I believe this RM should have been closed as Moved. The head count was9-68-6 in favour of the move, but the closer failed to properly weight the support and oppose arguments. The Supporters showed that the song is theWP:PRIMARYTOPICfor "In My Feelings" with strong evidence (Overwhelming Page views, Charted at #1 in multiple countries), and rebutted the Opposers arguments ofWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS(the EP is barely notable and the none of the other songs are notable) andWP:RECENTISM(2018 vs 2017).Iffy★Chat--15:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturnsorry Paine but you've got this one badly wrong. Both the significance of the song and its page views (9,884 versus 30, in case anyone has forgotten how lopsided this is), as well as common usage, put it so firmly intoWP:PrimaryTopicterritory, according to our usual criteria, that there is no contest. The Oppose votesdidn't really make any senseseemed weak to me. "Recentism" was the reason for many of them, despite the fact that one song is 2017 and one 2018. And then the votes from people who just don't like primary topics in the first place. Well sorry, but the community policy is currently that cases like this have a primary topic. This should really just have been a formality, given the page view figures of 9,884 to 30, and the closer should have picked up on the strength of the arguments. —Amakuru(talk)21:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amakuru,can I ask you to reconsider your ridiculing “didn’t really make sense”. My!vote makes clear simple sense. I think you mean “weak”. Clearly mine was weak, rebuffed byUser:Newslingerwith facts I had not noticed, but weak and wrong don’t make “didn’t really make sense”. I hadn’t been back to the discussion. I thought we were discussing obscure EPs all with negligible content and maybe flash-in-the-pan popularity spikes. —SmokeyJoe(talk)01:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe:OK I've changed the wording as you ask, and apologies if you thought I was ridiculing you, that was not the intention, I wanted to challenge the arguments not those making them. —Amakuru(talk)08:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.I don't think the strength of the arguments were assessed correctly. The "support"!votes were supported by chart and pageview data, while the "oppose"!votes were not. —Newslingertalk01:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsewith recommendation to renominate. The arguments were weak, but I would like to put the bulk of the blame for that on two things: (1) the short inadequate RM rationale; and (2) theheavy editingthat occurred during the course of the RM, 89 revisions by 48 users. Also look at thepageviews versus time graph.The flurry of activity was surely the result of the RM, but RMs are not best run during such a massive flurry of activity to a previously ignored article. It is better to have a fresh RM come to a clean result than to have Move Review make an administrative decision to impose a result. Do not relist, but encourage a fresh nomination with a better RM rationale. --SmokeyJoe(talk)01:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorsefor the time being. The charts are clear, but I am troubled by the idea that an argument based upon one prong ofWP:PRIMARYTOPICshould be considered stronger than arguments countering it which are based upon the other prong.I commented in the discussion but did not!vote.Dekimasuよ!19:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu:which two prongs do you mean here? Usually for primary topics those would be common usage and long-term significance. The former is very clear I would have thought, while the latter doesn't really come into play at this stage. The EP doesn't seem to have any particular long-term significance, and in any case was only released last year. And the song was very recent, and Oppose votes citedWP:RECENTso it's true that its longterm notability is not quite assured, but even the fact that it has hit number one in several countries puts it in a quite select club that usually assures some degree of fame going forward. So for me, if anything, the song wins on both prongs. I'll genuinely baffled that there are admins and the closer himself who still think this was the right close. Usually I can see a point of view even if I don't agree with it, and I don't claim to be always right, but with this one I'm genuinely not seeing the validity of the Oppose arguments at all, given the *vast* difference in page views. —Amakuru(talk)22:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu:.I have the same point, and will emphasize because the original closer quoted this two-prong point as significant on his talk page. The only "prong" that is relevant here is likelihood of being sought, and there's no contest on that point. --В²C☎23:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnperAmakuru.By a pure!vote count there is no clear consensus, but by arguments based in policy/guidelines/conventions it's no contest, and this latter consideration is far more important. In fact, the opposition had only a very weak argument. This is the kind of bad RM decision that should be overturned, and is exactly what RM Review is for. (I did participate in the RM being reviewed). --В²C☎21:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is copied from the closer's talk page so as not to be perceived as adiscussion fork.
Paine Ellsworth,I note you've declared above that you did consider the strengths of the arguments, but you did not answer the question ofhowyou weighted the strengths. I suspect you might have been a bit quick in your assessment, and did not dig down. Yes, there was some claim for NOPRIMARYTOPIC, but what was the argument for that, much less its strength? For example, did you think noting"generic title, long list of songs"actually supported the NOPRIMARYTOPIC argument? How? NOPRIMARYTOPIC simple says if the PRIMARYTOPIC criteria is not met, there is no primary topic. So the relevant evidence is whether the criteria is met. The Supporters gave evidence that the song was "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" (which is the criteria), and opposers didn't even counter that point. It's unfortunate to have to reverse a close, but it's less sad if the closer realizes the error and self-corrects... --В²C☎20:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, of that there is no doubt. However, the endorsement args at MR say quite a lot about my reasons. And likeDekimasu,who wrote, "...I am troubled by the idea that an argument based upon one prong of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be considered stronger than arguments countering it which are based upon the other prong," I questioned the oppose args just as much as I questioned the support args. And in my humble estimation, they ran just about even, well, yes, the supporters' args may have been somewhat stronger; however, consensus just isn't there. YMMV.Paine Ellsworthput'r there20:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturnthe arguments in favor of the move are clearly stronger, and the numerical majority. One oppose is because the other article being disambiguated shouldn't exist at all, another says that a move is unnecessary because Google search can handle it, and a third claims that a number-1 hit in over 10 countries isobscure and of no long term significance.power~enwiki(π,ν)23:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseas closer. After taking another look and studying these MR args, I am truly baffled by some of the conclusions drawn mostly by involved editors. The second prong of PTOPIC, long-term significance, is played down because the song is presently so popular; howeverWP:CRYSTALmight come into play as there is no way anyone can really know the significance in the long-term. Maybe I am truly way off base here in a way that is just opposite from the previous MR below; however, I still don't see a consensus to make those page moves.Paine Ellsworthput'r there00:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Long-term significance is not being played down "because the song is presently so popular". It's being played down because NONE of the uses of "In My Feelings" have ANY historical significance, so that second prong has no relevance to this title decision. That you still don't get this is what's baffling. Given the irrelevance of the second prong, all we have to go by is the first prong. Maybe this song's current popularity will be short-lived. Maybe not. We don't know. But for now, the numbers are so overwhelming in terms of meeting the only relevant PRIMARYTOPIC criterion that the decision should be axiomatic. The whole point of CRYSTAL is not to presume what will happen in the future, much less whatmighthappen in the future. All we have to go by are the current numbers; we're not presuming anything about the future. Should the popularity of this one article nosedive relative to the other uses of "in My Feelings" some time in the future, we can revisit. But for now, the only reasonable argument clearly shows the award-winning chart-topping song is the primary topic, and it should be moved accordingly. And that falls out of any proper reading of the discussion we're reviewing, if you weight the arguments appropriately. Of course if you give those sighting long-term significance undue weight, you find no consensus. But you're not supposed to do that in a case where long-term significance is totally irrelevant. --В²C☎18:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow indeed. You and other overturners don't seem to take into account that this is a song that is relevant to a rather small segment of the world's population. As PTOPIC explains, an attorney sees the word "hearing" and appliesone notable meaningto the word; however,hearingis still the primary topic. In this case, I think it is important that the relatively few people who have heard and liked this song does not aglobalprimary topic make. If you can, instead of arguing the RM over and over by reducing the meaning oflong-term significancein this case and show other instances where Wikipedia has taken a subject that is popular now but has only thepotentialto be most significant in the long term, and yet,still might not be,and that the first prong of PTOPIC willstillapply in the future after the song's popularity dies down, then and only then will I be convinced that there was a consensus in that page-move debate.Paine Ellsworthput'r there07:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Drake song doesn't have to be relevant to a large segment of the world population to satisfyWP:PTOPIC.It just has to meet the usage or long-term significance guidelines already mentioned in this discussion. In the requested move, we didn't compareIn My Feelings (Drake song)toIn My Feelings (phrase).We comparedIn My Feelings (Drake song)toIn My Feelings (Aja EP)and a list of songs not notable enough to qualify for their own articles. As stated in the requested move, the Aja EP didn't chart or receive significant critical attention in any country, and neither did the songs in the disambiguation page that didn't have articles. It would be a violation ofWP:CRYSTALto expect the Aja EP or the non-notable songs to clear the very high bar set by the Drake song in terms of significance (specifically, chart positions and critical attention). —Newslingertalk09:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where that argument fails is in the fact that while your points are pertinent and applicabletoday,tomorrowpeople will move on, other songs will top the charts, the stats could bottom out, and if these page moves succeed, Wikipedia may be left with an AfD and asong redirectto the EP that is unsuitable for a printed version of this encyclopedia (unprintworthy). So no. There is no way I'm convinced that there was consensus in that RM to move those pages. There is a good reason why most song titles, even some that were popular in their day, are redirects and most of those redirects are considered unprintworthy.Paine Ellsworthput'r there10:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sincenotability is not temporary,In My Feelings (song)wouldn't be eligible for deletion as it easily meetsWP:GNGandWP:NSONG.A song's long-term significance is partially based on its peak chart positions (not its current chart positions), and there will always be at least 10 #1 entries inIn My Feelings (song)#Chartseven as the song declines in popularity. While there is a historically improbable chance thatIn My Feelings (Aja EP)will become asleeper hitand approach the Drake song's significance, that's not a reasonable possibility considering that the EP has not earned a single chart position 3 months after release, and that the EP barely slips pastWP:GNGwith 2interviewsand an article as sources. —Newslingertalk11:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still not convinced. Songs are transient, excruciatingly so. That's why there are approximately 23,000 categorized song-title redirects on Wikipedia (more when those that have not yet been categorized are included). And some of those redirected song titles used to be articles.Paine Ellsworthput'r there19:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it seems like you're inserting your own opinion on song notability/long-term significance, here, rather than objectively evaluating the RM; we're here evaluate the relative strength of the arguments in light of our policies and guidelines, not whether one is or is not personally convinced by the arguments or thinks that songs have long term significance or not.Galobtter(pingó mió)19:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting take. I seriously doubt that the transient notability of songs, books, even films can be challenged with overall few exceptions. For every notable song there are hundreds or thousands that are not, or will be all but forgotten in the future. Even the cited guideline,WP:NTEMP,allows for the future deletion of once notable subjects. This isn't just my opinion – I wouldn't waste your and everyone else's time with just my opinion. The bottom line is that the close of that requested move took into account the arguments of that debate. And now it's been challenged and I am learning from this challenge as usual. And nobody has yet to argue solidly that there was consensus to move those pages. I value Amakuru's, power~enwiki's, others here and your opinions more than you know. In this case I must continue to view the debate evenly, which is to say that I neither saw nor do I see now a consensus to move those pages. If you really want my humble opinion, the NOPRIMARYTOPIC args are just as compelling as the PTOPIC args, if not moreso.Paine Ellsworthput'r there23:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Are you suggesting that songs are so transient that songs could never, or only rarely, be primary topics? I didn’t see anyone argue that in the RM, and even if they did I know of no basis for it. —-В²C☎08:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn(uninvolved) Not obviously a move, but on balance, it is a consensus to move. The supporters had a clear PTOPIC#1 argument. The opposers arguments were all over the place, with little substance, as per Power~enwiki; a PTOPIC#2 case against wasn't really made (some do assert no long-term significance, but that they assert that of all entries, so that doesn't contradict the supporters taking the first prong of PTOPIC as most relevant here) nor do they make a case that the page view difference is not enough to make the Drake song primary.Galobtter(pingó mió)19:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I have crossed some line, then I sincerely apologize to all. Look to the archives to confirm. Don't know about others, but for a long time now, I've participated in MRV whether it's my close or not. Not sure, but I don't think this sets a precedent. All I've done is to respond to questions as simply as I can. Oops! So sorry if I've ventured over and not toed the decorum line!Paine Ellsworthput'r there01:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, know of no line, decorum or otherwise, that is crossed by participating in the MR by the reviewed closer. I welcome further elucidation of the closer’s views. However, what SmokeyJoe might be saying, though more politely, is: “my friend, you’re burying yourself. STFU”. —В²C☎08:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#A.F.C. BournemouthPost conversation. I questionedUser:Paine Ellsworthabout the close and move of the article to his talkpage. I wasn't the only person, some people felt the conversation should of been left open longer, there didn't seem a strong enough consensus with an even split of, for or against. There were also a few people on the Football project talk page that felt Paine Ellsworth shouldn't have closed the conversation and should have left it to an admin. So on these notes I am requesting a review.Govvy(talk)12:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or overturn to no consensusNo consensus at all reached, and the discussion was rushed through in under a week, making it tough for Wikipedians to even make reply.Domeditrix(talk)16:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- to all five commenters above, please could you actually give a reason why the close was invalid. "There was no consensus" in isolation is meaningless, and "this should have been left to an admin" is in direct contradiction toWP:RMNAC,"the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure".Remember, this is not a vote, and it is not a forum for rehashing the arguments of the move request itself, so if you think there was an issue with the close, then you must spell it out. I will come back with an opinion on this myself, once I've thought about it some more, but I'm surprised to see veteran admins likeNumber 57not endorsing the close, and would like to understand why. THanks —Amakuru(talk)16:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I referencedWP:RMNACin my comments atWT:FOOTY– non-admin closes require there to be a clear consensus, which there wasn't here; eight editors opposed the move and seven supported it (I'm excluding PeeJay's conditional support/oppose!vote). For this discussion to have been closed as either "not moved" or "moved" based on this split, one side would have had to have made much stronger arguments than the other, and this wasn't the case as the vast majority of the!votes were rooted in policy or guideline in some form (the oppose!votes were all effectively based on the consistency element ofWP:CRITERIA).Number5717:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, Number 57. I'm sceptical whether the consistency argument is really valid given the recent move ofFC Portoand the much-citedAFC Wimbledonexample. I suppose you're right that it would be good for an admin to determine that though. Still mulling over whether to recommend a relist or endorse here, although obviously I favoured the move myself so would prefer it to stay...@Paine Ellsworth:the close would have been better if you had given specific reasons why you felt the support arguments were stronger than the opposes, rather than just saying it was so. I agree with you, they are stronger, but (particularly if challenged on the question), it is good to spell out exactly why. —Amakuru(talk)22:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying so,Amakuru,and I would have gone into more detail; however, my close was already getting a little verbose, and the discussion on my talk page took a side road before I could explain it there. The style argument was very strong as were the logic arguments, lack of necessity and inconsistency, the latter which you noted in your rationale. The only rebuttal arg was that full stops are a football naming convention; however, the editor failed to link to the convention, and I looked and could find nothing specific atWP:NCST.The RS args were rather weak from both sides, and so had little effect on the outcome. The initialism/acronym arg was very weak as pointed out by BDD, and BDD's argument included that no full stops would be (marginally) easier for the reader. Oppose args for COMMONNAME were weak as noted by Dekimasu, and CONSISTENCY args were weakened by my own thoughts ofWP:OTHERSTUFF(I know, very marginal; however, it does weaken CONSISTENCY just a bit) and by the inconsistencies of AFC vs A.F.C. and FC vs F.C., and so on. All that gave me a sense of strong support, to include some ideas from Andrewa toward the end, vs relatively weak oppose rationales. And after careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that the page should be moved. I think that's all, and if I think of something else I'll add it in. And note that the few times my closes have been brought to MR, it has always made me wonder if my decision was correct. I could be wrong.Paine Ellsworthput'r there22:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, I did not (attempt to) note that opposing arguments based uponWP:COMMONNAMEwere weak. Actually, it was the supporters who were more vocal about the common name (arguing that formatting overrides any in-house style, a perennial point of contention); I noted that some sources use the points, without checking on prevalence. The main argument made by the opposers was, in fact, consistency, so it makes sense that you found a consensus to move if you discounted those arguments. However, I am not convinced that it was appropriate to discount those arguments; they were based in policy, and there was a concurrent good-faith attempt (as yet not resolved) being made to determine whether the apparent consistency has been or should be integrated intoWP:NCSTor another applicable naming convention. Particularly since that discussion has not yet reached a consensus, I am not confident that there was one here. I would suggestoverturning to no consensusin this particular case, without any intention to argue that this was aWP:BADNACas opposed to a simple misinterpretation of the result of the discussion.I commented in the move discussion but did not!vote.Dekimasuよ!23:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course, Dekimasu. I found the COMMONNAME arg weak all around for the reason you gave in the RM. It was mainly the style arg and the inconsistency arg that were the strongest overall. The rest was pretty much icing on the cake, and while I respect your opinion as well as that of all here, I think it best at this juncture to continue to support my choice.Paine Ellsworthput'r there23:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Porto example isn't relevant as the discussion was around English club naming (different countries have different formats). The Wimbledon example cuts to the crux of the matter though - the discussion started off as a debate over whether the AFC in this case stands for something or not (by convention for English clubs, if yes, then we have dots, if not then no, as is the case for Wimbledon), with the proponent suggesting the move as they believed the AFC in Bournemouth's case no longer stood for anything. Unfortunately the first respondent completely missed the point, and that set the tone for many of the subsequent votes and debate, and there was hardly any discussion on the real matter at hand.Number5723:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this does(cut) to the crux of the matter,but not in quite that way. This distinction isn't part of the naming convention, and seems unlikely to get sufficient support to be added. Both it and the naming convention are serving us badly. And it's bigger than just English clubs, football is multinational and multilingual, and articles on Portuguese clubs and probably of other countries too are in a similar and growing mess, seehere.Andrewa(talk)20:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The real crux of the matter is that nobody can really remember why there are dots in these abbreviations, nobody even really thinks it's a good idea, but there's apparently strong feeling on the part of manyWP:FOOTYregulars that we should not change it. I would argue, though, that codifying the rule as "omit dots from all football club abbreviations" and then letting the WikiGnomes loose to effect the necessary page moves, would not only get rid of drawn-out arguments like this one, but would also give us far more consistency than we can ever enjoy with the current piecemeal approach. —Amakuru(talk)23:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. And if we relist, all of that can be discussed in an appropriate place, along with extra information I've gathered in the meantime... the previous suggestion of an RfC which saw no action, the typical prevalence of both fullstop and non-fullstop versions in both primary and secondary sources, the role of redirects, the fact that non-English clubs with other standard abbreviations are part of the same mess... lots of stuff relevant to our easily forgotten bottom line of reader experience.Andrewa(talk)00:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI would suggest overturn first. It should have a proper discussion of A.F.C. style in UK English (the abbreviation style) is truly obsolete or not, thus apply to the abbreviation ALL England football club or not (removing dot in F.C.?).
and secondly, Bournemouth'sWP:Official nameinCompanies Houseand club website did not have dot (just AFC) and even erase the club history on the meaning on AFC is, association? Athletic? You can't find it on club website. Other club did not erase the history from their website, which Everton, Man Utd and Liverpool still shown "Football Club" in some page of their website. The current usage of A.F.C. on Bournemouth failsWP:verifiabilityon both reliable secondary source and primary source, so it should be discussed that some secondary source (not so reliable to me) claims in the past Bournemouth did used AFC as abbreviation instead of just a fancy affix, would be sufficient reason to qualify asWP:Commonnameas the most recognized version of the name.Matthew_hktc20:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On your second paragraph, please noteWP:MR#Not:"This is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." The question isonlywhether the closer evaluated the discussion properly.Dekimasuよ!22:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseasComment fromcloser: it would be very helpful if editors who give an opinion here would followthe MR guideand disclose whether or not they were involved in the RM. I still have no opinion and am objective in regard to whether or not full stops should be used. I ask only that the close itself and the RM be studied well before a conclusion is reached. Thank you!Paine Ellsworthput'r there20:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The verbosity, of the close and of the closer’s comments here, is a sure sign of an NAC Supervote, aka BADNAC. Non admins do not get the admin discretion of calling arough consensus.A rough consensus is always clarified by one more well articulated comprehensive!vote, the logical underpin of the advice atWP:Supervote.This closer may be unusually good, and overdue for RfA, but NAC overreach is destabilising, time-wasting, and a very poor example for budding NACers. —SmokeyJoe(talk)23:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree... page movers (who are specialists) often make better calls than admins (who are generalists). We should not discourage them from making difficult calls such as this one. See alsowp:creed#wrong.We are all learners here (ideally).Andrewa(talk)21:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree back, from what your comment here as opposed to the edit summary (this is not about “discouraging” NACers. Disagree that page movers, as a group, are specialists. They include hat collectors and the merely ambitious, amongst specialists, and in many contexts here, “specialist” is a pejorative. NAC closing is supposed to be helpful. This close demonstrably did not save time, was not helpful. Even after scouring the discussion and explanations, it is still debatable. WP:Supervote applies. The closer would have been far more helpful to have added her comprehensive!vote. Speaking generally based upon years of observation, but not data recording, it is my impression that NACers are more likely than admins to make Supervote and INVOLVED closes, and I really do think RMNAC needs to be harmonised with WP:NAC, and all NACers advised to be conservative in calling consensus, and to steer clear of contentious closes. Today’s closer is not a novice, but I do think she crossed the Supervote line, in a way not atypical of NAC RM closers. —SmokeyJoe(talk)23:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree thatin hindsightit was not a good close (hence my!vote to relist and advise admin-only closure).[1]But I disagree with your suggestion that the closure should be criticised on that basis.[2]We are a collaboration, andall human.We respect each others efforts, and move on.Andrewa(talk)00:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I do go on and on sometimes, and who knows? maybe I did make a bad call this time (wouldn't be my first). Over the time I've spent closing RMs, I have genuinely been most concerned about helping other editors including admins with the backlog, which does get excessive at times. And this RM was I think a good example of that. If I was wrong I was wrong, and if I was a bad boy, then oh well. At least I'm in there doing the best job I know how. And that's just like you and most of the other editors I know. Thank you, SmokeyJoe, for making this all about the close, and not about me in particular.Paine Ellsworthput'r there23:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or overturn to no consensus– No consensus achieved: eight in favour, eight opposed. The closure comment is subjective also, regarding who had the better arguements. There are essentially two debates that need to be had and a consensus reached for: whether theA.F.C.prefix stands for anything in the case of Bournemouth and whether punctuation should be used inF.C.,et al, for UK football clubs when it's a shortened version.Clyde1998(talk)02:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relistand recommend admin-only closure. The overturns seem to rely on thehead count.I also invite more general discussion atUser talk:Andrewa/RfC on sporting club names.This is a long-standing issue and will benefit from a more general discussion, as closer clearly indicated. Very interested to see what another uninvolved closer eventually makes of it.Disclosure:I supported removing the fullstops, and suggested this should be done as a precedent, and as my draft RfC makes plain I still think that. We've spent a lot of time on such discussions, for a reader benefit of exactly zero. And part of the function of specific naming conventions is to avoid such waste of time.Andrewa(talk)23:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The overturns don't seem to me to rely upon head count, but rather upon the opinion that the relevant issues have already been identified. It would be preferable if further discussion resulted in a consensus, but I believe the very fact that this is a long-standing issue indicates that's not very likely to happen as a result of the proposal under discussion.Dekimasuよ!02:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just takeone...Relist or overturn to no consensus – No consensus achieved: eight in favour, eight opposed.The argument there seems to be that the eight-all head count isipso factoa no consensus. It continuesThe closure comment is subjective also, regarding who had the better arguements.In other words, the closer did their job, which is exactly what should support anendorse!vote, not a relist, let alone an overturn. Am I missing something?Andrewa(talk)17:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If bythe proposal under discussionyou meanUser:Andrewa/RfC on sporting club names,I've only had one comment atits talk page(apart from my own). Yours would be very welcome. Or do you mean this RM or MR? They're of course the trigger for considering an RfC. But as I say on the talk page, most such fail. It's still worth thinking about IMO.Andrewa(talk)18:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa,It just looks like you're talking to yourself, kind of a craziness on your page, there appears to be an over analysation of traditional English style to modern style. I really don't know why you went with that on your talkpage. If you went to the football project talk page then you might have a better overall response. We have a style rule on the football project regarding football club naming conventions. This discussion here is about overturning what many believe is a no-consensus vote, establishing guidelines for a singular account over a general consensus? This isn't the place, you're dragging the conversation away from the primal point of this discussion.Govvy(talk)22:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to comment on the talk page to which you refer, becausecrazinessor not, here is not the place to discuss that. The WikiProject will of course be consulted in due course, as was already discussed (and not just with myself) on that same talk page. The discussion here is about reviewing the close, notestablishing guidelines for a singular account over a general consensus(whatever that means), and if as I'm recommending the RM is relisted, some of the information and arguments on my pages will be relevant there. That's why I linked to them. It's all about reader experience ultimately, rather than the personal preferences of contributors (whatever teams (;-> they may follow), and we seem to be losing sight of that at times. Best.Andrewa(talk)00:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(change of!vote) in view of arguments below. Relist and admin-only close still a second choice, but that sets a bad precedent and is arguably contrary to current guidelines. We'll just have to discuss the wider issues elsewhere, as this close explicitly didn't set a precedent for other pages.Andrewa(talk)06:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I was involved in the move request: I initiated it and subsequently commented on some contributions to the discussion. As far as I can see, therough-consensusrationale is available to administrators only and it apparently applies to thedeletion process,not to the move-request process. However, I believe the decision to move the article and close the discussion is otherwise correct. The move discussion had been open for three weeks. There is every indication that here Paine Ellsworth properly evaluated the arguments, weighted them accordingly, and gave due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines, and naming conventions. See, in particular, Paine's explanation on this page at "Thank you for saying so, Amakuru...". The consensus of the Wikipedia community in general concerning dots in acronyms is captured inMOS:POINTSandMOS:ACRO,and it does not support dots in A.F.C. The Wikipedia community consensus on naming articles about sports teams (WP:NCST) doesn't support the dots either. The guidance concerning national varieties of English generally (MOS:ENGVAR) and in article names in particular (WP:TITLEVAR) is silent on the matter, but the reliable UK sources mentioned in the move discussion all support the move (that is, they don't use the dots). To recap: I believe the mover did precisely what is required by assessing the relative strength of the arguments in the light of the consensus reflected in policy, guidelines, and naming conventions. --Frans Fowler(talk)04:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:ROUGH CONSENSUSis an appallingly misleading shortcut! SeeWikipedia:Closing discussions#ConsensusThe desired standard isrough consensus,not perfect consensus. Please also note that closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal.(my emphasis) OK, that's an information page not a policy, but it does apply to all closers. The policy atwp:consensusdoesn't mentionrough consensusbut does say in partConsensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) nor is the result of a vote.This is policy and applies to all closers, and seems to me to authorise assessing a rough consensus, just not in those terms. There have been many attempts to define consensus, and several are listed as failed proposals.MinereadsI believe in consensus. I don't know what it means either, but I'll try to make it work anyway.Andrewa(talk)06:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I once had a go at attempting a formulation of "rough consensus". I am not sure whether I gave up before writing anything. I think I remember "a rough consensus is an intuitive guess at the consensus that the group is headed towards". The reason to "call" a "rough consensus" is that allowing the discussion time to come to that consensus involves more cost due to time discussing than the extra accuracy in the decision is worth. In other words, don't spend forever nuancing unimportant details once we know what the basic result will be in the end. --SmokeyJoe(talk)07:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved for a reason! Consensus is consensus. But my favourite bit of it is the last section. Interesting that so many people use the phrases but almost nobody links them. It supports the observation I've often made that those who are most likely to insist on rigidly enforcing the rules are those most likely to want to ignore them themselves when they feel like it. It's a mindset, and the assumption that others are trying to evade the rules reveals a desire to do so. Seehow to reveal yourself without really trying.Probably more immediately helpful, seeUser:Andrewa/Rules, rules, rules:The rules are a communication device written by you, not a textbook written by someone else. Wikipedia works best when everyone makes an effort to follow the rules, including andespeciallythose they don't like.(emphasis added) But the core consensus-based problem we have (that inspired that last essay) is that we no longer have consensus thatWP:NPAshould be followed, but nor do we have consensus to abandon it. Is this the beginning of the end for Wikipedia? An eventualheat deathof no-consensus decisions, strangling our creativity in petty wrangling? Stranger things have happened. There are some obviouspositive feedbackloops in our culture here, as we attract and keep editors, admins etc who are comfortable with what they see happening, and my observation is that playing for no consensus and indulging in personal attacks (there's a good one above) are both on the increase. As soon as any one of those feedback loops gets a high enoughQto be an instability, we're in trouble, perhaps not suddenly but inevitably. But a fork will replace us.Andrewa(talk)09:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(disclaimer: I supported the RM). Initially I wasn't sure, because although I agreed with the close, the closer hadn't actually given detailed reasons why they had closed as they had, and in a close!vote scenario, I think that's essential. However, taking into account Paine's detailed response to my question above, it seems clear that they did weigh both sides carefully, and correctly concluded that the consensus was with the supporters, because of the reasons given. Above, we're told that this was a "no consensus" becauseWP:COMMONNAMEand consistency with the wider MOS arguments on the support side were countered by aWP:CONSISTENCYissue with other English football clubs. However, that consistency was demonstrated to be amply missing in the discussion, throughAFC Wimbledon,a club with the exact same initialisation, only with some doubt as to whether one or other or both abbreviations actually stand for "Athletic Football Club" or not. As well as other non-English clubs with FC rather than F.C. for exampleFC Porto.As noted above, it seems there's unfinished business here; for me the best end game would be for all clubs to be moved from F.C. formats to FC. But the lack of existing consistency means we don't have to wait around for a wider decision before moving Bournemouth, and the close here should stand. Finally, on the admin vs non-admin issue, it is clearly stated inWP:RMNACthat the status of the closer is not a valid reason to dismiss the close, and because this close was well-reasoned, I don't see a reason to overturn it just because the closer was a non-admin. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)21:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, AFC Wimbledon's article title does not represent an inconsistency issue, because it's in line with the convention of when we use dots or not. By all means we can disagree about whether the dots should be included or not (and I'm more than happy for a centralised discussion on the issue which will result in a mass move if there is consensus that dots aren't needed, as opposed to the current situation where we have a single article possibly out of kilter with the >1,000+ others in the category depending on who is right about the AFC in Bournemouth), but arguments put forward need to be accurate. Cheers,Number5722:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As also noted above, Wikipedia works best when everyone makes a sincere effort to comply with the rules, naming conventions included. But this cuts both ways... the rules need to be clear. Andthis oneis not. In particular, it depends on establishing that there isno ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English.This is about style not spelling, and the style in this and many (perhaps all) similar cases is ambiguous, even if the three criteria given in the naming convention are met. Both forms of the name appear in significant numbers in both primary and secondary sources. Perhaps this is not the place to pursue this, but it should be pursued. What is appropriate and important to note here is that this particular rule has issues.Andrewa(talk)10:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is anaddition to my reasoned endorsement(above) of the closure of the requested move discussion and move of the article. I repeat that I initiated the RM and commented on some contributions to the discussion of it. In closing the RM discussion, Paine Ellsworth wrote that the Support arguments for the move were significantly stronger than the Oppose arguments. To paraphrase (I hope fairly) some of Paine's explanatory remarks in this move review, the main thrust of the Oppose contributions in the RM discussion is a claim that putting full stops in A.F.C. in football-club article names is a naming convention, and Paine concluded that was not a strong argument because no evidence of such a naming convention was adduced. (End of paraphrase of Paine's reasoning.) In fact there is such a convention, in the general meaning of convention: Many articles on English Wikipedia about UK football clubs do have titles with full stops in F.C. or A.F.C. But it has not been discussed and there is no consensus for it. As noted elsewhere in this move review, it is inconsistent with the applicable Wikipedia naming convention and relevant sections of the MOS, so it is more aprecedentthan a convention in the Wikipedia sense. Nested negatives notwithstanding, the following illuminating passage fromWP:SSEFAR#Precedent in usage(which is an essay) suggests Paine's relative weighting of the argument was right:Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere.-Frans Fowler(talk)05:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus(uninvolved) I hardly see the strength in the supports over the opposes. Many or most of the opposition was based onconsistencywith the "pattern of similar articles' titles", which is a perfectly valid argument, being base on ourWP:TITLEpolicy. There is no policy based support that the only naming conventions that matter are those explicitly stated, as Paine Ellsworth says above ( "however, the editor failed to link to the convention, and I looked and could find nothing specific at WP:NCST" ). AllWP:CRITERIAsays is that "Many of these patternsare listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. "- not that the only things that matter are naming conventions.WP:OTHERSTUFF,being an essay, does not override or weaken theWP:CRITERIApolicy. Some of the supports were based on the official name, which is quite a weak argument. Others were based on the MOS, which are perfectly valid arguments - but not more valid than the opposing arguments, as explained inWP:CLOSE:"the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy."
The closing rationale is weak in that it only merely states that the supports are stronger than the opposes, with no explanation, which really is necessary due to the votecount being so split (I acknowledge that Paine Ellsworth has explained in more detail here, but that definitely should've been included in the original rationale)Galobtter(pingó mió)06:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, apologies if you think I'm making the point too strongly #57, I won't say it again. And yes, I do understand where you're coming from with the "A.F.C. doesn't stand for anything" argument re Wimbledon, and I respect your opinion on that, but I just don't agree with it and I and several others made that point in the RM. To me, AFC Bournemouth and AFC Wimbledon are birds of a feather, and I think it was reasonable of the closer to weight consistency arguments lower on that basis. I know you think otherwise, but there it is... —Amakuru(talk)21:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to disagree with the dots convention (and like I said, I'm open to a centralised discussion on the issue); it was just the apparent refusal to acknowledge its existence that was bugging me. Cheers,Number5721:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that because one football club (supposedly, per Number 57 it does fit the pattern) doesn't follow the pattern there is no consistency. I just looked atList_of_football_clubs_in_England#A,and out of the "A.F.C x" ~85-90% are actually are at the title "A.F.C x". And unless there is a reasonably clear and unambiguous demonstration that the consistency being argued doesn't really exist the closer shouldn't determine that all the opposers consistency arguments are to be discounted.Galobtter(pingó mió)06:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
