General American English–No consensusto overturn. This Move Review has been sitting for 4 months now, and after reading every comment multiple times; I can see the merits for both endorsing and overturning the RM, therefore I must conclude that there is no consensus on whether the RM reached the correct result. At this point, those who want to move the page to a different title to the one that it was moved to should open a new RM and make their case there.(non-admin closure)Iffy★Chat--18:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
Closed as consensus to move while the!votes were six to six. The closer apparently found that1) supporters' rationales were significantly stronger generally than opposers', and 2) responses of supporters to opposers (generally) were very effective rebuttals in my humble opinion,but that seems like all the more reason to!vote themselves or relist than to close in favor of the proposal.Nardog(talk)04:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic endorse / reject MRV proposal.We do not vote-count for move requests at Wikipedia. And this is not just something wesay,but something we actually hold to. Closers are supposed to gauge consensus based on the strength of the arguments presented. I did support the move (so I'm involved) but I rabidly endorse this and any other close like this for deciding which side had the stronger arguments instead of just counting votes. The closer didliterally exactly what RM closers are supposed to do.RedSlash18:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closers are supposed to gauge consensus based on thevalidityof arguments with respect to Wikipedia's policies. Both sides made arguments based on existing policies. Neither side compelled anyone on the other. That's a textbook example of no consensus.Nardog(talk)22:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, consider me severely unconvinced regarding the validity of the arguments against the move. But of course,Ialready made my decision when I decided to participate. I therefore took a side and became biased. An unbiased observer with years and years of experience determined the consensus. I have full confidence in that decision and I repeat that I would have full confidence if he had seen things either way. Any closer who puts that much thought into it pretty much always is making a defensible close. Again, we're unable to and unwilling to decide what the "right" decision is - we can't! We're looking to see if the closure was clearly off-base.RedSlash23:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, closers are supposed to gauge consensus, which is exactly what happened.WP:Consensusis not a vote. At the same time,WP:SILENCEof any party after new arguments are made in the discussion should not be read as opposition to those arguments. PerRMCLOSE,Paine Ellsworthevaluatedthe arguments, assigneddue weightto each, and gave due consideration tocommunity consensus(in this caseWP:DISAMBIGandWP:NAMINGCRITERIA). That both sides claimed a basis in policy for their position doesn't mean that policiesactuallysupport both positions. —Sangdeboeuf(talk)04:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Endorse. <involved; I!voted in support of the proposed move which was enacted>
The previous had the serious criticism of failing to define the topic, which although not agreed by all, is way more serious than any criticism of the new title (eg has a superfluous word; uses a non-ideal word "English" versus "accent" ).
I recommend accepting the close, leaving it for at least two months, and then allowing anyone to propose a new change, hopefully done with a comprehensive and persuasive rationale. I don't think there is anything here worth another case of three months reviewing of a close.
Why do you link the closer's talk page? That's for pre-clarifications between the DRV nominator and the closer and I don't think it is relevant to the record, which isTalk:General American English#Requested move 2 August 2019.There, the closer wrote: "Moved.See strong arguments below in support of a page move away from the current title... "I am obviously biased, that being precisely my own position, but I didn't know that was even in contention. I read a rough consensus in agreement with myself that the former title was rejected. I endorse the close as correctly enacting a move away from the former title, and putting it at the formally proposed title, which happened to also be the more popularly preferred of the two competing proposal,General American accenthaving been informally introduced mid-discussion. --SmokeyJoe(talk)05:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe:You saidAgreeon the talk immediately below my commentFair enough, but I fail to see that "consensus has rejected the former title".Who/what were you agreeing with then?Nardog(talk)11:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I also find that puzzling,SmokeyJoe.It's fine that you supported this move, but your comments here should be based on the content of the whole discussion and the closing rationale, not just your own!vote. In particular, the assertion that the former title was rejected is extremely dubious. Having a further discussion down the line would be fine if there were actually a consensus to move in the first place, but really there was not. —Amakuru(talk)16:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been equivocating on whether the move was justified. Was there a consensus to move away from the previous title, no. Was there a rough consensus to move away from the previous title, I think yes. But I was involved, with a strong dislike of the previous title, I did not recognise it at all as referring to accent/dialect/language. I find it a bit frustrating that yet again an NAC will result in a long tedious review. —SmokeyJoe(talk)22:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus.Unfortunately there was a lot of badgering and bludgeoning and so on by some within the "oppose" camp, which is not ideal andWP:TROUTto them for that because it makes it hard to read the discussion. But that shouldn't in itself take away from the arguments they were making.Fundamentally this is a dispute betweenWP:COMMONNAME,which is acknowledged to be "General American" vsWP:RECOGNIZE,which holds that it was not obvious from the previous title what the subject might be, in particular that it might be confused for a company of some sort. As was pointed out in the discussion, though, the actual wording of RECOGNIZE is thatThe title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.Thus it doesn't have to be recognizable to an outsider who's never heard of the topic at all. Regarding the close itself, I'm unclear what its basis for seeing consensus to move is. The closing statement says"any of the companies mentioned can be called" General American ", the term's ambiguity has been established, so using the name as the title of a disambiguation page is a definite consideration"but does not say emphatically that the disambiguation page must be moved, and does not address the question of whether the accent is primary topic forGeneral Americaneither. Overall, with three!votes on either side, and clear policy reasons for both supporting and opposing (in particularLiliCharlie's detailed run-through of the 5WP:CRITERIAand why the previous title satisfied them), so this cannot possibly be anything other than a no consensus, it's not within the margin of doubt where closer's judgement could kick in. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)16:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the old days, a single uninvolved admin thinking “overturn” meant they would unilaterally revert the nonadmin close. I think we should return to that standard, nonadmins should not be closing discussions that an admin might close another way. Either that, or they should revert on the first objection. —SmokeyJoe(talk)23:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps... but admins are not infallible either, so we'd have to tread with caution. Currently the process makes virtually no distinction between nonadmins and admins at all, which probably isn't quite right as you say. But equally it's been said many times that allowing non admins to perform the closes helps groom them and hone their skills for when they do have a crack at getting the mop. I spent many years closing RMs before being an admin, and by early 2016 I was actually doing a majority of the closes if I recall correctly, both close calls and no brainers. I do think that nonadmins (and admins too, for that matter) need to be circumspect and willing to examine and revise their thinking, or reopen a discussion, if legitimate challenges are made. For me that should have happened here, because with a split vote and very clear and stated policy reasons why Oppose was a legitimate choice, the decision to close as move rather than casting a support vote can't be very readily defended IMHO. To go back to your point here, probably some middle ground is the way forward, where its clear that nonadmin closes are subject to greater scrutiny and can be more readily challenged than admin ones, but without going to the length of saying one admin can overturn the whole thing on a whim... Thanks —Amakuru(talk)23:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a whim, certainly not. Did you just!vote “overturn” on a whim? Do you have in mind any current active admin who would act on a whim? Especially noting the RFC that firmly established the previously understood practice that admins can’t revert a close merely because it was a non admin close.
Definitely, nonadmins should continue to be encouraged to do suitable nonadmin closes, and their judgement will be evidence at their future RfA. You and a couple of others have pointed to your own pre-RfA closes, good, but the obvious question is: were your pre-RfA closes a help or a hindrance? Did you perform adventurous closes that were then criticised by then-admins in lengthy follow up discussions. I submit that the proof of a BADNAC is subsequent controversy. I also note the RfA test for temperament, not just ability to read a consensus, temperament which goes to accepting criticism and modifying future behaviour. —SmokeyJoe(talk)23:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think everything you say is very sensible. We had two move reviews in July that were both overturned eventually and might fit your definition of BADNAC. It would be really nice if closers could amend their closes themselves when something like this happens, or consult an experienced admin when the first query is made, rather than us having to constantly go down the lengthy MRV route. I would always be happy to provide advice. But if they refuse to do this, you'll either have to propose a new rule governing this through an RFC, or we'll just have to accept that we end up in these lengthy reviews. It doesn't help thay MRV generally seems poorly attended right now. Only three participants here, and it's almost two weeks old —Amakuru(talk)12:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what's this abouta lot of badgering and bludgeoning and so on by some within the "oppose" camp?I'm presuming you're referring (at least in part) to myself. I recognize that the discussion may have been hard to follow, but it's hard to see this as being a result of one-sided bludgeoning. If you'd like to explain how my and LiliCharlie's behavior constitutes bludgeoning while that of Sangdeboeuf, who responded to every single "oppose" vote (sometimes with walls of text), does not, I'm open to listening.
I'm also skeptical that there is any example of badgering on the part of anyone in the "oppose" camp that rises to the level of Sangdeboeuf repeatedly demanding that I provide links to dozens of JSTOR articles. —Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]16:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aeusoes1yeah, you're right I guess. There was at least one supporter who felt the need to answer every!vote as well, and there was some dialogue going on too. I'm striking that part of my comment as it's not particularly relevant anyway in this case. Cheers —Amakuru(talk)19:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just RECOGNIZE vs. COMMONNAME. As quoted above, P.I. Ellsworth specifically mentioned that "General American" is ambiguous, soWP:PRECISEapplies also. There can be a separate discussion as to whether we have a primary topic or not, in which case "General American" may still make senseas a redirectto a more precise title.Since LiliCharlie's rundown of the 5 naming criteria was mentioned, I'll just point out that "General American" being recognizable to them as"someone familiar with the subject area"really has nothing to do with recognizability by non-experts, given that they describe themselves as"a phonetician who has read thousands of pages about"the topic. (A couple of their other points were also questionable, as I pointed out during the RM discussion.) Just because they mentioned a policy doesn't imply that the policy actually supports their position. Not all!votes are equal, and the closer specifically explainedon their talk pagehow they assigned weight to the supporting and opposing arguments. —Sangdeboeuf(talk)07:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commentby closer. Still endorse my close; however, it seems that some editors here think I was in the wrong because a) I did not immediately revert my close when challenged, and b) well, I'm not an admin. As to b, we all know that can't be used by itself to reverse the close, and as to a), as noted on my talk page, the nominator of this MRV had questions and I answered them. Then, all of a sudden blam! we find ourselves here at MRV. Neither the nom nor anybody else made any mention nor inquiry for me to reverse the decision, which I am inclined to do when asked. So maybe Smokey Joe or Amakuru or somebody, anybody, can explain to me how exactly that makes me responsible for another long-drawn-out MRV? I didn't bring us here and would have cheerfully avoided it had the nom but asked. I have many skills; however, mindreading is not among them.P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there12:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the impression that PE is saying they would have done so if you'd asked in just the right way but, since you started the MRV process, they are no longer inclined to do so. It also appears they expect us to believe that the thread in their talk page did not lead them to believe you wanted them to reverse their decision. It's hard to accept that someone trusted with gleaning consensus from complex threads would have trouble with something so obvious. —Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]16:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious? glad you think so. It was obvious Nardog was unhappy with the outcome; however, Nardog was not the only editor involved in the RM nor in the discussion on my talk page. You seem to say that one editor's opinion against the opinions of others should be considered a "consensus"?P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there19:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That's certainly an oddball interpretation of what I said. I was making reference toNeither the nom nor anybody else made any mention nor inquiry for me to reverse the decision, which I am inclined to do when asked.If I'm misreading what you've written, please clarify. —Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]19:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PE is saying they would have done so if you'd asked in just the right way
I am saying I would have done so if they'd asked at all, or even just suggested that I reverse.
they expect us to believe that the thread in their talk page did not lead them to believe you wanted them to reverse their decision
The thread on my talk page was the expression of "disbelief" in Nardog's own words. That was not a surprise since Nardog opposed the requested move. There were others in that discussion who had supported the action who said I did the right thing. In such situations, one only has what is on the written page. And yet, even with all that, all Nardog had to do was ask or suggest. They did neither. Anything else is telepathy, and I'm not very good at that. Misreading? I don't know, but wouldn't that be unfortunate.P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there20:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but I also wish you said to me right away, "Oh, I didn't realize you were asking me to revise the outcome. I actually am willing to revise the outcome, so you can withdraw that MRV now", so all this wouldn't have needed to happen.Nardog(talk)20:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nardog, you never asked me to reverse that decision amid other editors telling me it was the best decision of my life. Had you just said, "I think you should consider reopening and relisting," I would have been glad to do so. You laid MRV on us out of the blue against the consensus on my talk page. And when MRV is opened, then I consider it to be out of my hands and in the hands of reviewers. All you had to do was ask, or even just suggest that I reverse. As I said, I cannot read your mind.P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there19:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paine actually makes a good point here.Nardogsaid in the discussion"Anyway, I take your response as an indication of no intention to revise the outcome, so I'm filing for a move review"even though they'd never actually asked for a revision of the outcome, just an explanation for the close. That means the MRV was premature. In any case, it is definitely not too late to revise it now -Paine EllsworthI suggest you do so now, which will save this MRV from dragging on and on for another month. If you really feel that you have a good argument for moving from "General American" to "General American English" then relist the discussion now, for another week, and cast a support!vote for that outcome. But the original discussion does not have consensus yet for that conclusion. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)20:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Amakuru!I agree that there was no consensus for the new title. I saw support rationales that were just strong enough to indicate that the previous title was no longer acceptable; however, they were not strong enough to be consensus for any particular other title. So the choice of title was mine alone, which is why I mentioned the clause in the closing instructions. The thrust here, though, is to return to the old title, a decision which "should not be made lightly" according to the instructions.WP:MRVis very clear, so I don't think it's up to me now.P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there01:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Paine Ellsworth:Neither can I yours. I didn't realize you didn't realize I was asking for revising the outcome. But what difference would it have made? You seemed determined about it, as you do now. So if I hadn't taken this here, would you have withdrawn the closure? Or would you have just "considered" it?Nardog(talk)20:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I may have seemed determined to you because you were the only editor in the discussion on my talk page who didn't like the outcome. Other editors, including one editor who was uninvolved in the RM discussion, thought I had done a good job with the close. I knew you preferred a different outcome, but other editors were pretty emphatic that they preferred the outcome as I had closed it. To answer your question, if you had explicitly asked me to revise the close, or even if you had just suggested that I revise the close, I like to think that would have done so without hesitation. Instead,you played the MRV cardyou opened this MRV, so I don't think it's up to me anymore, it's up to the reviewers of this MRV, all of whom have a stake in the outcome. As soon as contention is shown in any discussion, withdrawal is no longer an option, and editors here should decide the outcome. Of course, I will go along with whatever consensus is garnered here.P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there01:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't play any "card". There is no such thing as playing a card because Wikipedia is not about winning. Which part ofI take your response as an indication of no intention to revise the outcomedid you not understand? I took it to MRV because I believed that was the only further step I could take. And you had the chance to tell me it was not, and you didn't. "Contention" was already "shown" when I asked you for an explanation, if there was any. You're pulling that out of nowhere.Nardog(talk)01:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I read support rationales that appeared to be stronger than the oppose rationales. The supports seemed strong enough to represent a consensus (at least a rough one) to discard the old title; however, they were not strong enough to be consensus to move to the title requested.P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there00:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe:how do you find that agreeable? The statement does not mention which applicable policies were consulted in determining that the support!votes were stronger. It does not explain why points made by those opposing were incorrect. Surely for a non-admin close not to be what you usually call a "BADNAC", it should at the very least be crystal clear why the consensus is seen, and furthermore preferably not be controversial. Why do you think this case is different from others? As a neutral, and someone who really doesn't mind one way or the other whether the previous or the current title is chosen, I'm honestly trying to understand why there was a consensus for a move, but I just don't see it based on the discussion. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)11:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ideally Paine would have elaborated on why certain rationales were stronger, and why others were weaker. The perfect answer doesn’t include the word “I”. —SmokeyJoe(talk)12:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you don't see the ambiguity of the old title. It was documented in the RM discussion, in my close and on my talk page. That was what stuck in my craw the first time I read the RM, and it should stick in your craw, too. That title, "General American", should probably be the base name of a disambiguation page, or the title of a primary redirect or ptopic article if appropriate. That is something that made the support for the page move somewhat stronger than the opposition.P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Paine, the fact that other don't people see it and you do, is exactly why this angle belongs in a vote, not in a closing summary. The ambiguity angle was mentioned in one comment, and one or two other topics, such asGATXandGeneral American Marks Companywere brought up, but at no stage was it shown that those were sufficient to take the primary topic away from the accent. The onus of proof in an RM is for those wishing to make the move to show reasons, while the default is to retain the status quo. Actually,"from a simple Google searchit seems like the accent is overwhelmingly the primary topic, so a really good case would have to be made to achieve consensus on those grounds, one that simply wasn't made in the discussion that took place. The opposers citing of common name was more than enough to offset the unproven assertion that the term was ambiguous. Cheers —Amakuru(talk)20:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity angle was specifically mentioned in twosupporting!votes,and givenRed Slash's later explanation of their!vote ("The two-word title does not convey enough information to describe the topic"), we can assume they were concerned with ambiguity as well. So clearly some people besides P.I. Ellsworthdosee it, just not the ones objecting to the move. (I'm not sure how you'd "prove" ambiguity exists, but a source cited extensively in the article is even called"General American: An Ambiguity",for crying out loud.)During the RM I mentionedfiveseparatetopicsdescribedsomewhereon Wikipedia called "General American", not one or two. The fact that some usersdidn't respondto this point, despite extensive discussion afterward, isn't an argument for the status quo.Popularity on Google can support a term being primary forusage,but that isn't the only criterion for determining a primary topic. Nor does it rule out retainingGeneral Americanas a redirect. You're bringing up things that werenotdiscussed in the RM at all. As I understand it, MRV is supposed to focus on the actual discussion that took place, along with existing policies. If you have your own arguments to make against the move, then you should wait a while and then open another RM discussion instead. —Sangdeboeuf(talk)00:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, there's ambiguity with e.g. General American Investors and ambiguity as to what particular linguistic topic is referred to. The article cited isnottalking about the former. No source has been identified as addressing that particular ambiguity. I'm assuming that the closer was motivated by the former, rather than the latter, since Sangdeboeuf and I had come to an agreement (AFAIKT) thatGeneral American Englishalso has ambiguity in the linguistic literature on par with the linguistic ambiguity cited forGeneral American.—Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]02:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to rehash the RM, but we don'tneeda source to prove the ambiguity of a given title with respect to other Wikipedia pages. I mention Van Riper's paper to show that the term would be ambiguous even without those other topics. Apologies for any confusion. —Sangdeboeuf(talk)03:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a source to demonstrate ambiguity, but you certainly need some evidence that the accent topic is no longer the *primary topic* for the term in question. There were only two mentions of ambiguity with other Wiki articles in the whole debate, as far as I can see - the first by IJBall, who cited a failure to meetWP:PRECISE,but when requested to clarify what they meant, theyrather rudely accusedthose asking the question of bludgeoning. Sangdeboeuf then pointed out thatGeneral American Investors CompanyandGeneral American Marks Companywere potentially ambiguous topics - a legitimate point, but one which was not backed up with evidence that these topics could possibly challenge the primary topic status of the accent. Certainly this point was not widely addressed in the discussion as a whole, and cannot be taken as consensus at all. If Paine Ellsworth was persuaded that there was ambiguity and that the previous topic was not primary topic, then they should have cast a support!vote making that clear, rather than making aWP:SUPERVOTEciting an issue that was barely discussed in the RM. —Amakuru(talk)09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was very careful to not give the appearance of!supervoting in my closing comment, and I consider that to be a serious allegation. As SmokeyJoe might say, I've said too much. So shutting up now.P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there11:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my above comment is not an accusation of bad faith on your part, Paine, so you shouldn't regard it as a "serious allegation". Everyone accepts that there is a continuum between a smart close which is against the!vote count, but based on policy, on the one hand, versus making a supervote on the other. I'm sure that your close was intended to be the former, which is fine. All I'm saying is that in my opinion you were mistaken about that, and that you have inadvertently, and in good faith, cast a supervote in the close. There's no blame or shame in that, but obviously we're here at MRV to get to the bottom of whether there really was any policy-based consensus for a move or not. Cheers —Amakuru(talk)13:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to (no consensus)I don't see the strength in the arguments for the closing assertion of being ambiguous. In particular basing the arguments on the assumption that companies could be referred to by shortening the name to "General American" seems like it would require more evidence then just an assertion. In fact the referencedWikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matchesdoes not seem to require that partial titles be listed as disambiguations.PaleAqua(talk)13:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commentby a Eurasian editor who was involved and!votednay(i.e., one of those called "opposers" in this thread):
I do not understand how someone can say "all Nardog had to do was ask or suggest".
Explanation: My parents are from different countries, Germany and China. In both of those countries (none of which is under “common law”) asking for an explanation for a decision cannotpossibly be understood as a requestnotto change the decision made. Legally speaking, any official who does not at least ask if such a question is meant to be (wikt:umdeuten) a request that a new decision be made, risks being fired. (Some did get fired. — I'm only talking about Germany and Mainland China; see, for instancede:Antragsrecht.) Nardogdidask for an explanation why this decision was taken; how can someone acting on behalf of en.WP (i.e., someone not bound by national legal practice)notsuspect that what they meant was: please rethink and undo!Love—LiliCharlie(talk)21:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ToeditorsLiliCharlieandNardog:that does sound very reasonable, and I may have been wrong. The consensus on my talk page, which included comments from an editor who was uninvolved in the RM discussion, indicated to me that I had made the correct decision. Perhaps that blinded me to Nardog's implied request. If that is the case, then I surely owe Nardog an apology.P. I. Ellsworth,ed.put'r there21:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn,unfortunately. This was a line call and it appears the closer agrees they'd have been open to revisiting if they had understood that to be the intention of the user who brought it up on their talk page. As the discussion is stale I don't see the point in relisiting it, so I'd just overturn to no consensus.--Cúchullaint/c14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseLooking closely at the discussion and close,Paine Ellsworthhas found a "consensus against" the title,General American,but no consensus for the proposal,General American Englishor alternatives. Their actions and close are consistent withWP:NOGOODOPTIONS.PE has given the need for disambiguation as the determining factor. Looking at the subject, I observe that it is anattributive nounphrase that describes a dialect|accent|variety of English. It is frequently used in such a construction but also, it is used where the noun being described is implied. As such, it is a shortened form of one of those constructions and may be considered jargon[ish]. "General American" may be concise but it is not precise, though it may be perceived to be by those that use the jargon. This is one of the arguements being made (though not in the same words) and one which I would find compelling - and more so, when considering the matter of ambiguity. There is inconsistency in arguing against the DAB forothershortended forms when this page is a shortended form.
It is not surprising that the close has been challenged, given the vehemence with which some have argued their position. An arguement to overturn premised on the statement,!votes were six to six,fundamentally ignores that consensus is based upon strength of arguement (WP:NHC). I also note this statement from the closer's TP:You found arguments on one side stronger, fine, but when the!votes are split precisely in half, that seems like good reason to!vote yourself or relist, not to close in favor of that side.I'm scratching my head. Sure, not everybody likes where it got moved to but that is not the point. The OP of this reveiw has not raised concerns IAW the advice atWP:CLOSECHALLENGEfor a move or a close more generally. What should be happening is a discussion to move the article to another alternative per the close. Finally, asking a closer to clarify their close does not imply that a closer is being asked to revert their close. If one is asking for clarification, then that is what is being asked. I was uninvolved in the discussion. Regards,Cinderella157(talk)03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I concede that I'm not without fault strictly in terms of procedure, do you agree with the closure itself, namely that there was consensus against the former title?Nardog(talk)14:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per my first para, I would find the arguements for the move (ie away from the existing title) to be compelling. It is therefore not unreasonable to afford them weight for a finding of consensus against the former title. I also note, fromWP:CLOSECHALLENGE,Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result.So, describing it as aline callwould actually appear to be a statement of endorsement. Regards,Cinderella157(talk)10:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseLooking through the RM there seems to be consensus against the former title and a weak consensus to move. While the closing statement isn't ideal, it's correct. The participants found the opposition less compelling than the supports and so the closer should give less weight to the opposition. While the numbers are split, most of the opposition was early while supports came after significant debate showing that editors who came to the discussion later did not view the opposition arguments as strong. There is definitely no consensus for the page to remain where it was, and given the late supports I would say there is even weak consensus in favor of its current title. Ideally the discussion should have been relisted to make that clear, or the closer should have given an opinion in support rather than closing the discussion. But we're here now and I don't think the outcome is off base.Wug·a·po·des05:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
