much how many times a single argument is applied and restated, and with how much vigor. Some editors make their arguments in shorter forms, and some do so with a great deal of wordiness, and not all editors on one side chime in to agree with what has already been stated by someone else. Yet you seem to give more weight to those that talk more loudly.Omnedon(talk)21:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't!vote count as stated, but I did weigh policy-based arguments more strongly if more people referred to them and provided evidence and arguments thereto- that is whatWP:CONSENSUStells us to do (there's an explicit quote, I can find it you need) I did not mean to be offensive and I struck that section above, so I'm sorry. I agree, there was a good discussion about which reliable sources to use, which is why COMMONNAME was not the deciding factor for me, and I wouldn't have found for a move based on that alone - it was clear cut application of the other two policies which swayed the balance - and the fact that multiple supporters referenced those policies (which means I did not supervote that idea into existence).--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obiwankenobi: Here and elsewhere you say you simply "weigh policy-based arguments" or just "follow where the arguments take you", but I should point out that you're doing more than that: you're making decisions about which arguments you yourself favor based in some cases on more (or less) than the results of the discussion itself, and in some cases on more than just policy. (And regarding policy arguments in particular, I'll come back to those later.)

To take just one example: you've stated several times that you think that on the subject of COMMONNAME, opponents "lost on strong evidence", and cite in your conclusion that you consider an ngram chart showing different frequencies of usage of shorter and longer forms of the same name in books "a great example" (while noting that opponents didn't contest the differing figures). However, this begs the question (whichwasexplicitly debated without reaching consensus) of whether ngram counts are even a suitable metric in the first place when comparing longer and shorter forms of a single name for the purposes of titling – an apropos question given that abbreviated forms are often used for expediency after a longer but favored form is first established or understood through context. Some asserted that the ngram was a good basis, others that it was not. You decided that it was, but I don't see how that can be considered a policy decision. What policy governs how/when/whether a frequency ngram in a book is appropriate to determination of title, or how much weight it should receive? I don't think there is one. Instead, this was a point that required consideration through discussion, and indeed itwasboth consideredandchallenged, with commentators coming down on both sides of the issue. In a similar vein, you dismiss one side or the other on a contested point with statements like "I found this argument weak" and "I don't think there's lots of evidence..." It may very well be the case that you yourself favor some arguments as stronger (or reject some as weaker), and in fact thisdoesappear to be the case since you explicitly say so yourself. However, many others – the RM's participants – clearly disagreed.

As some like MelanieN have already correctly pointed out, your favoring of a particular views in a divided discussion would be perfectly acceptable as aparticipant in the discussion,since that's the role of participants: to voice their opinions on relevant matters, discuss why they hold them, and work in good faith to reach consensus. However: you chose not to be a participant in the debate, and instead assumed the role of a closer – and that role is different. I guess to put it simply,this seems to be a situation where you as an editor had the well-intentioned but nonetheless mistaken goal of trying to "pick a winner" in a divided discussion that lacked consensus.Further, it was undertaken by not just evaluating the results of the discussion but by making your own determinations of which arguments (both policy and non-policy) you personally considered weak or strong – again, done in spite of a lack of consensus on such matters from lengthy and honest discussion by the participants themselves. I think it needs to be clearly understood that a finding of no consensus in such a situation is perfectly appropriate, but for a closer to somehow impose a consensus extracted from a discussion that has not clearly produced one – despite considerable discussion and valid arguments voiced by many users on both sides – is not.╠╣uw[talk]10:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I urge you to readWP:CONSENSUSand especiallyWikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome.The word "judgement" and "quality of arguments" appear, and closers are explicitly given the role to reject or discount arguments not based on policy. They aren't supposed to bring NEW policies into play, but only use those policies which the majority of participants invoke, which I did. Thus, when I say an argument is "weak", what I mean is, "Not based on policy" or "logically fallacious" or "irrelevant" or "flatly contradicts policy as written". I already mentioned below that there was extensive discussion on COMMONNAME and ngrams and analysis and so on, and while my read was that the evidence and consensus from the majority of participants was still that COMMONNAME applied for Hillary Clinton (even some oppose!voters conceded this), that was not the determinant. In other words, all else being equal, I would not have found consensus for move ONLY based on COMMONNAME, because of the vigorous debate. However, the debate was much less muted on WP:PRECISION and WP:CRITERIA, and the oppose arguments for why HRC fit WP:PRECISION or Concise better were rejected by me as NOT ADHERING TO POLICY. It was a judgement call, and all closers make judgement calls of how well an argument applies to a policy, and the guidelines for closing explicitly give rights to the closer to reject arguments that aren't based on policy. That is the very definition of a close in a complex discussion. Anyway, I've said enough here. I was NOT trying to pick a winner, as I stated many times already, I went in with intention to close as NC, and only through careful analysis found that there was a clear policy-based consensus to move.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)13:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed up in more detailin our discussion at my talk page;I think that's preferable in order to avoid further spamming this forum. Anyone interested, please read on there.

One small item I'll briefly note inline before signing out is thatWP:CONSENSUScalls for discussion participants to advance reasons based not just in policy but also in sources and common sense. To say "xisn't policy, so I'm rejecting it "ignores this and devalues the important role of discussion in ensuring sensible,community-approvedaction – rather than (as we have here) a single editor's opinion about what "ADHERES TO POLICY" (emphasis yours) in a discussion that produced no agreement. Anyway, continued on the talk page...╠╣uw[talk]02:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil, I obviously disagree, but especially on SUPERVOTE - I hope you will reconsider your analysis. A contentious discussion does NOT mean NC; when one side has policy on their side, and the other side is makingWP:OSEarguments orWP:THETITLEHASBEENHEREALONGTIME,there can still be a consensus decision that goes against the wishes of the oppose side, and that does not make it a supervote. That's what surprised me here - at first glance, it does seem like NC, but when you look at policy-based vs non-policy-based arguments, and map them all out (which I did), there is a clear winner in terms of adherence to policy. I actually thought it would be more balanced than it was. Commonname, WP:PRECISE, and conciseness - these are all headline items inWP:AT,and Hillary Clinton passes all of these tests with flying colors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)18:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you plan to repeat this? And when are you going to acknowledge the plain language atWP:RMNAC:"Non-admin closes normally require:The consensus or lack of consensus is clearafter a full listing period (seven days). "?— Precedingunsignedcomment added byMelanieN(talk•contribs) 20:02, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, my first reaction was that this was a clear NC close. Further study convinced me this was actually a clear consensus close, once you focus on policy-based arguments, which is what CONSENSUS MEANS. I acknowledge that language, but the presence or lack of a bit is no longer relevant to this discussion, which should be judged on its merits.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)20:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider the non-admin issue irrelevant; I do not. One of my proposals above was that you should be counseled about non-admin closures. Your continued refusal to recognize the obvious - that this discussion was not an appropriate one for a non-admin closure - makes me wonder if you understand what non-admin closure is all about, or if you should be enjoined from making any further closures. That is not something for me to determine, but I bring it up for consideration by those whose role it is to think about such things. --MelanieN(talk)20:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read this,then get back to me. There is no clear consensus that non-admins can never close any contentious discussions anywhere on the wiki. If you want to make that the case, start an RFC, but you will likely not prevail. Non-admins have closed some of the most contentious RMs in wikipedia history, such as Ireland/Republic of Ireland. Try arguing this particular case on it's merits MelanieN, not on mop-lackingness.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)20:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a discussion, with various people chiming in, and no summing up or conclusion reached. It certainly did not result in any change to the clear instructions atWP:RMNAC.--MelanieN(talk)20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well this is *also* just a discussion - and the one I pointed you to had some very good points, made by some very senior editors. I wonder if *you've* read the instructions at WP:RMNAC. They say, for example, "normally" require, not "always" require. They also say such a move should not be reverted just because the person was not an admin. And they don't define for whom consensus must be clear. In any case, that's what MR is for. I made a call, some people disagree, life will go on, don't get hung up about it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)21:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is that non-admin closes require CLEAR consensus. It should be quite obvious from the discussion there, and the discussion here, that it was anything but clear. When you have to provide this sort of voluminous explanation to even attempt justification, then that is surely an indication that consensus was not CLEAR. You have found what you feel to be consensus, but you essentially took a position on this subject. Your first instinct, a no-consensus close, was correct.Omnedon(talk)20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there was "actually a clear consensus close" there, then you quite frankly lack the ability to determine the outcome of any deletion/move/etc discussion in this project, as that is about as far from the truth as one can get here. Simply disagreeing with ones side does not invalidate their positions, so outside of a raft of "Keep I like it the way it is" votes, you simply cannot ignore the split of the discussion. Evaluating consensus does not mean you pick a side that you agree with and close in that direction. This is falling into a bit ofDunning-Krugerhere, the inability to recognize one's mistakes and learn from them.Tarc(talk)20:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have different definitions. Y'all may disagree, but to me it was indeed clear at the moment I made the decision, and other non-participants have already agreed with my call. In hindsight, some don't agree, so obviously it was less clear to others. The problem is it takes time to eliminate all of the fluff arguments and the emotion and get to the meat, and I doubt most!voting here have taken as much time as I have with this discussion, mapping all the arguments, and comparing them to policies - but once you strip it all away, perWP:AT,the consensus was clear, and as I said before, there was rough consensus on all three major points - common, precise, concise. Many of those opposed were passionately making arguments that had no bearing whatsoever on wikipedia titling policy, so most of those arguments were discounted perWP:CONSENSUS.The oppose side made very FEW policy-based arguments - the main one they did make was COMMONNAME, and that one they lost on very strong evidence, and they even started to concede it at the end. I did *not* pick a side I agreed with, I followed the arguments where they took me, and applied the arguments made with a lens of wikipedia policy. I'm not saying oppose didn't make good, cogent, logical arguments - they DID - but the supporters were just much more focused on policy-based arguments - and my understanding of consensus is that policy-based-arg will beat a logic-based arg any day, unless you IAR. If it had been policy vs policy, this would have closed no-consensus, easily, or then you get into guidance and officialname and other ancillary arguments. But that wasn't the argument presented. HC beat HRC 3-to-zero on titling policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a few non-participants have agreed with your call; but very few, compared to those who disagree with what you did, both from theproandconside of the discussion. You inaccurately characterize the result as 3 to 0 in terms of policy-based arguments, as if there were none whatsoever on theconside. That's simply not true. WP:AT was used by both sides; there is a lot of text in that policy. You refer to three different sections of the same policy; both sides used various aspects of that policy to support their arguments. One editor in particular, B2C (the proposer) is known for flooding discussions with large amounts of text and claiming that arguments have not been addressed or refuted when they have. This is becoming similar: large amounts of text claiming that no policy-based arguments were made, when they were.Omnedon(talk)21:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not judge the score here until it's done, okay? What I meant by the shorthand 3-0 is that in my judgement, HC surpassed HRC on the 3 key policies that were discussed again and again by BOTH sides. No significant other details ofWP:ATwere used by any of the oppose editors as far as I recall. So, again, I'm not claiming the other side didn't make policy-based arguments, I'm saying that in the determination of consensus (which means applying arguments to policy), their arguments did not hold up to snuff - they were simply weaker, and less based on what is actually written inWP:ATand more based on extensions to it. I've just looked it over again - can you find for me the three strongest, policy-based arguments from that discussion, that aren't about COMMONNAME? Even if you call a tie of COMMONNAME, the other two policies sway it towards HC. I feel like you won't be convinced unless I map every single oppose argument against the policy it invokes or references, and then compare that to the supports. The result wouldn't be pretty.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)04:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obiwankenobi: Delving into the argumentsyoufeel are stronger or weaker is fine – as a participant. This is the kind of thing that the many commentators did at length in the discussion. However, for you as acloserto impose in what was throughout a very divided discussion your opinions that "I thinkxargument is weak "," I dismissedy","I favorz",etc. is not IMHO appropriate, and is essentially a supervote... andthatis what's "not pretty". To be clear, I don't suggest that closers have an easy job, nor do I suggest that they should not examine discussions: for instance, if this was a situation where a couple of people simply kept shouting "I just don't like it", then that would be one thing. But, as many editors have pointed out and you yourself admit, it's clear that this is not such a case. Many reasonable points were raised on both sides by many participants, with no consensus being reached – and in such a situation it's not the job of a closer to "pick a winner".

That said, I totally get that you don't agree with all of this: you personally favor some arguments as stronger and dismiss others as weaker, and seemingly consider that discrepancy which you see to constitute consensus. But please understand that while that's your opinion, that's a very different thing from the actual result of the discussion. As a closer in such a situation, you simply cannot cast a supervote on what arguments you personally feel are best; instead, if after reasonable debate the participants cannot agree on clear support for the move, then it's not moved, perWP:NOCONSENSUS.╠╣uw[talk]13:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from too, and in my shorthand and numerous replies I haven't always spelled out in full detail what I mean by things like "this argument is weaker". However, let me again point you toWP:CONSENSUS,which explicitly uses the word "quality of arguments". The closing instructions explicitly use the words judgement/judge several times. Thus, in my understanding, closers do have leeway to judge the quality of arguments, and their applicability to policy, and that's what I did. Finally, I am not saying both sides didn't have strong, logical arguments, they did. But if we break it down simply, we could tally thus:

Policy-based arguments:

WP:COMMONNAME:(much debate from both sides, but slight edge given to support due to evidence provided, and concession by several oppose voters)

WP:PRECISE:(hammered by support, slight resistance from oppose but I discarded that as not being based on policy as written, or invokingWP:OSE)

WP:CRITERIA(concise): (much argument by support, slight resistance from oppose, but I discarded that as not being based on policy as written, rather based on extended interpretation of what the word concise means)

WP:TITLECHANGES:Only brought up by one oppose!voter, and contested by support. Reading it, I don't see that TITLECHANGES means you cant' change the title if there are "good" reasons. Support explicitly brought "good reasons" to the table, arguing for a change in usage over time.

Non-policy-based arguments:

WP:OSE:(as exception toWP:PRECISION) This was widely rejected by support, and only a few oppose argued using this

WP:OFFICIALNAME:This one was no-contest, oppose clearly owns this.

That's obviously not the complete tally of all arguments, several others were made, but the basic point is, when you tally the policy-based vs non-policy based arguments, support made stronger policy-based arguments and brought evidence to boot, and the opposition was discarded in my judgement as not understanding the policy as written.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a redux of the whole RM discussion that we've just had, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to spam this forum (any more than it already has been). If you or anyone else is interested in reading on, discussion continueshere.╠╣uw[talk]01:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...when one side has policy on their side, and the other is making WP:OSE arguments..."

"...a policy-based arg will beat a logic-based arg any day..."

"...if it had been policy vs. policy, this would have closed no-consensus..."

"...HC beat HRC 3-to-zero on titling policy..."

At first, and throughout your earlier comments, you were mainly claiming that theproside was mostly using policy and theconside was mostly not, using what you called "soft issues" and "logic-based args". Now you say that it was about the "3 key policies that were discussed again and again by BOTH sides", but that one side was stronger than the other. So it comes down to your own personal interpretation of policy, in which case (as has been stated before) you should have participated in the discussion once you decided it wasn't a no-consensus close after all, rather than closing. This makes your close a supervote.Omnedon(talk)12:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omnedon. I appreciate your position, and I stand by my statements, that the pro side WAS mostly using policy, and the con side WAS mostly using "soft" issues, such as "official name", WP:OSE (as an exception to WP:PRECISION), etc. Both sides did address and discuss COMMONNAME extensively, and as I mentioned now many many times, the evidence for COMMONNAME given by searches of news sources, ngrams, book titles, and others, was convincing, but it wasn't convincing enough to completely sway the argument. In other words, I granted that COMMONNAME may hold for HC, but it was a close call, and I would not have found consensus to move based solely on that. instead, it was the other two - which were hammered by the pro side, and mentioned by a few of the con side (thus, allowing me as closer to apply those policies, per WP:CONSENSUS). I weighed the arguments, and it wasn't a personal interpretation of policy, it was a judgement call, which all closers must make. Otherwise, you would have arguments like the following:

side A: "title A is better because of WP:COMMONNAME, because here are 54 sources that demonstrate this."

side B: "title B is better because of WP:COMMONNAME, because I found this one website that says this"

Closer: Well, both sides invoked COMMONNAME, and I can't interpret that policy, therefore, it's a no-consensus.

I've studied a lot of closes over the years, and if you read WP:CONSENSUS, it states "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." That to me clearly implies the closer is allowed to judge the quality of the arguments. Then onWikipedia:Closing_discussions,it says "Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal.", and then "He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently enough to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant." I have read this stuff again and again, very carefully, both before, during, and after this close. I have outlined my reasons above for rejecting certain arguments made by OPPOSE on WP:PRECISE and Concise, and I don't want to rehash them again. It was a judgement call, which is the very definition of a closing, but I did not decide or add my own views, I simply weighed the various arguments, downgraded those not based on policy, and this is the result.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)13:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have now studied the earlier four move discussions. I didn't read them before, as I didn't want them to influence my close, which should be based on the arguments presented. One thing which amazed me is that

1. discussion 1 was closed as no-consensus-to-move, but I would have closed as STRONG KEEP - so we need to get our language straight. There was clear consensus there to keep. #2 was also a pretty clear keep.
2. In all of the previous discussions, COMMONNAME rarely shows up, only in the last two, but used weakly.
3. WP:PRECISEandWP:CRITERIAare never invoked until this most recent discussion, or if they are, they aren't referenced/debated/discussed. Which is surprising to me.

On balance, the "move" supporters strengthened their arguments over time, while the "oppose" voters maintained more or less the same stance. It worked for a while, but eventually the 3-sections-of-the-titling-policy argument won out (IMHO). --Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)21:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Would you care to offer a 2nd opinion on theLincoln-Douglas debates,theScopes monkey trial,andRoe v. Wadewhile you're at it? Reaching into the past and offering one's own spin on long-closed discussions may be an interesting academic exercise, but it has no application at all to the matter at hand.Tarc(talk)22:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point being, much meal was made of the fact that this has already closed 4 times as NC. I was simply pointing out that the arguments mounted by "support" in the past 4 moves were rather weak, compared to this last one. And I was pointing out that two key policy-based arguments were not mooted until this time around.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)04:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole, re IAR. None of the participants explicitly (or even implicitly, IMO) invoked IAR. Instead, the arguments you outlined above were couched by both sides in terms ofWP:OFFICIALNAME,which is not a policy, and this was widely discussed by both sides and I deeply considered the "official name" argument, and gave the oppose side credit for this particular argument. If it had come down to a split on policy issues, the official name would have swayed in the oppose direction. But the discussion didn't go that way, and as mentioned many times, two other policy-based considerations, namely WP:PRECISE and WP:CRITERIA, swayed the other direction.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)13:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they "invoked IAR", whatever that means, and I'm fairly sure there's no rule anywhere saying you have to spell it out. You simply do it when appropriate. You're saying that the subject's express preference and the use in most (all?) official situations may be disregarded because we don't have a rule that says we can take those into account.

Are you assuming that IAR isn't really a policy,or that our present title policy is so perfect and all-embracing that there are no circumstances under which "non-policy" arguments may have value? --Anthonyhcole(talk·contribs·email)14:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closers aren't allowed to bring in policies that aren't invoked in the discussion. That is explicit in the guidance for closing discussions. That *would* definitely be a supervote. I'm also not saying that the officialname arguments aren't strong - they are, and I gave them credit as mentioned. However, they are not policy, so when you have adherance to one title based on three parts ofWP:AT,and the strongest argument from the oppose side is based on something that isn't policy, policy wins (IMHO). But that's also whatWP:CONSENSUSsays.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I missed the bit about closers being unable to take account of policies that aren't expressly invoked in the discussion. Can you point me to it, please? It was my understanding that closers determine consensus by evaluating the arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, while giving due consideration to all the relevant policies, guidelines and naming conventions.--Anthonyhcole(talk·contribs·email)14:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I worded that too strongly. The language I was referring to is this: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy" fromWikipedia:Closing_discussions.Since IAR wasn't invoked, I think it would have been improper for me to invoke it in deciding this close, since none of the wikipedians referred to it (they referred instead to an existing guideline around officialname, thus they were not really proposing to IAR, they were saying "use this rule instead of that one".) Also, I think yes, a closer should be aware of all relevant policies, but it would be extremely improper for a closer to bring up a naming guideline that wasn't mentioned, for example, or even invoke some part ofWP:ATthat participants didn't address. In other words, the way I read it is, you judge based on the policies used by participants - and you don't bring in new policies not mentioned by them, except perhaps in extreme conditions. I noted below that I read the past closes on this issue, but the arguments in all past closes were much weaker, so I never would have closed any of them as move - to do so would have required bringing in policies not mentioned by any of the discussants. This close was based only on arguments presented.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This close was based only on arguments presented." No it wasn't.You disregarded the subject's on-the-record preference for HRC, and the fact that HRC is used in most (all?) official situations becauseWP:ATsays nothing about those cases. You're acting as ifWP:ATis complete, and there are no circumstances where factors not (yet) addressed in that policy can override the rules as they stand. Therewasno clear consensus. You had no grounds to ignore the very reasonable arguments of the oppose voters, just because they were (knowingly - they're all familiar with that policy) ignoring the existing rules in favor of respect for our subject. They were valid arguments, the proponents, all responsible Wikipedians, knew they were non-policy arguments, and you should have included them in your assessment of consensus. --Anthonyhcole(talk·contribs·email)15:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong.WP:ATdoes discuss it, right here: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's" official "name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Therefore, our policy is explicit about preferring common usage vs subject preference. I gave a slight edge to COMMONNAME for HC, based on evidence provided and number of participants invoking COMMONNAME as Hillary Clinton (even including some from OPPOSE that basically conceded it), but I would not have closed based on that alone. For example, if the two choices wereHillary ClintonandHillary Rodham,both being equally "as precise as they need to be" and concise, with COMMONNAME an edge for HC, and strong support forHillary Rodhamas theWP:OFFICIALNAMEand the name she prefers, then I would have closed in the other direction. But concise and precise are called out separately inWP:AT,and we shouldn't go outside ofWP:ATto non-policy essays if we have a clear winner, argued by the participants, using onlyWP:AT.That's whatWP:CONSENSUSmeans, when they say: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." --Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)15:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.I'd forgotten that. (It used to say, "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" until it wasdeletedrecently.) Anyway, that doesn't address the subject's preference. You can include consideration of the subject's preference withinin the scope of that lens. Itis within policyto take into account factors that are not (yet) addressed in policy. Our arguments are allowed to be premised on overlooking a rule, like concision or common name, in favour of a principle that is not addressed in policy, like the subject's declared preferred name.

NB a small interjection: "all of them fairly common" was not deleted itwas movedto a new paragraph and is still in the AT policy. --PBS(talk)10:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this, what if the RM discussion had unanimously agreed that, because the subject has stated 20 years ago that she prefers to be called HRC, we would ignore the trivial difference in concision and Google hits? Should that discussion then be closed in favour of HC or no consensus? If you agree that it should not, if you agree that in such a case, consensus favours the IAR option, then surely you still have to take account of the many opposers who support that position when the discussion is largely divided, and find no consensus in this case. --Anthonyhcole(talk·contribs·email)16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony. I appreciate your reasoned arguments, and your recognition that I have carefully considered and analyzed this, so thanks for the vote of good faith. That said, it is hard to do what-if scenarios, but let me present you with another clear what-if besides theHillary ClintonvsHillary Rodhamidea I provided above. Assume we have the same discussion in the RM, but with one addition: in the discussion, several of the oppose!voters say "Yes, we concede that per precision, concise, and commonname, Hillary Clinton probably wins out. However, the result of this is inacceptable, for the following 5 reasons. A, B, C, D, E. A) is because the subject herself has stated in places X, Y, Z that she prefers HRC, and that she does not like to be referred to as HC. Thus, even though OFFICIALNAME is an essay, and" subject's preference "is not written anywhere, we should IAR and keep at HRC, because the result is likely to be better for readers and the encyclopedia." And then, you have the "support" voters begrudgingly saying "Yes, IAR could possibly be applied here, but I still think COMMONNAME and PRECISE apply". So then you have a policy which was brought up by multiple voters and debated, and IAR was explicitly invoked, with reasoning given. Then, I probably would have closed as NC to move. But IAR wasn't invoked, and I still maintain it is improper for a closer to invoke it on his own. Instead of IAR, what I read is "Official name + subject preference" - and weighed that against "concise and precise". Concise and precise won out, as they are policy, and the others aren't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)17:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the opposers have to "invoke" IAR? Can't you just recognise that by arguing for the importance of the BLP subject's preference (when they all know it's not addressed inWP:AT) they are making an IAR argument? Where does this rule that they have to use the words IAR come from? The relevant policy simply says you, the closer, determine consensus by evaluating the arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, while giving due consideration to the relevant policies, guidelines and naming conventions. There is no consensus (agreement), not even rough consensus, in that RM discussion, and you confected a consensus by ignoring all of the opposers on invalid grounds. --Anthonyhcole(talk·contribs·email)04:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually at loggerheads with Anthony on a variety of issues, but he's nailing it on the head here. This was a bad close by an editor wholly unsuited to reading the consensus of the discussion. You cannot declare a "winner" in a discussion so evenly split, unless there are some makingcleararguments to avoid.This is why focusing on the non-admin close aspect is critical, despite the subjects desperate attempts to get people to ignore it. I have a smidgen of faith left in our admin corps that one of them would have known how to properly deal with an evenly-split discussion, and not have so blatantly supervoted to close on personal preference.Tarc(talk)16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Obiwankenobi's strident arguing forSarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown),an issue with significant feminist elements, and then coming here to close another highly-contested naming issue with significant feminist elements, both centering on the wife of a former national leader, was probably ill-advised. But I'm very impressed by the breadth and detail of his analysis. And he's not the first closer I've encountered who has disregarded a strongly- and widely-supported "policy free" argument in a discussion. It's a common error. --Anthonyhcole(talk·contribs·email)17:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can be just as wrong in 1,000 words and one can be in 10, I'm not impressed with the quantity of an argument; a person simply cannot be allowed to fabricate consensus where none exists. I think this will be the last I have to say on this topic, I just hope the right thing (a reversal) is done in the end. It'll be a Quorty-esque travesty if not.Tarc(talk)17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent comparison Tarc. Or, actually, it's not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)17:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any comment on my criticism above regarding the appropriateness of you closing this RM discussion while you're deeply involved, arguing stridently against the apparent consensus, atSarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown).Aside from the obvious striking similarities of the BLP subjects, there's a similarity in the arguments, too. At the Brown discussion, you're arguing meticulously on the basis of policy against experienced editors in good standing whose main thrust is really not covered in our very clunky and limited rule set. Do you think, on reflection, that you're the right person to be closing this Clinton discussion, and ignoring those who argue for principles not (yet) addressed in that incomplete and imperfect rule set? --Anthonyhcole(talk·contribs·email)04:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being beat up for responding too much here, so I'm going to stop unless absolutely required. I responded on your talk page. Short answer - the arguments and hinge-points of these debate are completely different, and the close here could easily be used to go against the arguments I'm making there, namely around CONCISE and PRECISE (as the solution I'm arguing for there is, frankly, neither, or at least, there are better options on those counts). Thus, I see no COI. Also, the two subjects are quite dissimilar. We have one who is a sitting secretary of state, candidate for president, while the other is almost entirely known for being spouse of a PM. Night and day in terms of reasons-for-notability in my opinion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)13:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small correction - Clinton is not the sitting secretary of state; she resigned effective February 1, 2013.John Kerryis her successor. --B2C 19:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAbove SmokeyJoe said "I note that the NAC closer has abandoned usual admin decorum in letting his close be reviewed as it stands, and accepting the decision of the community. For better or worse, this is one of the skills proven or learned from passing through the baptism of fire known as RfA." I assume he is referring to Obi-Wan's repeated, lengthy arguments here in defense of the close. (By my count, ObiWan has made more than twice as many edits to this thread as anyone else.) I agree with SmokeyJoe that this appears to be contrary to usual practice at MRV, and IMO it demonstrates once again the wisdom ofWP:RMNACin saying that non-admins should close only when the consensus or lack of consensus is clear. --MelanieN(talk)17:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, I agree. On the one hand, I can appreciate that the closer wishes to defend his decision; but on the other, the responses are both extremely repetitive and extremely extensive. The move should not have been closed in this manner; the resulting furor should have been foreseeable, given the extensiveness of the move discussion and the number of participants. Yet the closer expected the opposite reaction. Many of us have spent a great deal of energy on this, and it didn't have to be this way. It's a no-consensus situation. When the move was originally reverted, it should have been left that way. Yet here we are, and I feel that one reason is inexperience, as well as a tendency to disregard opposing views.Omnedon(talk)18:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have an essay for that;Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process.One sees this sort of behavior in AfDs, where the nominator feels compelled to respond to each and every opposition opinion.Tarc(talk)19:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic. The purpose of Move Review is to discuss and determine whether the closing editor followed policy and made a proper good-faith decision. His behavior after the fact has no bearing on the merits of the close itself. Perhaps if he were to remain silent in the face of accusations of "supervote" and picking apart every word of his closing, you would be asking, "why hasn't the closer weighed in to defend himself? His silence speaks volumes." He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Questioning his closure (in part) on the basis that he is not a admin is, by definition, not something an admin has to deal with. Therefore criticizing him for not conducting himself with the "usual admin decorum" is a bit unfair. Perhaps the very fact that he is not an admin requires a more vociferous involvement in the discussion.--William Thweatt^Talk^Contribs20:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't off-topic at all, and gets to the heart of why non-admins areinstructedto only close discussions where the consensus is CLEAR. Let us reviewWP:RMNAC;

"If you are not an administrator you should only close certain types of requests;... Non-admin closes normally require: The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days).... Many editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates. Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved."

Note that part "The consensus or lack of consensus is clear".What means is just what it says, C-L-E-A-R, as innot a snowball's chance in hellthat any other reasonable person would see it differently, that there is no possible way the discussion would end differently. "The consensus or lack of consensus is clear"does NOT mean" it is clear to ME (i.e. the potential non-admin discussion-closer) that the consensus lies in X direction, so I will close it as X ". That is what Obiwankenobi did, he took a move discussion where the consensus was not clear, and began to evaluate the opinions of the commenters. Right at that precise point was where theWP:RMNACviolation occurred; as soon as a non-admin begins the evaluation/weighing process, that should be the Klaxon Signal to "Stop", and back out immediately. That this was an improper non-admin close is completely not in doubt here, and any of those who have weighed in with "endorse close", some of them editors who are simply endorsing their initial opinion to move & rename, are really missing the point of why we're here.Tarc(talk)21:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mischaracterize all of us that!voted endorse. As I noted above, I would have rather an admin close it and actually personally would have slightly preferred HRC ( HC seems to define her too much by her relationship to her husband ) but the policies don't support that. The consensus seemed clear to me when I looked at the RM and Obiwankenobi's reasoning is sound. I do have concerns with the precedents this might sight, and the closer of this MRV should address those points. But can't vote overturn close just because I don't like the outcome, or worry that others might take this as suddenly a reversal of RMNAC. BTW, note the word "normally require" ( including in the bit that you quoted ) before the list of conditions in RMNAC.PaleAqua(talk)03:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that word "normallly" too. What exactly was not "normal" about this discussion, such that a non-admin needed to close it even though consensus or lack-of-consensus wasn't obvious? --MelanieN(talk)05:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that there are exceptions. It is mostly to avoid discussions such as this one; a crystal clear SNOW cases it is unlikely to have been so heavily discussed. That said just because the person closing was not an admin does not suddenly make their reasoning incorrect, and to me it seems like they have correctly determined consensus. That puts it into the exceptional case.PaleAqua(talk)14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we use consensus decision making, but in this case there was not a clear consensus, and at best can be said to have chosen which arguments to consider in determining the outcome, but to call that outcome a consensus is a stretch.Apteva(talk)16:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, I will point out a recently-closed discussion of something I nominated for deletion,Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:OMGNUDEHUMANBODIES.Roughly 7 deletes, 9 keeps,m and 3 userfy, closed as no consensus. That's what a closer does in that situation, recognize that there is a split and note that people have not come to any sort of agreement on the matter.Tarc(talk)12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at the XfD, you are leaving out a step in that. The way you phrase it implies a closer is supposed to go from the straight tally of the votes to the result. ( A straight tally would have been only 36% delete. ) The closer is supposed to consider the arguments, not the number of people or even if the people have come up with a mutual compromise; they are supposed to weigh the arguments made by all parties.PaleAqua(talk)14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I know that among other things,supervotingincludes the use of reasoning not found in the discussion. Statements like the following seem concerning:

"Since Obama is shorter than Barack Obama, wouldn't we move him there to be more concise by the same reasoning? I found this argument weak... and I don't think there is lots of evidence that there are RS that *only* refer to Obama as Obama..."

I don't see that the discussion introduced this claim. (Even if it had been, it doesn't seem accurate, with a preliminary Google search indicatinga sizable numberof hits.)╠╣uw[talk]00:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

argh. I'm trying to stay out of this, but I'm sorry, this simply isn't true - I did not bring this argument out of nowhere. YourObamaargument was disputed by a participant thusly: "Not even remotely comparable. You can't say that mentions of a surname in isolation are comparable to mentions of the combination of first and surname. The surname in isolation will be used multiple times in any article, while the combined first and surname will only be used, generally, about once (maybe slightly more if counting separate uses for title and captions), whether we are discussing Obama or Clinton." Also, your search is terribly flawed, but I don't wanna get into it, raw google searches are useless, we can talk on your talk page if you want to try to refine that search. It was a minor point, in any case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)01:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned its inaccuracy (and included a rough search) merely as an aside; accurate or not, it's not from the discussion. The user you quote says that a surname will be used multiple times after a full name is introduced; you're saying specifically that you don't think sources use only "Obama", something for which no claims or evidence was introduced.

I don't say this is huge (though you do use it in dismissing an argument); I just felt it might be relevant given the preceding claims/discussions of supervoting.╠╣uw[talk]10:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

im flabbergasted you are pushing the reductio-ad-absurdum argument of "obama" here as applied to concise. If taken to its limit, it would mean move this article, or Bill's, toClinton.i dont think anyone else took up your view, and support argued vigorously against, using the same argument oppose used for HRC (first usage full name, later usages shortened name). That's what i meant in my close, i was restating the support argument quoted, perhaps my rewording was less than ideal but it was certainly not a super-argument. Naming conventions are clear to avoid mononyms except in special cases, so,i cant see obama as anything more than a red herring.--Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk)16:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing? I'm not pushing anything, just noting an instance where I felt the closure didn't match the discussion: it's just a comment, and I apologize if it "flabbergasted" you. That said, I would ask that you please not mischaracterize my position in the debate: nowhere in the discussion did I advocate "mononyms" as titles.╠╣uw[talk]21:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, Obiwan, I think this whole thing is going on too long. I'm sure everyone realizes by now that you believe you found consensus. But so many people disagree that I do feel the community is being ignored here. It's just too disruptive to close with consensus where so many disagree that it's even there. In this case, I think Huw's point was that there were elements of your decision that weren't in the discussion.Omnedon(talk)03:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know at this point, I am losing the will to actually care. Obiwan justsavaged the closerof the "Sarah Brown, wife of..." discussion because it didn't go his way, just like what happened wit the admin who initially reversed the non-admin close at the Clinton discussion. So, hell, if this move review doesn't go the way that someone likes, we'll just see more of the same til it gets reversed, right? This is this kind of petty bullshit that just seriously makes one reconsider why the fuck one spends time trying to affect change on this project...Tarc(talk)04:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, some interesting comments from Obiwankenobi inhis MRseeking to overturn a closure he feels lacked sufficient consensus: "The closer was closing a contentious RM, on a page that had been up for move 5 times in the past, so they should not have been surprised at all that their decision was questioned, nor acted so irritated when people did so in good faith..."Quite so.╠╣uw[talk]23:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of HC's purported preference for HRC,Obi-Wan Kenobi(talk·contribs)explains:

"Likes to use" [HRC] is quite different from "Please don't call me HC", and again, evidence of HRC's preference presented in the RM was weak on this point - her signs/banners/logos/website/twitter/etc all say HC, and I didn't see any recent letters or communiques from HRC's office that clarified this point. OTOH, we have a precedent, of Ivory Coast and Burma, two whole countries (and thus filled with millions of citizens who might care) where encyclopedias call them Cote d'Ivoire and Myanmar, where the UN calls them this, and where they have written official diplomatic letters clearly asking people to stop calling them the other name, even very recently! And yet still, wikipedia moved them to the more broadly-known, simpler, and more recognizeable names - basically saying, we don't care about the country's preferences, we're following WP:AT. I've stated before I disagreed with both these moves, but on policy, both these moves are correct. The moves had wide participation, were both contested at move review, and yet they stood. So precedent for ignoring a subject's preferences when it conflicts with WP:CRITERIA is well established, and it was (partially) on that basis I made the decision I did.

I think it's an important point, so I've copied it here. --B2C 23:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/responses arein the thread(e.g.[5]).╠╣uw[talk]09:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I already linked to the source immediately above the quote... the hyperlinked"explains".--B2C 16:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.

Deadmaus– Closure endorsed, so the article will remain atDeadmaus.When closing the second requested move,User:Keith Dsaid the only option was to take the original close to move review. This is that move review, and the thing we're reviewing is thefirstmove discussion. Our task is to see whether the closer, BDD, followed the closing instructions atWP:RMCI.As it says near the top of this page,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 Requested Move discussion.When you check the comments below against that standard, you'll see that only a few are really on topic. One editor argued "Let us be realistic here people, and return the page to its former glory". I did not count that person's argument when deciding this result. Perhaps MRV is too new for people to know what arguments are proper. A couple of people asked for a better closing explanation. The person who opened this MRV was supposed to go to BDD *first*, before appealing the close. I filled that gap by making my own request to BDD, and here's the answer:
I don't have a great deal to say beyond what I did at MRV. Yes, I considered the numerical vote strongly. I know, I know, WP:NOTAVOTE and all that, but with both sides making policy-based arguments (basically, MOS:TM for the move and WP:COMMONNAME against), I don't think there was anything improper about doing so in this case. I also considered similar titles (cf. WP:CRITERIA), such as Korn and Kesha, a title which has been repeatedly validated in discussions despite more sources using the stylization Ke$ha. In these cases, MOS:TM has won out over COMMONNAME. I will admit, though, that this does not always occur, and some RMs have chosen the common, stylized name of a subject. --BDD (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

One editor has openedan RfC on the relevant clause of the MOS,which appears useful. If you have any further concerns about the title used for this musician or any related articles, consider asking BDD for suggestions. –EdJohnston(talk)02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

See the heated discussion at#Requested move 1,#deadmaus? really?and#Requested move 2.This is an article long stable atDeadmau5(the name it is clearly agreed meetsWP:COMMONNAME) and was recently moved (then reverted and moved again) to an invented name merely to avoid the embedded digit and some arcane aspect of WP:POLICY. (Common name and the implied neologism notwithstanding). There has been no clear consensus in any of this: comment appears split between "policy advocates" (an embedded digit makes baby jimbo cry) and "editors familiar with the work of Deadmau5".Andy Dingley(talk)20:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorseas closer. Perhaps Andy felt his hands were tied due to Keith D's close of the second move (in which he recommended MRV), but it looks to me as though Andy is simply unhappy with the outcome, and this is not an appropriate forum for rearguing the merits of the discussion ( "Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion" ). As I don't think anyone can credibly assert that I "did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI" or "was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM," I stand by my decision. --BDD(talk)20:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had it right first time - I'm unhappy about debate over a clearly controversial move being summarily closed with the advice to use MRV instead. If you disagree with that advice, then please re-open the discussion.Andy Dingley(talk)20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the move as I felt that the new move discussion was opened too soon after the previous discussion was closed as no move. Looks like the outcome that was wanted was not what happened so a new move request was made. I would expect a much longer period of time before a new move request is made so that consensus can change, 2 days is insufficient for consensus to change.Keith D(talk)21:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that position, but consensus did kinda change in the second one. The amount people voting support with quite strong ideas massively grew in the 2nd one, showing an almost definitive change in consensus.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)06:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The!votes in even the first one were 8:5:2, which isn't even a clear majority for a change, let alone consensus.Andy Dingley(talk)12:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn CloseI agree with Andy. i don't see a consensus in the first move discussion, but I do see a strong conensus in the second discussion (in favor of Deadmau5). [From my last examination of the merit-based arguments in the recent discussion, there seems to be a pretty wide consensus and 2 objectors. Check out the discussion for the myriad of reasons supporting the move back to the actual name (Deadmau5) and for the one reason opposing it (MOS:TM).] I also worry about an infinite loop of procedural hurdles being imposed (such as the summarily closing of the merit-based discussion in favor of coming here just to be sent back to start a new merit-based discussion, which I'm sure someone will argue should be closed in favor of another procedural discussion here). The efficient outcomes here would be to either move the title back to the pre-RM title or to reopen the existing merit-based discussion without restarting the stopwatch.Capscap(talk)20:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close/supportoriginalmovePlease note that the repeated insistance that the article's current title is an "invented name" is very disingenuous, as it has been clearly demonstrated that it is a name that isin use by sources- certainly in the minority of sources, but nevertheless it is clearly not an "invented name". As such, it corresponds toMOS:TM- "choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." It also satisfies MOS:TM re: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words... avoidSe7en;instead useSeven."In addition it satisfiesWP:BANDNAME:"Do not replicate stylized typography in logos." It also satisfies the central criterion ofWP:COMMONNAME,which is recognisability;Deadmausis a perfectly recognisable alternative to the trademarkdeadmau5.The latter will redirect to the former, and the trademark stylisation will be made clear in the lede. There will be no chance of anyone misunderstanding any aspect of this, or becoming confused as to who the article is about. On the other hand, granting exemptions for stylised names like deadmau5 andTech N9nepotentiates a slippery slope when it comes to vanity stylisations and decorations in article titles, which is obviously not in the interests ofimproving Wikipedia;and that is the criterion that must be satisfied in order to invokeWP:IAR.Wetdogmeat(talk)20:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous? You trumpet your own ignorance of deadmau5,"I don't care about the artist, I've never even heard his music.",you make repeated baseless claims that other editors areWP:NPAingyou (no evidence, but it's a great stick at ANI), you invent"scaremongering about an impending IP edit war"(on a protected article?) when another editor points out that other editors are likely to disagree with you. Then, in your last comment at the first RM you claim some sort of mass consensus for this move becauseTech N9newas also recently moved, without pointing out thatyouwere the one who raised that RM too! I've never seen you as an editor before, but your behaviour here (and you are by far the most vociferous in calling for this move) has been unimpressive.Andy Dingley(talk)20:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, disingenuous. It is not an "invented name", you're well aware of this fact, yet you continue to make that claim. What would you call it? Again, I don't need to know anything about the artist or his fans or his music; all I need to know is the policy and the article title. Everything else (how Zimmerman likes to style his stage name, how emotionally invested his fans are in that stylisation, etc.) is totally inconsequential. This is something that you need to recognise: it does not matter that you're familiar with Zimmerman's music, it iscompletely irrelevant.The fact that you have divided editors into two groups based on those who want to adhere to policy and those who are familiar with the artist's work actually implies that Wikipedia should be a forum for self-promotion, which is one of the things Wikipedia officially is not:WP:PROMOTION.That is why we do not uncritically reproduce vanity trademark stylisations and decorations in cases like this. At least two editors (User:Eleutherius,User:MidnightRequestLine) suggested that the move fromdeadmau5toDeadmauswould result in an IP edit war, and suggested that this was reason to consider leaving the article at deadmau5;it was me who pointed out that the article and its talk page are protected and that this is therefore a non-issue.I did not "claim some sort of mass consensus for this move becauseTech N9newas also recently moved ". I simply stated that" Tech N9ne has just been moved to Tech Nine according to the same policies cited for the requested move of deadmau5 to Deadmaus ". That is nothing but a plain statement of fact. Who initiated the RM, here or at Tech N9ne, is completely irrelevant; consensus was reached collectively. I have no interest in you or your impressions of me (WP:NPA- "comment on content, not the contributor"; do you need me to provide evidence that you have commented on me personally moreso than my contributions? Because I will happily oblige if so.). Please try to make relevant points. Your argument can only be based onWP:IAR,and the onus is therefore on you to demonstrate why granting an exemption from policy (MOS:TM,WP:BANDNAME) todeadmau5improves Wikipedia.Leave aside your personal remarks, your irrelevant tangents, your fabrications, etc, and focus on that.Wetdogmeat(talk)21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said below, how does changing the name improve Wikipediafor the reader,by giving the article about him the wrong (if not used name)? You seem to completely ignore this fact. Welcome to Wikipedia, Wetdogmeat, the 6th most used website on the WWW, where we are continuously trying to correct/remove wrong (if even used rarely) information. You've completely forgotten aboutWP:COMMONNAMEin your argument above and your use ofWP:PROMOTIONplainly doesn't make sense.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)07:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And adding to my comment, how do any of your requested moves, fromTech N9netoSunn 0)))improve Wikipedia for the reader,especially whenAllmusicuses Sunn 0))) and Tech N9ne, along with Amazon (for both) and along with my music service I use (Deezer) and so on? People learn things from Wikipedia - it's an encyclopedia. Using titles which readers may perceive as wrong even further damages the general perception that a large amount of Wikipedia hosts wrong info. Is that an improvement? No. That's my argument for justifyingWP:IAR- be in the interest of the reader, not the editors.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)09:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These moves improve Wikipedia for the reader in two ways: 1) readability (use of standard English), and 2) stylistic consistency (enforcement of style guidelines). The desirability of these two qualities, I would assume, is the reason they are established policy. I have not ignoredWP:COMMONNAME;in fact I have cited it directly - the central criterion ofWP:COMMONNAMEisrecognisability,andDeadmausis a perfectly recognisable alternative to the trademarkdeadmau5.The latter will redirect to the former, and the trademark stylisation will be made clear in the lede. There will be no chance of anyone misunderstanding any aspect of this, or becoming confused as to who the article is about.Wetdogmeat(talk)14:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't taken my argument into full account here - the notability of the sources you've provided are questionable. For the 2nd time,people won't look on page 9 of a Google search- you've beencherry pickingfrom the start. Thus, people will think the title is wrong since they'll be looking at Allmusic, they'll be looking at Amazon and they'll be thinking "Hold on, why is Wikipedia naming this differently? It's gotta be wrong." So it isn't about confusion. And also,deadmau5is more popular - Google finds 28.9 M hits compared to 30,000 forDeadmaus,so the latter isn't as recognisable. People have found deadmau5 readable for the past five years and also readers don't care about style guidelines - they care about the popularity of a name.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)17:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no notability criteria for sources, onlyreliabilitycriteria (WP:RS). The sources listed meet these criteria. The popularity of one style over another (for what seems like the hundreth time now) is irrelevant when determining whether the style is one that isin use(MOS:TM). I didn't say that readers care about style guidelines, I said that they care about stylistic consistency; or, to put it another way, they care about the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia, which is obviously compromised by the reproduction of vanity stylisations and typographical decorations (deadmau5,Tech N9ne,Sunn O))),Ke$ha,EMINƎM,and every unicoded witch-house act - BΔLΔM ΔCΔB, GR†LLGR†LL, etc.) like each article is the musician's personal Myspace page. This is an English language encyclopedia; it's supposed to demonstrate some professionalism. And I haven't been cherry-picking anything, that's just flagrantly false; I've never denied thatDeadmau5is the majority in sources, in fact I haveexplicitly stated that several times.However,it is irrelevantwhen determining whether the style is one that isin use(MOS:TM). And let me make what I think is a very important distinction here: there are generalreadersof Wikipedia, and then there areJoel Zimmerman fans.Who is it, do you think, who is complaining about the use of standard English text formatting in the article title?Wetdogmeat(talk)17:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Who is it, do you think, who is complaining about the use of standard English text formatting in the article title?" Every person who visits the article for information or on purpose (versus than those visiting it to start a fight).Capscap(talk)17:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my question was addressed at the reality of the situation, not your imagination. In reality, the editors pushing for the trademark decoration are clearly fans of the musician, and the reader who posted that the name is misspelled linked to the artist's personal website, implying that s/he too is a fan. Note my distinction above; fans can be expected to care because the musician cares, butWikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion or advertising.Wetdogmeat(talk)18:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep citing MOS:TM for the proposition that it is irrelevant when determining whether the style is one that is "in use", but MOS:TM neither says nor implies any such statement. In fact, there are indications that "general usage" is indeed important.Capscap(talk)17:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, it does. Read again: "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors shouldchoose among styles already in use by sources(not invent new ones) andchoose the style that most closely resembles standard English,regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. This practice helps ensure consistency in language and avoids drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others. "There is a reference to" general usage "only forCamelCase,and only when itenhances readability(whichdeadmau5does not--just asSe7endoes not--due to the ambiguity of the pronunciation). No such caveat is in place for unpronounced decorative characters.Wetdogmeat(talk)18:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And oh look,here comes another IP complaining about the same thing I've just said.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)17:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, another Zimmerman fan. That's to be expected; people who are not fans of Zimmerman will not care, because they will see the clarification of the trademark stylisation in the lede and will understand. And in fact it will be clearer to non-fans that the name is pronounced "dead mouse", not "dead mau five", if the article title is rid of the unpronounced decorative character. Also, I would again stress that this isnot a spelling issue,it's a style issue; Deadmaus is alreadyspelledwith an S, and the S isstyledas a 5.Wetdogmeat(talk)17:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any conflicts before the page got move over the name? It is clear that the move has caused a problem be it this debate or the other debates or simply people saying it is incorrect - these problems were not there before. Does the move thus far seem like a positive and productive action?Moxy(talk)18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to your first question. This page came to my attention when a user who opposed the RM atTech N9neused this page as precedent for the number-as-letter style. That's why I personally wanted this moved in accordance withMOS:TM,and the use of this page as precedent forTech N9neis the reason I have made a slippery slope argument. As to whether it seems like a positive action: yes, I think ridding article titles of vanity decorations would be a positive thing that I would support across the whole encyclopedia.Wetdogmeat(talk)18:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to avoid pointless debates that cause editors of articles to feel that the bureaucracy is more important then editors (without content editors we have nothing). We also need closing admins to closely evaluate the debate before making a firm conclusion when the debate is clearly split (if need be ask for help). So here we are a few days in and to anyone seeing this its clear this was not a positive move resulting in conflict between editors and confusion with our readers.Moxy(talk)19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was definitely not a positive move. There was no problems before, and the common reader should (I think) not suffer because of internal disputes in Wikipedia. This makes Wikipedia a laughing stock, deemed full of "ignorant" people (not only by fans, but also common people familiar of the artist). I really thinkWP:IGNOREALLRULESapplies here in full power. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 21:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not even about ignoring the rules...as our policy is clear on the matter. What I find very concerning is that people think one guideline would trump two policies that were cited during the first debate - that is Verifiability and Article titles. Was surprised to see the moving admin did not recognizes that policies were being cited over the guide.Moxy(talk)21:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Minority of sources" is an overstatement for something used less than 1/100th of the time than the other option (according to google search results) and less than 0.02% if you just stick with google news sources. The fact that you believe it is perfectly recognizable doesn't change the fact that a vast majority disagree (there's a reason everyone is up in arms about this). Your Se7en example is misplaced given that it was actually used less often than seven, and was used interchangeably (even the dvd cover and posters often used "Seven" ). And the desperate slippery slope argument suggests that wikipedia editors aren't capable of having reasoned discussions based on actual facts.Capscap(talk)20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "vast majority" disagree? Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Because the fact that the vast majority of sources style his nameDeadmau5is not evidence that these same sources findDeadmausan unrecognisable alternative. The "Se7en / Seven" example is not my own, it is the canonical (and directly analogous) example used atMOS:TM.The slippery slope argument is logical and based on "actual facts"; decisions like this set precedent for future departures from the style guidelines. Asserting to the contrary is not persuasive.Wetdogmeat(talk)22:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and I'll admit that this threaded discussion is why I don't think there is a consensus and is exactly why I think the closure of the other discussion in favor of this one was misplaced.Capscap(talk)21:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2) Improving Wikipedia doesn't mean making changes because of a niggly little policy and advocating that by using refs that are probably found on page 9 of a Google search. Use what iscommonlyused, said and supported. It feels like we are advocating the wrong (even if used) title (which isn't an improvement of Wikipedia), and even if the breach of a policy might make you cry, it certainly doesn't make the reader cry, since they probably aren't going to read things found on the 9th page of a Google search nor understand Wikipedia policy. They're going to be using Allmusic, Billboard, Spin etc. that all usedeadmau5.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)21:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Close:Per Andy and Capscap.Relistmight also be a good idea - as BarrelProof said below, a lot of the opposition (like me) came after the discussion.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)21:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close- No doubt. Let us be realistic here people, and return the page to its former glory. Per Capscap and Andy. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 21:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a procedural note, if we do overturn a close, wouldn't it make more sense to do so with the later RM? I wish Andy had followed instructions atWP:MRVand contacted me and/or Keith before proceeding with this. --BDD(talk)21:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith hadalreadyclosed the on-going debate at talk: with the specific advice to take it to MRV. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him, not with me.Andy Dingley(talk)21:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse Close~~( changing!vote ) Seems to be a good though close close. Remember closes are judged on the weight of arguments and not just policy. A lot of the overturns seem to be rearguing the move instead of the close. I would liked to have seen a rational at the time of the close however.PaleAqua(talk)22:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RelistWhile I agree with the result of the close, however, on additional thought, the lack of rational at the time of close for something that was so close in at least count is a bit too concerning.PaleAqua(talk)22:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original close, but willing to reopen the discussion:Looking at the prior move discussion, there was a lot of support for the move, a policy inWP:TMsupporting removing unpronounced purely-decorative stylings, good analogies in similar recent cases (Se7enandTech N9ne), and some sources identified using the non-decorative version of the name. Although there were some people who did not seem to like it, assessing consensus on Wikipedia is not about achieving unanimity. When the discussion was closed, the conversation seemed to have stalled. Most of the opposition seems to have shown upafterthe closure. But if it needs further discussion, then fine – let's have that discussion and reconsider if necessary. Just for the record, I was not a participant in any of the prior move discussions (although I did request a follow-up move for consistency). —BarrelProof(talk)22:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:so I'm one of those who showed up after the closure and I figure I'll quickly explain why because the same reason probably applies to others. For me, it was just a matter of coming across the article by chance, finding it extremely strange because the spelling was different from virtually every other source/mention that I've encountered over the years, and clicking on the talk page to see how this happened.Capscap(talk)22:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Close- all this is a great example ofWP:NOTCOURT.Time for editors to use common sense in all that they do. We need editors to think of readers over what they think is best because of a policy they read - standup for the reader and accessibility - not the bureaucracy and those that follow doctrine with no logical self input.Moxy(talk)23:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close- I was one who votedHesitate,but the majority support was perWP:MOSTM.I alos don't think anyone can credibly assert that BDD "did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI" or "was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM," I didn't support the RM but fully Endorse BDD's close.In ictu oculi(talk)01:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close;I don't understand the rationale for this move review. What is the flaw in the original closing decision? Simply not liking the outcome is insufficient.Powers^T11:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close- This one seems like a no brainer to me...WP:ATand the basic principle of Recognizability (as determined byWP:COMMONNAME) seems to apply. Note... three may be a conflict between COMMONNAME and TM... If so, I would favor COMMONNAME.Blueboar(talk)12:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I would like to point out that the MOS:TM might be in error for suggesting "Se7en" as a great example when it was commonly promoted as "Seven" anyway (yes, even as I'm attempting to establish something completely different elsewhere). Wetdogmeat, you say "decisions like this set precedent for future departures from the style guidelines"... sir, this is agoodthing. One very important facet of Wikipedia is that you shouldalwaysbe questioning the policies any chance you get; consensus (and even opinions of individual editors) can change, people can find better ways of communicating this stuff to the reader. I also think that the move to "Tech N9ne" was in error, and that "Sunn O)))" might not be particularly valid; I'm tempted to start discussions on both of these at their respective talk pages.Despatche(talk)13:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Policy was followed in this close. There was no technical problem with it. The 'overturn' folks sound to me as if they do not like the result.Binksternet(talk)13:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(if I'm following, keeping it at Deadmaus). We should be promoting readability over technical exactness (as all other parts of our naming policy use), and while I know what is mean by the text "Deadmau5", an unfamiliar reader will have no idea how to read or pronounce that, even if it is the more official, more common and more recognized name over "Deadmaus". The latter is just straight forward both as title and in text. --MASEM(t)14:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk ofWP:OTHERSTUFF... How is that any different thanLlanfairpwllgwyngyll(your average English speaking reader will have no clue howthatsupposed to be pronounced) The pronunciation can be explained in the first sentence of the article. Titles don't exist in isolation. They exist in connection to both the text of the article and the real world.Blueboar(talk)14:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because that article title is the name of a Welsh town, and the name is in the Welsh language. This article is about a musician who likes to decorate his stage name by styling the S as a 5. So, one is not in English and one is; one contains a purely decorative character and one doesn't.Wetdogmeat(talk)18:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Butisit purely decorative. When solidly reputable news sources such asthe Huffington Post,andthe New York Post... and music industry giants such asRolling Stone...alluse it routinely, I think it moves beyond just being "decorative". These aren't your average fan boy sources here.Blueboar(talk)20:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the reproduction of the decoration in high profile sources alters its character as decoration. Yeah, it's purely decorative. It's unpronounced and as far as I know it's not even meaningful, it's just1337.Wetdogmeat(talk)02:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x1 million probably)Comment- I'm going to start an RfC about a change of policy forMOS:TMon its talk page - feel free to join. This may target the root problem.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)18:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
obv Overturn—this article has been long stable atdeadmau5,as previously mentioned—if you visithere,here,andhere,and most definitelyhereandhere,these haveallused a 5 in place of s. This is barely even stylization. — $\mathrm {ITAC}$ $\mathrm {aaaaaaaayyy}$ 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close.For the record, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.... In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data" (WP:COMMONNAME). Below are some of the search engine results:

"deadmau5"(Google Books): 277

"deadmaus"(Google Books): 134

"deadmau5"(Google News): 1640

"deadmaus"(Google News): 3

Contactmusic.com,Fightofthenight.com,Kotaku,Las Vegas Review-Journal,MITNG,Music Scene Ireland,RadioNOW,andThe FriskyuseDeadmaus.On the other hand,BBC,Metro,NME,Rolling Stone,Spin,The Guardian,The Independent,andThe Huffington PostuseDeadmau5.I think the latter are "major English-language media outlets".114.164.178.179(talk)02:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

endorse closethe first close seems properly done. And it's way too soon for a relitigation on the issue. The first move request was open for two weeks, longer than the standard 1-week. If the first move was properly done, we shouldn't immediately relist to do the opposite, or else, everything will always be open all the time, with massive talk pages bouncing pages back and forth. Wait atleast a month before renewing (more like 3 months) --65.94.79.6(talk)04:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request a better closing explanation.I'm seeing this as a rough consensus close (could have also been a no consensus). --SmokeyJoe(talk)07:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse Close [RM 1]~~Neutral(see reason below). Policy was followed and a reasonable number of editors supported the move.mgeotalk16:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which move and which close? The first move to deadmaus (8:5:2) or the second move back to deadmau5 (8:3:1)? There was greater support for the second move, and that's the one that was closed so controversially.Andy Dingley(talk)16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not majority rule, so there's little point tallying!votes removed from their respective rationales.Wetdogmeat(talk)16:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You got - Should be about the best argument put forth referring to policies then guidelines... to repeat myself - That is why I was surprised to see the move in the first place - as the closing admin did not seem to recognizes that two policies were being cited above the one guideline that started the original debate.Moxy(talk)17:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which two policies are you referring to?WP:VandWP:TITLETM?I commented on both of those. There's no problem of verifiability withDeadmaus,and WP:TITLETMdeferstoMOS:TM,which is the main policy cited for the move. The summary at WP:TITLETM is also ambiguous, as it refers only tospelling,and not tostyle- this is a point that everyone has thusfar avoided: this is not an issue of spelling;DeadmausandDeadmau5arespelledthe same, D-E-A-D-M-A-U-S, only in the second case the S isstyledas a number 5.Wetdogmeat(talk)14:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is so wrong - all your point have been refuted by the 80 percent of the people here.Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarksis NOT a POLICY for the 100 times... but the 2 that understand the different between policy and a guide. If you really think that if 1 of 100 references say Deadmaus thats verifiability - you really need to read over verifiability again. You seem to still think that a guide is as important as our policy....never would a policy differ to a guide. This is all very concerning - we need our editor to have a basic understand of what they are here for - to regurgitate the facts - that is it!!!Moxy(talk)17:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLETMdoes, in fact, defer toMOS:TM.You only have to take a glance at it to see: "Further information:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks"That isdeference,on the subject ofstyle.Again, this is an issue ofstyle,not ofspelling(I've now explained this several times and have been studiously ignored).WP:TITLETMmakes no comment whatsoever onstyle,for guidelines on which itdeferstoMOS:TM.Wetdogmeat(talk)18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Vis indeed a policy, but the argument you're making falls prey to thespecialist style fallacy.MOS:TM, as part of our Manual of Style, is a guideline, and article titles should follow our MoS (if the reasons why are not apparent to you, I can elaborate). If this were a content dispute, you'd probably be right—if "Deadmaus" is used by a minority of sources, we'd want to follow the majority. But this isn't a content dispute. It's a naming issue. MOS:TM says we should "choose among styles already in use by sources." It doesn't say we need to pick the one used by a majority of sources, though that's a good rule of thumb when there are no other factors involved. But there's a big factor involved in this one: "deadmau5" is not standard English, and we are to choose the form in use by sources "that most closely resembles standard English." You can't seriously argue that "deadmau5" more closely resembles standard English than "Deadmaus." So I don't think you'll get anywhere trying to argue that V outweighs MOS:TM. They're not in conflict here. --BDD(talk)17:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This type of logic would cause noting but problems if it were to be implemented in other areas of Wikipedia - By the logic aboveC++should beC plus plus.I can find may ref that useC plus plusbut is this what most source use - no it is not - thus we go with the logical real world spelling. Need more logical thinkers - best to only follow doctoring if its not to the determent of Wikipedia and our readers. No one here can say this move is not causing problems... was stable for years.... stop wasting our time with bureaucracy. If your no contributing to the article move on do soothing productive - would be my reply to those editors that are flying by changing names because of some odd rule.Moxy(talk)17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just another nonsense analogy. The mathematical characters inC++arepronounced.The number 5 indeadmau5isnot;it functions as a letter S, it ispurely decorative.So drawing analogies toC++,orHenry VIII,orPerri 6,orHal 9000,or whatever else, is just totally beside the point. The issue is theunpronounced trademark decoration.Wetdogmeat(talk)18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is were the big difference of opinion is. The point most are making is that a core principle that articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person - is much more important then some guide. I think most believe that what is non-sensible is to change the spelling of a Bio because of a fixation on spelling or whatever. Verifiability is a core principle and most sources as does the official pages confirm the odd spelling. I think its simply two ways of looking at why we are here - I dont see our readers understanding why its not accurate as per the majority of sources and what they will encounter in the real world - our readers could careless about our guides - they do see inaccuracies though.Moxy(talk)19:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not a spelling issue, it's a style issue. Moving the page fromDeadmau5toDeadmausdoes not change the spelling of the stage name, which is D-E-A-D-M-A-U-S inbothcases. It changes thestyleof the letter S from non-standard (decorative) to standard. Also, I don't understand your insistence on 'authoritative sources' when this is nothing but an issue of style; every source will have its own individual style guidelines, and Wikipedia has its own, so there's no reason for Wikipedia to mimic AllMusic or iTunes or whatever, since that would completely negate our own guidelines.Wetdogmeat(talk)19:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But thats exactly what we are here to do - that is to mimic the reliable sources as presented to us in the world. As for negating the guide - we are trying to explain that our policies is much more important then some guide on the matter. Will have to stop here - have problems dealing with flyby editors.Moxy(talk)01:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've chosen the word 'mimic' because it suits your argument, but that's not what we're here to do. We're here to representinformationthat already exists in reliable sources, not tomimicthemanner of presentationof that information in those sources; we have our own style guidelines, just as each of those sources does. If we were to 'mimic' our sources, Wikipedia would be an incoherent melange of incompatible styles.Wetdogmeat(talk)01:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said mimic - I reused your word for what i believe is a better argument. As for all will go to hell if we have an article with a 5 in the title - this view is simply not how I see things around here. I believe common sense will prevail as it has done since Wikipedia started.Moxy(talk)02:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. In fact I think this whole debacle is a perfect example of an absence of common sense (as I'm sure you do, for the opposite reasons - see what good an appeal to 'common sense' does? That's many things to many people). This is an example of a musician with a particularly fervant fanbase who are emotionally invested in the vanity stylisation of the musician's name, and those are the people pushing most aggressively for this style to be reproduced in the article title. The counter-RM was made simply because these people didn't like the outcome of the first. Millions of musicians style their names in weird trademark ways as part of their personal branding and promotion, and without fans who are emotionally invested in that brand to descend on the article, Wikipedia does not reproduce those weird styles as a matter of course.Wetdogmeat(talk)02:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have never really heard of this guy for the record - your reply seems to be looking inwards to Wikipedia rather then outwards for our readers. You keep diminishing the value of the fans - the people that will read and mostly likely edit the article. Our approach and view of what Wikipedia is all about is very different. I simply find it odd that the number 5 is such a big deal - you must be an English professor or something in a related field:-)Moxy(talk)05:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmau5 is not only his brand - it is literally his name. I understand why wetdogmeat is against it, but there is no viable alternative. Deadmaus is wiki-invented nonsense and goes to show why wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source. But seriously, why so much hostility towards the number five? This feels like a Puritan witch hunt against the use of the number five in articles. I can see why this might be a problem for 17th century folk, but...this is the 21st century. I think we can count on readers who were born in the last 100 years to pick up on the nuance of the name "Deadmau5".MidnightRequestLine(talk)05:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now the difference between policies and guidelines (better late than never), Moxy may have a point here but I'm not sure, so I think I'll stay neutral on this one.mgeotalk20:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support changing it back to Deadmau5.I gave several arguments for why on the talk page, but I can't read all of the above debate right now. Please use common sense. This should be a no-brainer. Also, as stated above, the!votes for the original change were 8:5:2 - hardly a consensus by anyone's definition. Wetdogmeat was extremely pushy and implemented the change without a true consensus. Yet the!votes for overturning the change are 11:3, which is a larger majority. Therefore, I suggest that we push back and just change the damn name already. This is a ridiculous debate.MidnightRequestLine(talk)05:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't implement any change, I'm not even an admin. Please stop fabricating total nonsense.Wetdogmeat(talk)13:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closefor all the reasons I gave in the other two discussions. -filelakeshoe(t/c)07:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closecurrent article tittle appears as a spelling mistake. style guidelines are important, but the policy is to follow thecommon nameused by the reliable sources.AgadaUrbanit(talk)20:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder could someone address the fact that this hasnothing to do with spelling;that moving the page fromDeadmau5toDeadmausdoes not change the spelling of the name, which is D-E-A-D-M-A-U-S inbothcases. What it changes is thestyleof the letter S from non-standard (decorative) to standard.Wetdogmeat(talk)21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a variation in spelling, or a variation in style is, to be blunt,irrelevant'... What isrelevantis that we are trying to choose between two distinctvariants.When we look at the choice,in the context of this specific topic(which is important to do), Deadmau5 is overwhelmingly the morecommonly usedvariant, while Deadmaus is not commonly used at all. Deadmau5 is also used by higherqualitysources than Deadmaus. To my mind these two facts should settle the debate in favor of Deadmau5.Blueboar(talk)01:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly relevant:WP:UCNpertains only tospelling,and defers toMOS:TM(Manual ofStyle) on the issue ofstyle.Deadmau5andDeadmausare thesame name styled differently.Wetdogmeat(talk)02:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all sure where you got the idea thatWP:UCN(and WP:AT in general) only pertains to spelling, but that isnotthe case. It applies to variants in style as well.Blueboar(talk)11:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly does not. That's why we have a manual of style: it permits us to decide on a house style and stick to it regardless of the vagaries of what sources do. Indeed, how could it be otherwise? Each source out there hasit'sown house style, and those styles will invariably differ from one another on one point or another. So we set our own house style, just as each of them does, and follow it.WP:UCNhas nothing to say about how a name is stylized.Powers^T23:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, Deadmaus is not a name at all. It is completely made up. Wetdogmeat (what kinda name is that, seriously? This is obviously a troll.) provided 8 sources that used "Deadmaus". Five of those sources also used the name Deadmau5 later in the article, indicating that it was a misspelling. Deadmau5 is a pretty popular guy. There are literally 1000s of sources all over the web that mention his name. It is not unlikely that there are a few sources that accidentally typed Deadmaus instead of Deadmau5, an understandable error for the not-so-hip. We can find 1000s of sources that use Deadmau5, and demonstrate that it is a vastly more common name, but I think that's unnecessary and again I think a little bit of good old common sense should settle the issue.MidnightRequestLine(talk)02:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeals to 'hipness' are hilarious. For the hundreth time, the quantity of sources is irrelevant. (Also: last straw - I'm reporting you for violation ofWP:NPAfor that remark.)Wetdogmeat(talk)02:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would said of course the amount of sources is relevant as is there quality - its the basis of your appoints position and a policy. What you should be saying to him is our verifiability and common name policies are irrelevant because we have a style MoS that say's trademarks of this kind are discouraged - correct? It is that simple - right?Moxy(talk)02:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of sources is absolutely relevant. That wasn't a personal attack. I simply speculated that your bizarre user name might indicate that you are a troll. Nothing against you as a person.MidnightRequestLine(talk)04:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said before, Wetdogmeat, you are fighting a losing battle. Wikipedia is a very intricate system designed to improve the quality of articles. There are a myriad number of processes that are designed to neutralize content and make it as accurate as possible. Blunders like this one - and this is a relatively large one, and a funny one at that - do not last very long on wikipedia. I give this a month, tops.

And by the way, this talk of "Deadmau5's dedicated fanbase is coming on here and arguing against the name Deadmaus" is not an argument. I only said that as part of my rhetoric. It was not an appeal to a policy. Stop using that as a straw man.MidnightRequestLine(talk)05:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closeThink about it. Who exactly is this article targeted towards? I can think of two main groups of people: the casual listener who has heard of the artist name before, and wants to learn more before going out and listening; and the rabid fan that attends all the concerts, stalks Zimmerman's Livestream profile, makes papier-mâché mau5heads, so on and so forth. The initial move to "Deadmaus" would be detrimental to both parties. Let's take a look at the former group. Googling "deadmau5" yields "about 5,590,000 results", while "deadmaus" results in around 301,000. This means that there are much fewer songs to be had. Understand that having the article title as "Deadmaus" could mislead this first group into thinking that this is the proper spelling, thus depriving them of knowledge, and songs as well. Not to mention that they would be mocked by others for using that spelling. I'm not even going to start on that second group, because the above discussion pretty much covered everything. The primary endorser of this original move,Wetdogmeat,does bring up a good point, though–that the amount of sources does not necessarily matter. However, this is refuted by the fact that the sources that matter most, i.e., iTunes, Allmusic, andBillboard,spell it as "deadmau5". So yeah, overturn n stuffHelicopter Llama19:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, um, please disregard the above comment. I was led into thinking that this discussion was about the article itself rather than the move, now I feel blissfully stupidHelicopter Llama17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Close–Wikipedia:Move review#Instructionsonly gives two reasons for overturning RM decisions, and my objection is based on this one: "[Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent ofWP:RMCIbecause [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move. "The full text of the closer's decision (diff) is "The result of the proposal wasmoved.(with edit summary "closing discussion, result was moved". I have no idea about how the closer "properly weighed consensus with applicable policies and guidelines" because the closer has provided absolutely no explanation about how they went about that process. Now I realize that providing additional explanation as to why the move discussion was closed as a certain result, by adding additional comments immediately afterRESULT,is optional, but I believe that the spirit and intent ofWP:RMCIis that in highly controversial and debated moves such as this one, reasonable explanation should be provided. If the request had near-unanimous support, then sure, the detailed explanation may be omitted. Per theWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive799#Non-admin closures of controversial RM discussions - appropriate?closing decision, "Any (non-)admin closing a discussion needs to understand they are performing an administrative function and they will be held to the same standard of accountability. This means including providing enough information in the close that a passerby can determine the true consensus at a glance, and that those who participated have faith that the close was a reflection of the discussion and not a" supervote ". Just to be clear, whether the closer is an admin or not is irrelevant to my argument. All closers should follow the same rules, whether they are administrators or not. Thankyou for your consideration. –Wbm1058(talk)20:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very good points, changed my!vote above. The lack of rational was concerning to me, and I can no longer see a reason to endorse, regardless of what I think of the result..PaleAqua(talk)22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the overwhelming majority of people here want to overturn the close and change the name back to Deadmau5. There are plenty of valid arguments for doing so. So, let's go ahead and do it.MidnightRequestLine(talk)20:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PerWikipedia:Move review#Closing reviews,a nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days, so this can't be closed before June 14. I would likeTalk:Deadmaus#Requested move 1andTalk:Deadmaus#Requested move 2to be combined and relisted until another administrator gives them a proper close. To be clear, I'm not taking a position on whether the title should beDeadmau5orDeadmausnow (but the former titledeadmau5in all lower case clearly goes againstMOS:TM— "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized" ). –Wbm1058(talk)21:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that "deadmaus" or "deadmau5" are not appropriate. The correct name would be capitalized - "Deadmau5".MidnightRequestLine(talk)22:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just change the article name to Joel Zimmerman for the time being? It's accurate and uncontroversial. It isn't his common name of course, but it's better than Deadmaus.MidnightRequestLine(talk)00:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the move review process. Is the purpose of this review discussion just to figure out whether the prior move requests were closed appropriately, or is it to determine what we collectively now think the actual name of the article should be, by analyzing the whole situation and all possible suggestions and arguments? —BarrelProof(talk)05:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is to figure out if the move request was closed properly and if a requested move should be relisted. SeeWikipedia:Move review#What this process is notandWikipedia:Move review#Typical move review decision options.It should not be a rearguing of the move, though points can be brought up that were not considered as a way to show that the requested move should be reopened.PaleAqua(talk)06:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I have already given my opinion above on whether the prior move request was closed properly by BDD – I think it was. The fuss seemed to begin as a reactionafterthat happened – mostly not as a question of whether the original request has handled appropriately. You pointed to a guideline that says "Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion... this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion". My impression is that most of what has been happening here is a re-arguing of the closed discussion. Maybe the arguments are better this time, but most of the discussion has not been about whether the prior close was proper. (Please see also the comment fromIn ictu oculiabove.) —BarrelProof(talk)00:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so it's been a week. What's the verdict here?MidnightRequestLine(talk)17:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well an uninvolved admin/editor will judge that.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)17:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So can an admin reading this please judge it? Thanks.MidnightRequestLine(talk)21:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't closed by 20:08 UTC tonight, I'll post something atWP:ANto catch the attention of an admin.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)16:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message posted atWP:AN.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)20:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentMOS:TMdoes not govern page names which are delet with through the policyWP:ATthe relevent section isWP:TITLETMso any opinion based onMOS:TMshould be discounted (including the proposers). If that is done would it affect the consensus? --PBS(talk)14:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course it would. Discounting opinions would change the consensus completely.Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)16:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are begging the question. Many of the recent results where the two have been in apparent conflict has been that MOS applies to the "style" of the title and TITLE applies to the content of the title, though as evident by your comment there is strong contention on this. It is one of the reason the that question of if "5" vs "s" is a stylist choice or not has been raised.PaleAqua(talk)17:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure how you can readWP:TITLETMandMOS:TMand come to the conclusion that they conflict. --BDD(talk)17:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FromWP:TITLETM:"...unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark."So yeah I'd say that would point in favor of Deadmau5 since the vast majority of independent sources use Deadmau5. Itis,after all, about quantity of sources.MidnightRequestLine(talk)18:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, shouldn't we moveTech N9neandSunn 0)))back to where they were on the basis of these discussions if it is moved back?Insulam Simia(^talk/_contribs)20:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the incidence of the names in the sources. I don't know for sure, but I imagine "Tech N9ne" is much more common than "Tech Nine". I don't know about Sunn 0)))) either, but I for some reason doubt it's as popular. However, just becauseWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSdoes not mean we must go and fix every single thing before changing Deadmaus to Deadmau5. Wikipedia isWP:IMPERFECTand is aWP:WORKINPROGRESS.MidnightRequestLine(talk)21:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Deadmau5Based on common sense, really, so ignore the rules. Over 28 million google results for Deadmau5 and under 300,000 for Deadmaus. Deadmaus is more irregular with the letter s, not the other way around. We shouldn't make the titles of articles contradict its most common usage just for the sake of policy. We should only be altering titles if the spelling is in all capitalized letters (seeMobscene) or where the characters in the title are not numbers/letters/generic symbols (see'N Sync) among some valid reason. I feel if you keep it at Deadmaus, you're essentiallycreatingthat name and pronunciation, which isn't something we should doing. Deadmau5 is clearly used by the vast majority of independent sources, so move it back. Regards, —Moe Epsilon 07:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.