2016 NFL Draft–endorse closurebut allow fresh RM.JFGclosed the original RM correctlygiven the arguments thereand it was within JFG's remit to conclude that result applies to other similar articles. The main dispute raised here concerns whether or not "NFL [D/d]raft" is a proper noun, with an apparent split of opinion. Given that this review was filed well after the RM closure, new arguments are presented but there is no consensus to overturn, interested users may start a fresh RM with due notification on the talk pages of all articles that would be affected.DeryckC.23:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
While a MOVE decision was supported by the votes, closer's extension of that decision (The result of the move request was: Moving this and similar "20xx NFL Draft" pages) to all the articles in the family was inappropriate. Holding this stealth RM discussion on this one page in the first place was inappropriate, since it was a new article, not on the watchlists yet of people who cared about the rest. In addition, closer provided no rationale. The rationale of the nominator was wrong on several points, about sources and about WP naming policies. Nobody brought up any actual guidelines or policies relevant to capitalization decisions, such asWP:NCCAPSorMOS:CAPS(until the post-close discussion), and nobody provided any useful stats from sources such asthese that show thatthe capitalized forms are too rare to appear in Google's book n-grams corpusandthis.The after-close discussion (at the end of the RM section and also below atTalk:2016 NFL Draft#Why on Earth was this capped?) makes it clear that sources overwhelmingly use lowercase "draft", and that more than a few editors were caught by surprise, learning about this only after it propagated from this brand new page to pages on their watchlists. I realize this was in April, but looking at where to go next, it seemed that reviewing this close would be an appropriate step.Dicklyon(talk)01:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn—I agree with Dicklyon's reasoning. I strongly oppose this close and move. It should be left as a one-off, and will need to be recontested (sooner rather than later).Tony(talk)05:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and decap all articles.Our policy ofWP:NCCAPSmeans we should not capitalise any "NFL draft" article, since sources do not do so. Now yes, there was aWP:LOCALCONSENSUSin this one move request, but policy was not mentioned, no evidence of proper name status was provided, andWP:CONSISTENCYis violated when other drafts are lowercased. Furthermore, as said above, the decision to go ahead and caps every other article of this nature, when those weren't included in the move request, and have been consistently lower cased down the years, was procedurally flawed and must be reverted. —Amakuru(talk)11:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and decap all the related articles,per above. We already have a guideline at NCCAPS and another atMOS:CAPS(from which NCCAPS is derived) against this kind of overcapitalization. SomeWP:ILIKEITattempts atWP:LOCALCONSENSUSby a handful of sports fans who want to engage in thespecialized-style fallacydoes not overturn site-wide guidelines, especially when their claims about what the sources are doing are clearly nonsense. This is a good example of what is mean by closers being expected to analyze theWP:POLICYand source basis of the arguments presented in discussions, not just do a headcount of which option was more popular among the respondents this time. — SMcCandlish☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer– I was a bit surprised to see a move review pop up almost 3 months after the fact. Nevertheless I'm happy to justify my close. I am no subject expert and therefore relied exclusively on comments from participants in the RM discussion. Here are the factors that weighed into my decision:
Discussion time: The discussion was open for 18 days, i.e. 2.5 times the RM minimum. The last comment was more than one week old, therefore I had a reasonable expectation that interested parties had fully expressed themselves.
Numeric majority: 7 supporters including OP, 1 dissenter (disagreeing on process, not on merits), 2 non-!voting comments including one visibly supporting the OP's rationale:I think these results are actually in favor of the capital D.
Policy arguments: The nominator and most commenters argued that "NFL Draft" was a proper name and had been inappropriately moved to lower case earlier without discussion.WP:NCCAPSsays:Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name.Nobody in this discussion argued that NFL Draft wasn't a proper name; who was I to second-guess them? Now, I see that proponents of the move review have a different opinion, but this view was not expressed at all in the RM that I closed; do you seriously contend that I should havesupervotedagainst every RM participant??? Some commenters also invokedWP:COMMONNAMEand a long-standing consensus on capitalization of "NFL Draft" events.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone could have denied this move based on the discussion, therefore I see no grounds to overturn. Obviously, a new RM could be tabled to see if consensus has changed but (interjecting personal opinion here) that would look to me like a pointless title war.
Finally, I will admit that my closure comment sayingMoving this and similar "20xx NFL Draft" pageswas a bit terse and I could have limited the move effects to the 2016 season. I remember hesitating, then going ahead in light of the strong majority view of discussion participants, many of them explicitly asking for a generalized retitling. It also seemed logical to me that, seeing a strong consensus that "NFL Draft" was a proper name, we should ensureWP:CONSISTENCYamong all such articles, especially as some had been de-capped without discussion. Again, I have no personal preference one way or another and I think that rehashing the merits of spelling this "NFL draft" vs "NFL Draft" is a minor concern for Wikipedia as a whole (and I'm a spelling freak!). —JFGtalk07:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's fine, and I don't think you can be too much blamed for this because on the face of it there was a strong consensus, but I still believe it was the wrong close. As a discerning closer, you should always review the arguments made and verify that they are true, even if the entire thing seems slam dunk. It's easy for votes to be piled on on the basis of a flawed original premise, which is what happened here. If I were closing this I would have verified that "NFL Draft" is indeed a proper name, and upon finding that it was not, I would have added an oppose vote to the bottom of the pile, explaining why (that's the thing to do to avoid a supervote - remember that there is never any obligation to close, and a well placed counterargument can change the discussion even if you came there originally with the intention of closing). —Amakuru(talk)09:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration,Amakuru,but you can't say with a straight face thatit was the wrong close.Sure, the closer must carefully check that arguments are truthful and policy-compliant, especially when there are opposing views, but this case had literally nobody contesting the OP's premise — why should the closer check the validity of a stance that no discussion participant is taking? Had I done this, I could be rightly accused of second-guessing the community, distorting facts, imposing a supervote, abusing my powers, disrupting the encyclopedia and creating a fault in spacetimeright under the Niagara Falls.Besides, I was in no position to evaluate whether "NFL Draft" should indeed be considered a proper name; the onus is on discussion participants to make that case, and 8 out of 9 agreed. Having no personal opinion and no desire to develop one, I certainly wasn't going to contribute to this debate; it needed closing and I closed it. The only potential leeway in the close was to limit the change to 2016 or to apply it globally, as requested by many commenters. Given that even changing just the 2016 season would already impact many articles, lists and navboxes, I chose consistency. Respectfully, I would ask you to strike your Overturn stance above. The way forward, if you and others feel strongly about caps, would be to file an RfC at the appropriate wikiproject or sports venue. —JFGtalk16:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What made it wrong was primarily the extension tosimilar "20xx NFL Draft" pagesI think. Something that big and impactful ought to have been advertised at the pages it affected, as would have been done with a proper multi-RM.Dicklyon(talk)23:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG:"1 dissenter (disagreeing on process, not on merits)":That dissenter would be me. In hindsight, the basis for my procedural oppose are the exact reasons we are here at Move Review now: lack of proper notification at related pages. Would you consider reopening the RM, leaving notification at the affected pages, and see where the final consensus lies? Regards.—Bagumba(talk)02:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba:Your intuition was correct indeed, and I read below that the RM resulted from a discussion on the NFL wikiproject, so there was a modicum of advertisement. It certainly wouldn't have been practical to list dozens of articles to move, however had I been the nominator, I would have listed the RM at theNFL Draftmain page in addition to the current 2016 round. Now, I feel that such a global overturn-and-relist would be disruptive, so proponents of the lowercase spelling should open a new case and see if they can achieve consensus. Again, I don't care either way but I stand firmly by my close given the information that was available to me at the time. —JFGtalk16:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG:I agree a new RM should just be opened if needed, given the circumstances. However, I'd recommend for similar cases in the future that the parent article, e.g.NFL draft,at least be included, and the RM relisted. I would understand the oversight in the closing in most cases, but the procedural flaw was explicitly noted in the RM and ignored.—Bagumba(talk)17:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relistand notify each annualNFL Draftarticle.Procedurally flawed RM where renaming took place on all NFL Draft articles even though notification only occurred at2016 NFL Draft.However, the close for the specific 2016 article was correct, as it is not the role of the closer to supervote based on guidelines raised here at MR that were never brought up in the RM. Moreover, exceptions to guidelines are allowed perWP:GUIDES,and some!voters also contended that "NFL Draft" is a proper name.—Bagumba(talk)08:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not relist(but second choice would be to otherwise relist and notify every NFL draft article). On second thought, the RM had been closed for almost 3 months prior to this MR. If notification was an issue, presumably the editors who did not have the 2016 article on their watchlist could have seen the eventual page moves after the RM close on articles that were on their watchlist. Three months seems reasonable to say there was a new consensus established, even if the close was flawed in hindsight. Today, I don't see much to gained by 1) forcing a tedious re-move of 82 article underCategory:National Football League Draftand 2) notifying same 82 articles and relisting the discussion. No prejudice to starting a new RM to form a new consensus to revert the name back. —Bagumba(talk)16:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse,but allow for another move request if anyone cares to make one with proper notification. This was an obviously correct reading of consensus, and it was advertised at the relevant WikiProject if I recall correctly, so interested editors were notified of the larger impact there. Coming back three months after the fact and listing this at move review without notifying any of the involved editors is a bit absurd. ~Rob13Talk17:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support closer's move to caps,and do, upon reading the articles and looking at some of the references, and rescanning the close, agree with the closer that it was a fair decision about page consensus. And you can do one of these appeals (although it seems to be pretty much the same people, but with closers having to explain and defend their close, which is cool) up to three months later? I was waiting on a couple of RM's to age before opening new ones, does anyone know what a "decent" interval of time should be given before another RM is put up? Thanks.Randy Kryn18:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support closer's move to capsWP:NCCAPSsays "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name", but NFL Draft IS a proper noun, so this argument should be considered invalid. May I ask what is the point if uninvolved editors can hold their own consensus and overturn it? ~Dissident93(talk)22:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93:I believe the rationale of this argument is that since the discussion was held only on the 2016 draft page, it's invalid, since only a small portion of editors noticed it occurred. However, the editors in opposition are probably unaware of the discussion atWT:NFLthat I linked above, in whichRobput a link to the discussion. Which makes the primary argument invalid, since most interested parties are expected to be a part of that WikiProject if it truly mattered to them. If not, or if they chose to ignore it, oh well.Lizard(talk)23:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the primary opposition to the move is that NFL Draft (to them) isn't considered a proper noun. This seems to be anWP:IDONTLIKEITargument in opposition with how many reliable sources that do capitalize it and considered it a proper noun. In case anybody forgot, these articles used to be all capitalized until, assumingly, a single user moved the pages on their own without consensus backing them. ~Dissident93(talk)23:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support closer's move to capsperWP:NCCAPS,whose first and core statement is "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name". The NFL Draft is a proper name, the official title for the event designated by the NFL. This is an official (NFL-designated),proper nametitle of a specific, not generic, event, and thus should be capitalized. This is atitle,not adescription,and thus should be capitalized. The NGRAM results given to claim that lowercase form is preferred is wholly flawed evidence, because it includesdescriptiverather thantitularmentions. For example, compare theNGRAM results for Space Shuttle,which show that lowercase "space shuttle" is more widely used than capitalized "Space Shuttle", but the Wikipedia article is at capitalized "Space Shuttle",because that is the official name of the vehicle; that is a similar case showing the difference between a descriptive phrase and an official title. Sources that use lowercase are referring to it descriptively (referring to it as an" NFL draft "in the sense that it is a" draft sponsored by the NFL ", in the same way that the" space shuttle "is a" shuttle used in space ", but there is also an official" Space Shuttle ", the formal term for it designated by NASA), but that does not change that event itself is a proper name title. —Lowellian(reply)16:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The NFL Draft is a proper name, the official name" is precisely the alleged fact that is in serious doubt. Sources appear to indicate that it's actually an informal term for something more properly called the NFL Player Selection Meeting. Whether this particular RM is left as-is or not, the issue will be reopened at some point (probably very soon), because there is no consensus on the matter, and different people have dug up different sourcing, and because this capitalization (possibly overcapitalization) of "draft" as "Draft" has been spreading to other contexts. — SMcCandlish☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting the claim about the technical name, but that still would not change the fact that the "NFL Draft", exactly as this, is considered a proper noun by both the NFL and the sources who cover it. Not to even mention the fact that the NFL Draft is clearly theWP:COMMONNAMEin usage over the NFL Player Selection Meeting, so I don't even see why that's being brought up here. ~Dissident93(talk)05:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the original RM, nom stated that "This was boldly changed across many draft articles a while back without discussion", which was not true on the article in question, but also not very true on all the related ones that ended up getting moved. These 2014 NFL draft moves were little discussed, but followed the NBA consensus. Considering how many dozens of draft articles I downcased across many sports leagues, there was surprising little notice or reaction, and essentially no pushback. The evidence from then, and stability since then, suggests that these were accepted as uncontroversial (some of them were done for me by theWP:RMTprocess, without any challenge there). I did have one guy encourage me to get to the NFL (perhaps sarcastically?), and one guy who said he thought the NFL Draft was a proper name, atmy talk page,but no followup or argument about that.
Hence my point that the nom's proposal was flawed, not just procedurally by being done on a new unwatched article only, but also factually. In combination, those make the extension of the simple close to many more articles unsupportable.Dicklyon(talk)23:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not extraordinarily ironic that we have people claiming this move must be reversed due to lack of proper notification on every single talk page (despite WikiProject notification) while you're stating the lack of discussion for your moves was fine because it followed consensus from anentirely different sportwithzeronotification? I can't be the only one to find that argument a bit facetious. The discussion we just had proves that your moveswerecontroversial. We have precious few NFL editors, and I'm not at all surprised that no-one found the time to argue heavily against the moves back in the day. Compare NFL-related articles to any other major sport and you'll be able to plainly see that we hardly have time to upkeep our own content, let alone worry about undiscussed moves regarding capitalization. ~Rob13Talk01:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Let's notbickerandargueabout 'oo notified 'oo ", to paraphrase a great Cleese scene inMonty Python and the Holy Grail.As long as the relevant sport wikiprojects, and the relevant processy pages ([{WT:AT]],WT:NCCAPS,WT:MOS,WT:MOSCAPS,I guess) are notified, then a group RM or an RfC about the entire matter can settle it. If the latter, it can even be hosted atWP:VPPOLso no one can make any claims that it wasn't public enough. It's all going to hinge on whether "NFL [d|D]raft" (and whatever else with a similar name, in some other sport) is a proper name or not, or some informal monicker, as revealed by source research (and the answer may be different for different case; it could even be different at different times within the same sport, e.g. if an informal term later became an official name, or whatever). Even if we accept that the close in this particular case might, on a technicality, be valid (i.e., the arguments presented were bogus/incomplete, and the closer was not, perhaps, in a position to detect that), there is clearly not a consensus on the underlying question, so it has to be reopened. — SMcCandlish☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlishandDicklyon:I have no axe to grind in this debate. There are cases where I closed in favor of the lowercase house style, and took some flak for it too, seeTalk:Syrian civil war/Archive 41#Requested move 22 June 2016,but those are cases where policy-based arguments are presented for both variants and the closer has a duty to evaluate the weight of both sides. In this particular instance, nobody made the case for lowercase and several participants explicitly asked to apply the proper name interpretation to all related articles (as was earlier discussed on the NFL project page); as explained above I chose consistency despite the potentially insufficient advertisement. In those circumstances, arguing the merits of the lowercase version in a move review 3 months later sounds unproductive. I agree that the underlying question might deserve a deeper debate and I wish you luck finding an appropriate venus and reaching consensus on capitalization of all sports leagues… —JFGtalk17:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BU Rob13. Just how much of another sports' guidelines should dictate the NFLs? Of course, they should all follow theWP:MOS,but they still have their own guidelines and policies for a reason. I do not ever recall a debate specially about the NFL Draft before this one, and just because nobody had an issue with the move originally doesn't make it a great argument for keeping it. I wasn't even aware the drafts articles got moved until earlier this year, as I do not watch the the articles (they don't need to be maintained once it's complete), and NFL Draft mentions in player/team articles were never adjusted after the fact, with many of them remaining capitalized. ~Dissident93(talk)05:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
National Gallery–endorsewith a reminder to RM closer that their close was sub-optimal. Some opined in this review that the RM was closed prematurely, though there is consensus that even if RM was left open for a few more days, there wouldn't have been a sufficient shift in consensus to effect a "move" result.DeryckC.22:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
As I have argued in the talk page. A search of the term "National Gallery" on the most widely used search engine, identifies a number of such galleries. One of the terms identified is "The National Gallery, London" which refers to the Gallery discussed under this article.
I have also searched for the term in the US Library of Congress, and identified that the majority of sources, including sources affiliated with the "National Gallery, London" itself, add further suffixes to the title in addition to National Gallery.
I recommend that "National Gallery" be converted to a disambiguation page, listing all "National Galleries", and that the article be renamed "National Gallery, London" or "National Gallery, Great Britain". The former is more in line with most of the citations for this Gallery in Google Scholar. A survey including the title "Early Renaissance Painting in the National Gallery" published by "National Gallery Publications Limited" appears to be catalogued in the British Library under the term "National Gallery (Great Britain)". In addition, a "National Gallery Technical Bulletin", published by the institution itself, is funded the "American Friends of the National Gallery, London". It is also catalogued under "National Gallery (Great Britain)" in the Britis Library.
In addition, in the US, the term "National Gallery" refers to theNational Gallery of Artin Washington D.C. It may be so across the world. In fact, maybe the "National Gallery of Art" itself should have a title change.
In my opinion, the recent discussion should not have been closed since there is as about as many opinions to move as to not move. In fact, I count a slight edge to move, since the editorUser:Eventhorizon51failed to recognize my opinion, even though I prompted the discussion.
I strongly recommend that the article title be changed toNational Gallery, LondonorNational Gallery, Great Britain.I think this change should be non-controversial, but if we are to discuss this again, that the review take into account more than 6 opinions.
1-2 editors are claiming thatWP:PRIMARYTOPIC.I argue using the evidence above that:
National Gallery, Londonis more likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term using a common search engine
In reviewing the history, the page name was once National Gallery (London) and that was arbitrarily changed to the present title. The prior debate, which was not conclusive was to change this back. I think we should change it toNational Gallery, Londonand then debate whetherNational Galleryis commonly, formally, or specifically usually used only to refer to the London gallery. The evidence is that it is not.
Endorse close:While of coursepolling is not a substitute for discussion,five editors objected to the proposed move while only three supported it. I really don't understand why Rococo1700 comes to a different numerical count. Three editors objecting citing Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) whereas only one of those who supported the move did. No evidence was provided that the London-based National Gallery is not theWP:PRIMARYTOPICof 'National Gallery' which has been the long established consensus for over half a decade. The London-based National Gallery is the only gallery in the world to have this as theirWP:OFFICIALNAME,all other museums which have National Gallery as part of their name have additional disambiguators such asScottish National Gallery.Ebonelm(talk)01:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that no evidence was provided that the National Gallery, London is not theWP:PRIMARYTOPIC.For one the fact that Ebonelm refers to it as the "London-based National Gallery" only add to the conclusion. I believe while some weight can be attached to what the Gallery calls itself, greater weight has to be place on what other, standard sources call it. I assert that the Google search engine, the National Library of Congress in DC, the British Library, and even a group affiliated with the Gallery, adds tags to the name. So should we.
This is and will continue to be a greater problem for Wikipedia. We need to move away from allowing common nouns to define specific things, specially when there are multiple entries for the same nouns. HenceYes, Asia, Journey, Chicago, and Genesisshould not have as a primary target the rock and roll groups. Again I am arguing three points here: one, the prior discussion should not have been terminated; two, we should not allow common "common noun" entries to denote items with specific time or place, instead they should be assigned a title that respects that specificity; and three, while Wikipedia has no fixed rules, it places weight on "reliable, published sources". I have used this to justify the move for this specific entry. My recommendation is that this discussion is only the tip of the iceberg for many other similar debates, the question is whether we should set a consensus first on how the decision is to be made. For example, why not ask: what is the best title to specifically reflect the topic of interest? What is the title used by other encyclopedic sources? How is the specific topic archived by other "reliable, published sources". This should not be an argument only about what one person thinks, or even about what the "National Gallery, London", itself thinks. By the way, I am afraid, I am targeting a name still protected by Admiral Nelson himself. My fleet is doomed!Rococo1700(talk)04:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.A contentious close, the sort thatWP:NACsshould steer clear from. At the time of close, it looks superficially as "no consensus", but with experienced editors!voting in direct contradiction, with little or no evidence or discussion, it really should be relisted, or just plain left for discussion to happen. --SmokeyJoe(talk)09:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Bad" as in it wasn't time for it to be closed. If it had been left open another week with no further comments, then it should be closed as "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe(talk)05:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was listed from 8 July to 21 July, that's considerably more than the 7 days that RMs are normally listed for, and there had been no discussion for the previous two days. It was not only reasonable to close the request, it was procedurally mandated. We have enough of a backlog as it is without flogging dead horses for additional weeks for no reason. —Amakuru(talk)11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking at the timestamps, more carefully this time apparently, I see that the nominator and the two supports failed to respond for ten days, during which time a supporter received a challenging replay, and four new people oppose. (noting "keep" = "oppose" ). --SmokeyJoe(talk)22:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse– There was clearly no consensus for the move, what else could the closer do? Even a relist was unlikely to change the situation, as the move was already open for almost two weeks and gathered feedback from 7 editors (of whom 5 opposed the move). Looks like this move review was opened on anI don't like itbasis. Besides, it's unfair to criticize the closer for not being an admin; remember that adminship is not a divine privilege, and there are thousands of experienced and fair-minded editors who do a good job and do not want the title. Finally, please don't replay the move debate at length in the move review, it happens too often and it's unproductive. —JFGtalk01:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your count of the vote, but regardless, the point is that this has been repeatedly contentious, and likely needs a more prolonged evaluation.Rococo1700(talk)01:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert the closeand let it run longer, per Rococo1700 and SmokeyJoe. RM is not a vote, and the arguments against the move, while slightly greater in number, appear to be weak. This should be discussed further. It is not necessary to treat a close reversal as if it's come kind of prosecution; all that's required is a clear indication that consensus was not properly assessed or reached, and that's clearly the case here. — SMcCandlish☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Revised: 11:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseperEbonelm.Those opposing the move (disclaimer: I was one of them!) mentioned primary topic, and that primary topic has been established these last five years through the stable article title. The onus is therefore on those proposing a change to show that there is no primary topic. However, those proposing to move to a dab page (no PTOPIC) do not give any evidence as to which other National Gallery entries might compete with the London one for its already established primacy. At best this is no consensus, but really it's correctly closed as "no move" as neither the numbers nor the evidence/policy based reasoning give the closer any reason to close as moved. —Amakuru(talk)11:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided evidence that this should not be the primary topic. See my points introducing this debate. Also the term "National gallery" should be a disambiguation page, and this page be changed toNational Gallery, London.See the reasoning above.Rococo1700(talk)01:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseper Amakuru and Ebonelm. I don't have a problem with NACs, I don't even have a problem with closes contrary to the numerical count, but I don't see how this one could be closed differently. No decisive reason for move nor data-driven evidence was given by the nominator or the supporters, and it was counter-balanced by arguments of the London gallery being the primary topic. The close was due, and no further relisting was likely to change anything (and would be contrary toWP:RM/CI).No such user(talk)07:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseper Amakuru, Ebonelm and No Such User. And a reminder that move reviews are not intended to be a second move request.Calidum¤01:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
Hm, this was closed as not moved, but I don't think I see a consensus here. There are 4 supporters(fwiw: I'm one of them)and 4 opposers, and I don't think the arguments on either side were vastly stronger than one or the other. There is some evidence that the city being the primary topic of Derby is UK-centric, and while opposers argued that 67% of pageviews for the UK city satisfiesWP:PRIMARYTOPIC,the supporters don't seem to think it does. All in all, I think this probably should've been relisted...Nohomersryan(talk)22:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseas "not moved", but suggest that the closer should have indicated that it was a "no consensus" not moved, not a "consensus to not move". The difference is how long people should wait before attempting a better RM re-nomination and filing it. --SmokeyJoe(talk)23:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.I may have been inclined to support the move, but reading the RM I can't see any justification for anything other than it being closed as "not moved." Relisting, as Nohomersryan suggested, was not necessary in this case because the discussion had been stale (the last comment in the move request was a full week ago) and the number of participants in the RM discussion was higher than usually seen.Calidum¤01:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse– The decision not to move is well-supported by the debate, I see no grounds for arguing that a relist would have changed the outcome. Choosing to close as "don't move" vs "no consensus" was imho well within closer's discretion, sono troutis deserved. —JFGtalk01:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but clarify,per SmokeyJoe. I hope this an similar MRs encourage closers to start distinguishing between "no consensus to move" and "consensus to not move"; they really are very different, but those intent on moving something are liable to spin any "not moved" as a temporary "consensus to not move", while those against one will usually portray it as "consensus to not move" even when it's not, and these leads to (respectively) unnecessary repeat move requests that are doomed and just noise, as well as unwarranted filibustering/stonewalling against moves that actually make sense. — SMcCandlish☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
The move request in question, to move this article to 'Brexit' was closed byjc37.I was the original nominator. The discussion was generally divided between a large number of users that argued that "Brexit wasn't the commonname because it was more of a 'slang term'", and another group arguing that it is the overwhelmingWP:COMMONNAME,especially when compared to the current title, which was argued to be a descriptive title that was largely "made up by wikipedia". Many users pointed out thatWP:Slangis not a reason to oppose an article title (not appearing at all inWP:AT), and there were several comments in the discussion that specifically asked the closer to weigh the policy based reasons behind the arguments, given the polarisation apparent in the discussion with regard to policy.
When the discussion was closed however, the reason given was simply "Requested move to Brexit isOpposed"(with another note on a separate proposal that had been raised briefly and commented on by a few people), no policy reason was given as to why it should be opposed. I askedjc37to clarify why they thought that the move should be closed asOpposedand if they could clarify their closing remarks to indicate what policies informed their decision, (seemy talk page), however, they simply said that they followedWP:Consensus.I do not see how there was consensus in this case for "Oppose" nor do I see how an essay such asWP:SLANGis supposed to overrideWP:COMMONNAME.In any case, I personally only see arguments to close this move as eitherNo consensus(due to the polarisation of the comments) or asMoved(favouring the more deeply rooted policy based arguments ofWP:COMMONNAME). In no way can I see how a close ofOpposedcan be justified, and this is especially problematic given the complete lack of explanation offered by the closer.
I'm not looking for any particular outcome here, but rather I think that this seems to be a very odd decision by the closer, and would like to have the matter weighed in on by some others that are far more informed and experienced than I am with requested move discussions.InsertCleverPhraseHere10:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn– The closer's statement that"Requested move to Brexit is Opposed"is absolutely not borne out by the facts and looks more like aWP:Supervotethan a reasoned assessment of what the numerous participants expressed in this move request. Reading the discussion several times I could understand closing as no consensus (based on a large number of!votes on both sides and roughly equal weight of arguments made) or closing as move (based on enforcingWP:COMMONNAMEpolicy vsWP:SLANGessay in the absence of a strong consensus either way). There is certainly no evidence to argue a consensus to oppose. This is not the place to rehash the merits of moving, so I won't delve into details (full disclosure: I strongly support the move); I'm just recommending to overturn this close and open a fresh move request. The title change was proposed immediately after the outcome of the British referendum was announced and emotions were running high; now that two weeks have passed, people have calmed down and a lot more has been written in sources, so editors would have a better opportunity of deciding what this article should be called. —JFGtalk03:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change to no consensus, but outcome is the same - no move.WP:COMMONNAMEis a good argument, but I don't think it was made strongly enough to counter arguments from the oppose side that the term "Brexit" is not encyclopedic in nature, and that formal publications and discussions would eschew it. In other words, it may not meet the tone bar to overcome theWP:SLANGargument. WP:SLANG is part of an essay, but it is intended as an explainer for theWP:MOS,and as such is important. Fundamentally, I wasn't convinced that "Brexit" is overwhelmingly the commonly used term across the English world - many would use descriptive titles instead, such as the one we use currently. And I voted against the proposal for that reason. I also think the closer should have given a more detailed explanation for the close when challenged about it, detailing why the opted for the definitive "consensus against" option rather than the "no consensus" option. —Amakuru(talk)22:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change to no consensus,no move as outcome per Amakuru. (I noticed that the closer closed the RM as an RfC, and noticed the editor closed a number of genuine RfCs around the same time. This was likely because this "Brexit" entry was listed at WP:ANRFC, perhaps unnecessarily, which prompted a slightly oddball closure.) — Andy W.(talk ·ctb)23:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch: ) - I was indeed in RfC mode when closing this. (Not that RMs are not technicallyRequestsForComment, but whichever: )
Anyway, while I'll note thatWP:COMMONNAMEwas used both in support and in opposition of the move in question. And it is a shortcut link toWP:AT,which indeed a policy page, and while many contributors did link toWP:SLANG(among other things) concerning theportmanteauofBrexit,policy pages are to refer to consensus and what is done inpractice,not usually the other way round. It might be worth readingWP:ONLYESSAY,another essay page.
Anyway, the nice thing about not caring one way or other, is just that: )
So if you all decide by consensus to change the close to "no consensus", I'm totally fine with that.
Endorseas within admin discretion. Maybe "no consensus" is more easily defended. However, the discussion, and the article itself, was confounded by lack of clarity as to whether the topic is the campaign, or the withdrawal. The topic should be clarified before reconsidering the best title. The campaign is definitely "Brexit" per COMMONNAME. The withdrawal has WP:CRYSTAL issues, and is probably best named more formally given that it cannot be described in past tense. --SmokeyJoe(talk)06:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the withdrawal is not particularly crystal, and in fact has much more of a past than the campaign does, since it has been talked about on and off, and with various degrees of seriousness, since the moment the UK joined the EEC in the first place. The concept of withdrawal can exist without it actually having ever taken place. And when referring to that concept, Brexit is very much a neologism that probably refers mainly to the current campaign. —Amakuru(talk)11:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe:Respectfully, I think you are mistaken to believe that "Brexit" described the campaign to leave, or even the 2016 referendum. Voters were asked to choose between "Remain" and "Leave" options, assigning an action to each possible choice, rather than asking a yes/no question; this was a deliberate outcome from the parliamentary debates onsetting up the referendum,in order to offer both sides as neutral a wording as possible. Consequently, there werecampaigns to remainandcampaigns to leave,there was no such thing as a "Brexit campaign". The word Brexit clearly describes the action of leaving the EU, not the advocacy for or against this action. Regarding your objection that UK has not yet exited the EU, this doesn't prevent Wikipedia from reporting about the concept, which incidentally had been on the table as far back as 1975, and the article has a section for this. —JFGtalk13:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment;Due to the opening of a new move request on the page (by someone else), and the overwhelming support that it has received, I think that this move review is rather moot at this point. It seems from the comments above that the move close would have been better as a no-consensus close, largely due to the tensions brought up by having been proposed so soon after the referendum (as pointed out byJFG). It has ended up as de-factoRelistanyway, so we might as well close up shop here.InsertCleverPhraseHere22:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this move review is getting somehow superseded by the new move request, however it should still be closed by an uninvolved admin according to process. The overwhelming support for naming the article "Brexit" in the new debate only accentuates that closing the earlier debate as "consensus to oppose" was misguided. Naturally, 20/20 hindsight applies…—JFGtalk10:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
The editor was too quick on merging the page. Only one person voted to merge, and the topic of merging into the main article had been previously found contentious by previous discussion. ~HenryTALK14:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the venue to dispute mergers. I suggest you take it up with the editor who performed the merge. Suggestspeedy close.— Andy W.(talk ·ctb)17:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
