- The Beatles (album)(talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
This move request was to move the article from this title toWhite Album.Despite the clear indications of our policies and guidelines, it was read byUser:Xolozas "no consensus". There aretwofully compelling reasons to overturn.
First,White Albumis, as has been amply demonstrated during the move (with multiple sources in favor andliterally no sources against), the more common name. (Certain sources refer to the album by its official name, of course; however, none of them state that "The Beatles" is thecommonname, just the "correct" one.) Allow me to make some quotes from our policies and other important pages. (All emphasis is mine.)
- FromWP:RMCI:"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."
- From the same: "If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participantsalong with no clear indication from policy and conventionsnormally means that no change happens (though like AfD,this is not a voteand the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority). "
- FromWP:CONSENSUS:"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
- From the same: "Limit article talk page discussions to discussion ofsources, article focus, and policy."
- FromWP:AT:"Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used(as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. "
- From the same: "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."
- Fromthe nutshell summaryof the essayWP:OFFICIALNAME:"Common names are generally preferred to official names as article names."
- And from the close of this move request: "It is absolutely correct that policy compels the usage of the common name, and no amount of protest should supersede that naming convention."
- But alas, from the same: "Because some have contended that the official name is quite common, the comments of those opposing this request merit due consideration."
Alas, no, sorry Xoloz. You cannot merely contend that something is the common name without making a reference to any sources whatsoever. An unsourced contention is clearly not enough to stop a move request in its tracks. (It was here--that's why I'm asking you all to overturn the closure.) The close specifically referenced the argument from Radiopathy, who avoided quoting from the policy atWP:UCNand extensively quoted from the non-consensus-based rewriting of that policy,WP:OFFICIALNAME.Again, the default at Wikipedia is to go with the common name. Yes, there are several reasons to go with common names,and notliterally every single oneapplies.But our practice remains to go with the common name.
Nevertheless, this is actually not the best reason to overturn.
Reason number two:The close also cited Richhoncho, who said "to suggest it needs to be renamed to avoid disambiguation is tainted logic". Actually, no, Richhoncho's position is exactly the opposite of whatWP:NATURALsays, which is, sigh, policy. Still. I quote: "There are generally three methods employed to avoid using an ambiguous title: #1. Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English".WP:NATURAL is a policy that was raised in the move request,and not once did any oppose!voter come up with a reason not to apply it. Yet our closer here simply ignored it. When a policy is mentioned that supports a move, and nobody brings up a compelling reason why it doesn't apply, then that means that it wins. (Hey, I even noted the "recognizable" part ofWP:AT,which was actually seconded by multiple "oppose"!voters but again, was ignored in the close.) Did the closer just ignore it? Or not know what it was referring to? The closersays:
"You were asking whether I thought 'NATURALDIS' was a good argument for a Move Review. Personally, I don't think so. Move Review is about whether a closure is proper, and is not a forum for rearguing matters from the orginal debate. Even though no one used your exact phrasing, the point of 'NATURALDIS' was raised in the nomination and by Cuchullain. It wasn't what people chose to discuss for the most part (even though I wish they had.)"
Clearly the closer completely ignoredWP:NATURAL(read the close again). And hey, you know why only the nominator and a supporter mentioned WP:NATURAL? Presumably because there is no possible argument to be made against it. Our policy on naming articles clearly says that if the best title would require a parenthetical disambiguator, we go with another title (so long as it's an acceptable title) to avoid that. That's policy, and Xoloz's outright omission of it in his closure is stunning. Remember:WP:NATURALwasn't mentioned in an obscure comment near the end--this policy was mentioned in the proposal itself!
The closer has, with all due respect, ignored vast sections of our article naming policy and failed to analyze if arguments to policy were valid. He or she failed to recognize that supporters of the move cited sources that explicitly called "White Album" the common name, while no such sources were brought by those against the move. He or she ignored appeals to policy when those who were opposing the move request had no answer to that policy. Ultimately, the closer failed to, as WP:RMCI demands, determine consensus by giving consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. I would humbly ask you to overturn the closure.RedSlash08:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to move.(Move requester's vote.) The discussion went on for a month, giving the community ample time to weigh in on the policy-based reasons given by the proposed move. In that month, the opposition failed to provide a clear rebuttal of the justification, instead going into first a misinterpretation of multiple guidelines and then a tangential series of votes on what the "proper name" of the album would be, with only a few votes addressing the policies in the proposal. The closer should be commended for willing to settle a messy move proposal, but unfortunately the numerical noise seemed to have overwhelmed the clear political reasons of the proposed move, and the political silence from the opposition. As stated inWP:RMCI#Determining consensus,"this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority."Dralwik|Have a Chat12:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse myself.Clearly, the MR nominator wishes the closure had been different, and he does a good job outlining what that different closure would have looked like. Equally plainly, he is unhappy with me, and finds my decision insufficient. That's all fine by me. What the nominator isn't doing is addressing the whole of theactual discussionthat took place in the RM. He picks and chooses the arguments he likes best, highlighting them. The closure he desires would essentially have amounted tosupervote,which would have been quite alarming had it occurred.
- I think my closure speaks for itself. The arguments of those opposing the move request were in some ways misguided; but, they were not so fargone as to be discounted. A closer has a duty to examine the discussion that took place, not the ideal discussion that he wishes had happened. The simple fact is that, given the state of the discussion, the opposition succeeded in preventing the formation of consensus. While consensus discussions are not a vote, they also are not opportunities for closers to ignore large bodies of opinion merely because he disagrees with them. Opposers made valid points regarding the currency of the album name "the Beatles", and simply evaluated the objective evidence in a different way to support their contention.
- The discussion was muddled, and largely failed to address the point regardingWP:NATURAL.This is good point, one that we might wish had carried the day in an ideal world; but, it wasn't the focus of much discussion. For a closer to have used that as a determinative factor would have been a disservice to the community, because the participants in the discussion were arguing largely about other issues.Xoloz(talk)15:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure.Xoloz closed this correctly, if not the way I think it should have gone. OnceUser:Red Slashhad threatened to bring to this a move review irrespective of any deliberation by the closer there was no alternative. It also forced me into a similar position - to threaten to a move review if Red Slash had got the result he wanted. The fact that the nominator is not happy with no consensus is neither here nor there. I might add the Xoloz has since made it clear that he would have preferred a different result and has not closed the door on RM5 I find it hard to understand why there is a move review in the first place. --Richhoncho(talk)22:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure.It might not have been the close I would have made, but is a reasonable close. The closure appears to find strong arguments on both sides, which is a no consensus close. I would have found arguments about White Album to be ambiguous to be fairly strong per COMMONNAME for example and arrived at no consensus from another angle, and find some of the cited arguments by the close ( as mentioned in the move review nomination above ) to be a little weaker, still leading to a no consensus close. Also as implied above, a no consensus close does not prevent future RMs, though I would suggest waiting a short bit before launching a new one.PaleAqua(talk)23:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If this MR fails, my plan is starting a new move request 30 days after this closes, focusing onWP:NATURALas well as emphasizing that renaming thearticleis not akin to choosing the name of thealbum,to hopefully ward off the official v. commonname mess of this move attempt. I'm rather puzzled why RM4 sidesteppedWP:NATURAL.Dralwik|Have a Chat21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that move reviews can't really entertain new reasons, only the close and stuff arguments from the RM. By arguing WP:NATURAL could counter some of the arguments against moving ( which is in part why I think some of the arguments were weaker than given credit for ), it might be best just to withdraw this review and then open a new RM eventually.PaleAqua(talk)21:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure.I think a closer should be given some latitude to evaluate arguments from a more visceral perspective than deep-dives into WP policy. To many of the opposers, I think that naming an album article after a nickname instead the actual name just seemswrong.For example, I've got 12 or 13 books on my shelf that contain lists or discographies of Beatles albums, and every single one of them usesThe Beatlesto list this record. Many of these works will then say it's commonly known as "The White Album", but none list it that way. But there's no WP policy for "just seems wrong".Wasted Time R(talk)23:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse.Another detailed and well explained close by Xoloz that definitely falls within the bounds of admin discretion. Personally, I kept glancing through this RM while it sat in the backlog and wanted to close it as moved but couldn't figure out a way to do it that wouldn't have been a supervote. Maybe the fifth RM will be the charm.Jenks24(talk)12:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a friendly reminder, if you see something you want to close, but feel like they way you want to close would be a super vote. Instead of skipping it by, you could just add to the discussion.:)PaleAqua(talk)13:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I know. I thought about it but I try to avoid voting when I think my vote will make no difference to the outcome because it means I can't close it and we don't have a whole lot of RM closers at the moment.Jenks24(talk)13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
