Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 July

<2015 June	Move review archives	2015 August>

2015 July

[edit]

Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group– decision endorsed, withdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure)—PaleAqua(talk)00:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The argument in favor was presented clearly, with up-to-date information, & evidence proving that the prior entity (Columbia TriStar MPG) no longer exists, having been replaced by the current entity (Sony Pictures MPG). The argument against was based on out-of-date information, rendering said argument wrong & therefore, irrelevant.

Also, the user arguing against the move inferred that the sources used by the user arguing in favor of the move make up news, which is inappropriate & unsportsmanlike.

There were MULTIPLE sources used to back up the argument in favor, while only a select couple to back up the argument against.

Not to mention, the user arguing against NEVER answered the question of the user arguing in favor.

I even tried discussing it with the closer, but they are sticking to their interpretation.

So, even keepingWP:WIKINOTVOTEin mind, it is clear that, through the arguments put forth on both sides - for (myself & King Shadeed) & against (Betty Logan) - there obviously IS a consensus IN FAVOR OF the move request. Anyone arguing there is NOT obviously did NOT bother completely reading through the discussion, keeping in mind the RELEVANT information put forth by both sides.76.235.248.47(talk)23:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorseas clearly within admin discretion. This was not an easy RM to make a call on, I know I read over it a couple of times while it was in backlog and passed on making a decision. Fundamentally, I think the two supporters largely misunderstood the reason Betty made a valid oppose (and Cuchullain closed as no consensus) – no one disagrees that there is no longer an entity called "Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group", the question is whether it was simply rebranded as "Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group" (it which case it should be renamed) or if a different company has been created under the name "Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group" and it has absorbed a lot of what was Columbia TriStar (in which case a new article should be created). I agree with the close of no consensus because I don't think a strong enough argument was made by the supporters that Columbia TriStar and Sony Pictures are the same company but simply renamed. As an aside, shouting (which is what using all caps implies) and generally coming across as aggressive is unlikely to make an impartial passer by sympathetic to your cause.Jenks24(talk)06:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell, as far as capitalizing certain words, those are words I was attempting to emphasize & I was unsure how else to show emphasis. And, if you wish to interpret my approach as being aggressive, that is YOUR choice.

Then again, it seems people interpreting things in a way other than what they really are is becoming quite the trend, if an ugly one, as of lately.76.235.248.47(talk)06:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer:Not much new to add here. As I said in my closing comment, it's clear thatColumbia TriStar Motion Picture Groupno longer exists and that all studios of Sony Pictures are now underSony Pictures Motion Picture Group.However, as was point out in the discussion, and as Jenks24 says here, the question is whether Columbia TriStar was simply rebranded, or whether it was absorbed by a new entity (Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group contains subsidiaries that were not part of Columbia TriStar). There were good arguments on both sides, but no sources emerged that clearly explained what happened, and to my mindBetty Loganmade valid points in opposing the move. The discussion was open for a month without the picture or the consensus getting any clearer, hence the "no consensus" close.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentObviously if this is simply a case of rebranding then absolutely rename the article, but as has been pointed out above I was trying to ascertain if SPMPG is a new entity that simply has an overlap with the older defunct company as a result of Sony's restructuring. In all fairness I actually think the logic of those supporting the move is sound (I was never saying they were wrong) but I felt there was an assumption at the heart of the rename proposal and I just wanted to get a bit more background on the nature of the new company before supporting a rename. The discussion seemed to go in circles at the end and it seems I wasn't conveying my concerns clearly enough. I certainly have no objection to the review since the discussion was closed on the basis of a single oppose. As far as my stance goes, to withdraw my "oppose" I would prefer to see a source that explicitly addresses the "rebranding" or evidence that both holding companies have more or less the same subsidiaries.Betty Logan(talk)18:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseper all above. For Move Review to overturn a respect closer calling "no consensus" on a very long running RM with few participants expressing lengthy opposing views, it would be pretty unusual. Far better would be to wait two months (acceptable for a no consensus close) and to make a better nomination. Also advise that, whether good or bad, you'll get more traction with a registered account. --SmokeyJoe(talk)23:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell then, if everyone is going to stick by the closer's interpretation (which I myself find wrong, per my explanation) of the debate concerning Columbia TriStar MPG's move request, then there's really no longer any point in having this review open, because with the way it's looking, more than likely, the review is going to end with the closer's interpretation left in place. So, might as well just close the d*mn review & Wikipedia will continue to be wrong about Columbia TriStar (until the time comes that someone can finally prove Betty & company were wrong about her stance all along), just like Wikipedia's been wrong soo many other times in the past concerning soo many other articles. So, just close the d*mn review, noting it's being done under protest by me.76.235.248.47(talk)03:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have it written clearly: "There is no point in opening a review into a no consensus close, unless there was a gross procedural error". No consensus usually means that you should try again in a few months with a better nomination. A one-sentence nomination followed by lengthy replies to everyone's!votes is not typically effective. --SmokeyJoe(talk)04:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How in the h*ll would I have a better nomination in a few months? In my move request, I pointed out that Sony Pictures's website refers to the studios group as "Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group".A-ny-onecould confirm that for themself by going to the website for Sony Pictures. Betty was the one who then responded to my move request with out-dated information (not exactly the smart way to argue in opposition to something). Then, Shadeed eventually helped backed up my request by putting forth, in a clear manner, up-to-date information that showed Columbia TriStar MPG was no more, having been replaced by Sony Pictures MPG. Betty was the one continually trying to unnecessarily argue, while Shadeed clearly tried to correct her misinformation.

The fact of the matter is, all the information currently available indicates Columbia TriStaris no more,having been replaced by Sony Pictures MPG. A similar situation would be for the article for Ion Media Networks to be titled "Paxson Communications Corporation", as Paxson Com no longer exists, having been replaced by Ion Media Networks. Shadeed presented clear, up-to-date information showing Columbia TriStar is gone, with Sony Pictures MPG in its place. Goingonlyby the information presented in the discussion/debate/argument for the move request (especially what's presented by Shadeed), the closer's interpretation clearly iswrong.As I stated in my reasoning for the move review,

So, even keepingWP:WIKINOTVOTEin mind, it is clear that, through the arguments put forth on both sides - for (myself & King Shadeed) & against (Betty Logan) - there obviously IS a consensus IN FAVOR OF the move request. Anyone arguing there is NOT obviously did NOT bother completely reading through the discussion, keeping in mind the RELEVANT information put forth by both sides.

In other words, throwing voting out the window, the information put forth in the references cited by Shadeed actuallydoesput forth a consensus in favor of the move request. Anyone arguing otherwise either A) did NOT check Shadeed's references (whichdoconfirm Columbia TriStar's replacement by Sony Pictures MPG) or B) unfortunately chooses to ignore the information currently present.

So, as I stated, since it would seem that the closer's interpretation will remain in place (even though examining the information presented by Shadeed would prove that interpretationwrong), there is no longer any point to having this review open. I thought that Wikipedia editors took ALL information presented into account when making a decision concerning what choices are made, but apparently, this review is sadly proving me wrong. Wikipedia's been shown to bewrongin the past concerning the information it publishes & apparently, that trend doesn't seem like it will stopany time soon.So, (even though I don't know if I actuallycando this) I am hereby formally requesting that this move review be closed, with it being noted that it's happening under protest from me.76.235.248.47(talk)08:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR. It doesn't matter if you are right. It only matters whether you get others to agree with you. --SmokeyJoe(talk)11:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I succeeded when King Shadeed took my side concerning the move request (meaning agreement was stronger than disagreement).

Now, according toWikiedpaitself, it all comes down to achieving a consensus (def. by Wiktionary asA process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members.) on something. In this case, (as I pointed out) there wasmoreagreement (myself, King Shadeed) than disagreement (Betty Logan) as far as the idea of moving the page to a new name, which would mean a consensus was in fact reached (contrary to the closer's interpretation) about moving the page to a new name. Again, my stance keeps in mindWP:WIKINOTVOTE.

But,as I've said time & time again in this review, since it seems the closer's interpretation will end up remaining in place (even though looking at the numbers supporting each side proves the interpretation to be wrong, as I have nowrepeatedlystated, much to my now growing annoyance), there is absolutelynopoint whatsoever in keeping this review active. In fact, at this point, I'm actually now starting to regret I launched this move review, as I probably should have just told Shadeed to try getting the information changed (since he probably would have had more luck/success in getting the title of the page changed).

So, for thenth time now, I will request that this review be closed, with it being noted the closure is being done under protest by me.76.235.248.47(talk)12:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assyrian people– Wikipedia is not here to fix outside ethnic identity disputes. Evidence has been presented that the article name as is accurately represents significant academic standardization on an overarching name for the combined communities. We represent those external conclusions, not challenge them, even if they're not fair to all subgroups. The close follows COMMONNAME and is policy compliant.Georgewilliamherbert(talk) 02:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Georgewilliamherbert(talk)02:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason for the move was placed on a section of thehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Edit_Request_on_25_June_2015

The reason for the move being rejected despite having many sources backing up the Admin's request forWP:COMMONNAME,the response from the Administrator did not include any comment regarding the sources provided forWP:COMMONNAME.The Admin simply ignored them.

Except focused on the TOPIC ofWP:COMMONNAMEand looked on sources that were there to question the Pages currentWP:DISAMBIGissue of the page title, claiming these did not prove the name Syriac was theWP:COMMONNAME.That was not the intention of THOSE sources.

The page naming criteria for Wikipedia is not just limited toWP:COMMONNAME,but that's all the Admin seemed to be interested in.Sr 76(talk)06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.Accurate reading of the consensus in what was a messy and POV-fuelled debate. Looking through the talk page history it appears Fut Perf does a lot of administrative work on this article, though I can see no way he would be considered involved. I think in an ideal world he would have left this for another admin to close just to make sure everything looks crystal clear, but we have a shortage of admins willing to close RMs, especially nationalistic and tenditious ones such as this, so I don't think he was wrong to close it rather than have it wallow in the RM backlog for weeks.Jenks24(talk)05:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenks24:He is involved. It is his fault it is POV-fueled debate. It was Fur Perf, that deleted the Syriac people page and had it redirected to the Assyrian people page. He did this with no consensus and offered no prior warning in doing so. He has been trying to hide this ever since. By doing this he grouped together 3 ethnic rivals under the one appellation. The Assyrians are the smallest minority involved and the name Assyrian is the most disputed appellation and yet all the other groups ha been labeled Assyrian beceause of him.

His reading of the consensus is his making also, since all he has done for the past year is block people.

He went out of his way to focus on the argument ofWP:COMMONNAMEin requesting sources for the page, even in his closing statementWP:COMMANNAMEwasthe main point. And yet the 21 references were ignore. Even by you in your RM assessment.

IF WIKIPEDIA KEEPS IGNORING THE ACADEMIC CONSENSUS, YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE A POV-DRIVEN PAGE. Sr 76(talk)08:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.It is not Wikipedia's fault that the proponents failed to persuade other participants. Becoming emotional makes you less persuasive. If you want to try again, wait a few months, compose a persuasive nomination, address all points of opposition from the previous discussion. --SmokeyJoe(talk)10:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other participants are politically driven and will not be persuaded because they are Assyrians. It doesn't help when the page's admin keeps blocking everyone new that shows an interest in the page. He is involved and has demonstrated his bias in the past.

When you have admin telling us its not only about the voteWP:WIKINOTVOTEbut about the best argument put forward....and......Again no mention of the 21 resources that we use to prove common name. Sr 76(talk)13:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.The close was a perfectly reasonable reading of the discussion. I really can't see any possible result of that more favorable to moving than "no consensus", which of course would have the same practical effect of the page not moving. Past the nominator themself, the support comments looked very much to be based onrighting great wrongsand nationalism, and even the nomination had some RGWing in there.Egsan Bacon(talk)19:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RGWing is irrelevant, does this mean that wikipedia's admin need to ignore all the references presented? The references dispute the argument put forward by the POV-pusher of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DISAMBIG. So why did all the votes for WP:COMMONNAME count if the argument doesn't really exist?

Why did the admin stack the votes in favour of not moving the page by blocking any user that wants to contribute to the page gets blocked instantly?

So far asWP:WIKINOTVOTEis concerned. Why did we have administrators (@Moxy and @DeCausa) jumping in on this issue to vote, when they know nothing about this topic? They both sited WP:COMMONNAME as the reason for opposing it, but neither of them bothered to change their votes when the WP:COMMONNAME argument was shut down because with all the references disputing this.....and yetWP:WIKINOTVOTEstill counts???Sr 76(talk)05:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect,say it ain't so--he's saying you already wereWP:INVOLVED?Would you please clarify?Red Slash03:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect's history with this article is entirely as a moderator/mediator/helper, and I see no subject-specific opinion that would make him involved. Having made this contested close, he should not make future closes on the same article, as a matter of appearance, without any suggestion that anything he has done so far is improper. This is probably good for his sanity, and proponents here are somewhat resistant to getting the message. --SmokeyJoe(talk)01:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not involved?: The original change request that lead to the Syriac People page being removed in the first place by @Fut.Perf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_9#Requested_move

The change request did not involve having the "Syriac people" page removed. The change request was collecting votes of supporton the basis that the Syriac people and Chaldean people pages "ALREADY EXSIST"

Then @Fut.Perf just went and redirected the Syriac People page 11:37, 15 April 2009 (diff | hist).. (0)?.. m Syriac people? (Protected Syriac people: permanent POV-fork magnet ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) 11:41, 15 April 2009 (diff | hist).. (0)?.. m Syriac Christians? (Protected Syriac Christians: POV-fork magnet ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) no one voted to have the Syriac people page removed, @Fut.Perf just had it redirected to the Assyrian people page anyway.

Even until this day, all the pages now suffer from poor sources because of the ridiculous way these pages have been structured, scroll to the bottom of this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Clean_up_of_the_History_Section Sr 76(talk)08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen- in contentious cases, closers should not be even remotely involved if at all possible. If someone tries to move one of the pages an editor really cares about, they shouldparticipatein the request, not close it (barring completely non-contentious results).Red Slash18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read the RM as contentious, but as difficult, difficult in that some editors are not appreciating how decisions are made, or that walls of text are unpersuasive, or that introducingWP:SPA!voters in favor is counter-productive. --SmokeyJoe(talk)23:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that the difficulty, but this has been a long running issue with inherent ethnic rivalries between these groups. and the Closer lumped all these people on the same page back in 2009, because he simply didn't know any better. And the page has been a hive of political rivalry and edit warring ever since. TheseWP:SPAthat you are reopening to may be a result of racial taunts on social media claiming "you don't even have a Wikipedia page". Most non POV driven people agree the page is wrong the way that it is, but there is a handful of politically driven users (Assyrians) that contribute nothing to the page, but instantly crawl out of the woodwork to vote against every notion to change the page. They dont want it to change because the page is called "Assyrian people". and that happens to be so offensive to everyone else.Sr 76(talk)12:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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