WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s– On the basis of this discussion, the closes available to me are "endorse" and "no consensus to overturn". Both of these result in leaving the previous close undisturbed, and therefore I need not choose between them. There is significant and well-argued support for a fresh discussion that's untainted by the uncollegial rancour that has afflicted the previous two, but there should be a break of a few months to let the dust settle before this fresh discussion begun.—S MarshallT/C13:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
Not only was there no clear consensus in favour of the move of multiple pages, it seems to me that the consensus was the other way. Had any of the arguments been clearly flawed, that might have been a reason for supporting one group or another, but all that I see in the closure is a comment to the effect that there was a wider variety of arguments against the move than for it. The closer even seems to have doubts about the desirability of the moves: see comment on my talk page:[1]I feel he is correct in saying that "It is not the role of CFD to be a battleground for a proxy war regarding ENGVAR disputes", and yet that is exactly what has happened and has effectively been endorsed by the closers' action. I would agree with him that the discussion became very acrimonious and was difficult to read, and I'm sure that the domination of the discussion by the nominator (with an astonishing 124 edits) was not a factor in a good-faith decision. Nevertheless, I request a review.Deb(talk)20:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I intended contributing more to the discussion but gave up on that idea because of the domination by the nominator, which wasn't helped bythis bit of wikistalking.I welcome Deb's request for review and I'm sure other members of the TV project will as well because endorsement of the close will create significant confusion. --AussieLegend(✉)21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's pity that the AussieLegend didn't post in the usual chronological order, and reverted my move of their post to chronological order. That is made worse by AussieLegend's abuse of MR to make a thoroughly bogus allegation of "stalking". Reverting a single bad edit by AussieLegend is in no senseWP:HOUNDING,and placing that bogus allegation at the top of the discussion is a nasty gambit. --BrownHairedGirl(talk)• (contribs)21:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity that BrownHairedGirl is now attempting to dominate this discussion. My post was made as a direct response to Deb, not to BHG butthis editmoved my post so that it appeared to be a response to BHG, which it most certainly was not. BHG denies stalking but the article in question has existed since 2013 and BHG has never edited the article previously. When she finally did so, it was coincidentally only 28 minutes after I did. My edit was not bad, it was tidying of the terminology used and was entirely appropriate for that TV series. BHG's revert was an edit that supported her POV. Now, can we get on with the review? --AussieLegend(✉)07:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie, you made a bogus allegation, and then used the fact of that I replied as a pretext to claim that I am trying todominate this discussion.That's a classic trolling or baiting tactic. Please stop trolling. --BrownHairedGirl(talk)• (contribs)14:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of trolling when all I have done is reported what happened. I consider that to be a personal attack. You've made you own bogus claims, like saying that my edit to an article that you never edited until I did was bad, when it was not, and you've made more posts here than anyone else as well as moving my post so that it looked like I was replying to you. The discussion saw fit to mention you specifically in the close saying, "I want to specifically urge BHG to not give in to the need to comment on every single oppose with an inflammatory tone". You really should take that advice on board. Now, as I asked before, can we get on with the review? --AussieLegend(✉)16:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, Aussie. You didnotjustreported what happened.You made a bogus allegation of stalking, and then tried to manufacture a drama out of my reply. That is trolling, and if you want to claim that's a personal attack, take it toWP:ANI.--BrownHairedGirl(talk)• (contribs)20:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, please explain how you just happened to decide to revert an edit of mine at an article that you had never edited in the 7 years that the article has existed and how your summary just happened to support your POV at the category discussion. How often do you edit TV articles? It's all a little too suspicious and maybe it does need discussion at ANI. I still stand by my argument that you are trying to dominate this discussion. You've now made 7 edits here and have forced me to post far more than I would have liked to. Please don't reply to this. Concentrate on the review please. --AussieLegend(✉)03:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A single revert of one bad edit of yours is notWP:HOUNDING.Your repeated, false allegations of stalking are unfounded and malicious, and amount to trolling.
Neither I nor anyone else has "forced" you to post here. Your repeated posts are simply your decision to persist in trolling by repetition of your bogus allegations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk)• (contribs)00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your response did not in any way answer the question that was asked so I assume that you have no excuse or justification.
Your repeated posts are simply your decision to persist in trolling- Again, please cutout the personal attacks and the hypocrisy. No matter how many times I ask you to not reply and concentrate on the review you always have to have the last word. --AussieLegend(✉)07:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure,as nominator. This was an appalling discussion in which the opposers ignored policy, ignored evidence, and relied on unevidenced assertions and cherrypicked examples to support their case. Two editors in particular posted vast screeds of evidence-free objections, which should have had no place at all in the discussion; my point-by-point rebuttals of this verbiage added further to the overload.
The closers did an okayish job of weighing the discussion. They should have attached more weight to the policy and evidence in favour of the proposed rename, and explicitly discounted the verbose personal assertions; they should also have refrained from objecting to evidenced, reasoned replies to the unevidenced waffle. But fixing those flaws would have only strengthened their finding. --BrownHairedGirl(talk)• (contribs)20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening things up. I have to say that personally, I'm surprised that there wasn't more serious consideration about allowing this to be a situation where we allow program/programme to co-exist, similar to what we do with transport/transportation. But I can only work with what is there and weight according to the standards and guidelines regarding CFD. It's not about what I personally think or feel (which I'm glad you pointed out). I would think that it's probably best to step aside from this particular discussion and reopen a new one several months down the line where the different options are all listed out alphabetically (perhaps even including "series", "original programming", and so forth). It may well be that that's where things are headed.bibliomaniac1521:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am saddened by that comment, especially byBibliomaniac15's assertion that they weresurprised that there wasn't more serious consideration about allowing this to be a situation where we allow program/programme to co-exist. That seems to be a dismissal ofMOS:COMMONALITY,which I think is a very serious lapse of the closer's responsibility to weigh the discussion through the lens of policy.... but it does explain some of the failings I mentioned above. It also explains why Bibliomaniac15 suggests some sort of listing of options, as if this was some sort of vote unrelated to policy. In particular, Bibliomaniac15's comparison with transport/transportation is unwise, because no neutral, widely-used alternative is available in that case. Closers should weigh discussions against policy and evidence in reliable sources; they should not brush off policy and introduce their own preferences. --BrownHairedGirl(talk)• (contribs)21:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I was involved and had my particular viewpoint, I feel like the closers did a good job and incorporated all the views which resulted in a consensus to standardize - a desire of which almost everyone agreed, even those wanting just to standardizesomehow.I don't think Deb makes aprima faciecase giving enough rationale to reverse this close. --Netoholic@21:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and complimentthe closer on a great reading of consensus, based in our policies. There is one and only one issue at stake--commonality in language, which is highly praised on Wikipedia. It's why we have an article in American English atgrey,a rarer spelling for us Americans but one we do have in common with the Brits. God help us if we can't even get a completely clear policy applied in Wikipedia. Absolutely no one on any continent uses the word "program(me)", which is a ridiculous and untenable construct that spits in the face of our naming policies. (The reason we have these policies is because it helps avoid stupid, stupid fights like "do Argentines use American English?" ) I am not insulting any person, but wow, that was a ridonculously unnecessary debate. I am alsouninvolvedby the way.RedSlash21:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stupid fights like "do Argentines use American English?",especially since officially we don't useanyvariaton of English.El Millo(talk)22:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a clarification, the closure wasn't for/against "program(me)", it was between show/program/programme. That was just the nominator's way of being respectful of the spelling difference.bibliomaniac1521:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and complimentthe closers. It is refreshing to see a close which balances the arguments rather than merely counting heads.Oculi(talk)21:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deplore closureI didn't exactly cover myself in glory in my contributions inThe Great TV Shows Debate.Why bother? From bitter experience I could see the end point which BHG was bound and determined to achieve, no matter what the cost (to her personal reputation and to Wiki as a concept). Knowing that she would go to any lengths to get her way, I saw that any serious attempt at intervening would be futile, hence my contributions were of a fatalistic, insouciant style. The one good thing that came out of the closure was the (very mild) censure of BHD and the sensible advice to not reply to every seeming insult or rebuff - advice that has been roundly ignored by her here already. That leopard can't change her spots, God love her. To the matter in hand: the correct decision ought to have been to have left everything alone and let the battle be fought over MOS:Commonality and EngVar in their forums. Only after achieving unity in the article space should amendments have been made to Category space.Laurel Lodged(talk)07:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not overturn but continue on from closure's ending comments.The discussion was made hostile and uneasy to follow by a one specific editor which made editors, including myself, not want to participate, or even able to comment on all matters. The closure's ending comments saidOur suggestion is that if there are future discussions down the line in this venue, they should list out all the different possibilities for consideration (perhaps using an option A, B, C... format), and that no such nominations be made (other than to pick up any potential omissions from this nomination) for two months from today.,and the general closing consensus which he said was to standardize. I'd say that moving a huge amount of pages in short amount of time is disruptive, and that the followup discussion should happen now. No need for this to get messy and have endless comments on comments. Also, specifically for the group of categories noted by@Mvcg66b3r:they should followWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020 January 22#American television series by network.--Gonnym(talk)08:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion were to continue, I think we should first put all the evidence gathered forward, as concisely as possible and for all to see. We should also establish a baseline. Is standardization already consensus, or are we yet to agree on that as well?El Millo(talk)08:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your question, I guess it depends on this review. Just a note: I won't be available for at least 24 hours, so any comment/question to me is not that I'm ignoring, it's just that I'm not here. --Gonnym(talk)09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If my count is correct I note that 9 editors of the 21 who participated in the discussion, including me, have already posted here with most supporting their POV from the discussion. Surprise, surprise, who'd a thunk it? Unlike the majority of those editors I am not going to do that although I do support Gonnym's proposal that wecontinue on from closure's ending comments.As a long time member of the TV project I can see that moving these categories is going to create some confusion, especially when news programs and many series will now be categorised as "shows" when they are more specifically program(me)s and series, the latter perWP:NCTV.Further discussion is needed to minimise this confusion and the need to re-categorise articles. I do endorse another part of the close, i.e. the entire paragraph dealing with lack of civility, especially by certain editors. That ruined the discussion and I am sure turned people away from contributing, as it did me. --AussieLegend(✉)08:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieLegend:No distinction between "shows" and "programmes" was established in the CFD. As for series, if there's a hierarchy of series under shows/programmes/programming, by all means move relevant contents down into "series" categories. –FayenaticLondon19:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There might have been if BrownHairedGirl hadn't dominated the discussion. There were actually examples given, such as news programs, which are not "shows". Yes, articles can be moved, but it's a lot of work that is really unnecessary and all because one editor who doesn't edit TV articles likes "show". --AussieLegend(✉)06:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not endorseclosure. It should have been left as "no consensus".This is a controversial change that is going to result in confusion (as noted byUser:AussieLegend).User:Bibliomaniac15:the discussion itself shows thatUser:BrownHairedGirlbombed it withWP:BATTLEGROUND,WP:BLUDGEON,WP:PEPPER,andWP:STICK.People don't want to subject themselves to such tactics, so I give credit to those who stood up to BHG. And there was an unmistakableWP:TAGTEAMat play, too:.1,.2,.3.(I don't expect anyone to admit to discussions with BHG taking place behind the scenes.) The main article was moved in 2017 from "program" to "show" on the opinion of 3 editors only. Considering the volume of editors involved in TV articles, a decision based on 2 support replies did not constitute a representation of TV editors. The renaming of categories"television program(me)s" to "television shows"is rooted in that poorly-attendedarticle name movecreated byUser:Netoholicon 28 November 2017.Pyxis Solitary(yak).L not Q.12:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged, the validity of that RM seems to only come up when it suits people, such asthesetwo2018 discussions where I point out there was plenty of notice about the RM and opportunity at that time to weigh in. Likewise, in these years, no one has attempted to submit a new RM to their preferred term, so bringing the attendance level of that RM up is justWP:SOURGRAPESand in my view borderlinetendentious.Accept prior consensus, or show a new consensus - but don't you dare imply anything is wrong with it just because it was "poorly-attended". Sometimes, very obvious RMs are poorly-attended exactly because no one can make a decent argument in opposition. Maybe you guys didn't see the RM at the time... or just maybe you saw it but couldn't express a reasonable counter-argument and chose not to participate. If there are so many TV editors as you claim, why else didn't they show up? --Netoholic@13:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If there are so many TV editors as you claim, why else didn't they show up?"... Because unlike editors who practice transparency,you did not announce the RM discussion in WikiProject Television,where a variety of editors interested in TV articles would have found out about it. I, for one, did not have the Main article on my watchlist, nor do I lurk WP:RM. But had it been announced in WP:TV, I would have known about the RM and opposed it.Pyxis Solitary(yak).L not Q.07:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Or rather, I did not. I never look at the front page mess of WP:TV, and that's on me. I apologize for thinking that it had not been announced in the project.Pyxis Solitary(yak).L not Q.08:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't look at the alerts page. When listing an article it's always good practice to mention it on the project's talk page. --AussieLegend(✉)09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't using the exact tool created to notify the WikiProject, I don't know what else to say. Looking at the length of that alerts page, it would be impractical to manually notify the project's talk page for every such listing. And historically that has not been the common practice. --Netoholic@15:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyxis Solitary:Your commentI don't expect anyone to admit to discussions with BHG taking place behind the scenesis an unevidenced smear. In my 14 years on Wikipedia, I have held myself to a firm policy that discussions about Wiki content belong on wiki. The only exception I make to that is that I will discuss the personal aspects of disputes between editors by email. That rule has applied throughout this discussion; the only discussions I have had with other editors about these TV categories, or about the editors involved, have been on-wiki. Nobody has contacted me off-wiki about it, and I have contacted nobody else about it off-wiki. In the course of the discussion, I responded to comments on my talk by another editor; I did not initiate those discussions, and they are all open. Pyxis Solitary's complaint aboutTalk:Television show#Requested_move_28_November_2017was made in the course of the discussion[2].I replied a few hours later[3]debunking Pyxis Solitary's claims, and the following day I made a further reply[4]to yet more nonsnese from PS. In a nutshell, that discussion followed all the normal RM processes, and was notified in the TV article alerts.[5]The RM was been uncontested for the next two and a half years; no objections on the talk page of the article, no new RM. Any editor could have opened a new RM in that time, but nobody did. Pyxis Solitary claims that Ibombedthe discussion, but this exchange here illustrates some of the reasonswhyI replied a lot: to correct the gratuitous smears and assertions of falsehoods by Pyxis Solitary and other editors. I am utterly disgusted at the sustained contempt which PS and a few others have shown for policy, for evidence in reliable sources, and for fact... and I am sadly unsurprised that even at this stage they are still trying smear tactics. --BrownHairedGirl(talk)• (contribs)13:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"an unmistakableWP:TAGTEAMat play "?TAGTEAM states:most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team.Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil.@Pyxis Solitary:instead of making cheap, unevidenced accusations, why don't you discuss the topic, or the reasoning, or maybe provide some evidence in favor of your point of view? The reason the closers closed the discussion as they did is because all your arguments didn't hold up.El Millo(talk)18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSadly, just as I anticipated, all the supporters of the original proposal to move have come here repeating their original arguments, ignoring the fact that this is supposed to be a review of the closers' decision.Deb(talk)09:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse,I do not see how this discussion could ever have been closed as "no consensus" while so little evidence was offered against the claim thatshowis used commonly in both British and American English. Also note that the discussion was in fact closed by a team of two administrators from both the UK and the US, who thus together did everything they could to avoid any particular bias. (Two disclosures. One, I also participated in the discussion. And two, English is not my native language and before an earlier wp discussion in the same area I wrongly presumed that "show" would be exclusively used in American English.)Marcocapelle(talk)12:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter that "show" is used commonly. In Australia, "mt" and "mtr." are both commonly used as abbreviations for "metre", despite Australia changing to the metric system several decades ago, but that doesn't mean we're going to change the actual abbreviation from "m". What is important is that the TV project standardised on "series" as a disambiguator a long time ago and that has been confirmed after more recent discussions. We have used program and programme but "show" has never received support. With this move we now have a situation where "foreign" (to the TV project) terminology is being used to categorise programs that avoid that terminology in naming. It's introducing a ridiculous situation. --AussieLegend(✉)06:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(I did not participate in the initial discussion).This is a clear-cut case of weighing the strength of the argument rather than simply counting votes. Those supporting the move in the original discussion provided convincing evidence to back their position, while those in opposition did not.Calidum17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule– The closer read the discussion in the light of other, recent discussions in the same topic area, and there are two starkly contrasting views about that:1) In doing so, they conducted their own research into how the article should be titled, and that's not the role of a discussion closer, so this was a supervote that should be overturned; or alternatively 2) If the closer didn't take account of other, recent discussions in the same topic area, editors would have to copy/paste their contributions from one discussion to another in order to be given weight, which means decisions would be made by persistence and exhausting the other side's capacity to respond rather than by reasoned debate, which is strongly undesirable.In addition, there are a whole lot of arguments that disregard the close and the process, and focus on what the article title ought to be. The discussion is remarkably black-and-white, with nobody seeing much merit in the other side's position or showing any inclination to change their minds.In the light of this discussion the only close available to me is "No consensus to overturn", which means the outcome stands for the time being; but I note the significant and well-argued support for a change of title here. By convention, where there's no consensus, as a closer I'm allowed to relist. I have considered this and I don't think it's likely to lead to a consensus: we've had a lot of RMs and MRs about this.That's the end of my formal close, but with my editor hat on, I think there's scope for an RfC about article titles in the topic area, and I wouldn't see it as forum-shopping to begin one -- particularly if it's advertised on WP:CENT. I hope this helps—S MarshallT/C11:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
This should have been either a not moved or no consensus close but closer did a super close and exceeded the scope as you can see from the closing comments. The close also confuses annexation and occupation and uses that to super-close this close and says we should have consensus from one article to this article. Jordan annexed the West Bank but it wasn't widely recognized, so that move was closed one way. However, from 1948-1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank including East Jerusalem. That has nothing to do with annexation. If you are going to say that from 1948-1967 Jordan didn't occupy the WB and EJ, then are you willing to edit all the WB articles where it says Israel is currently occupying the WB and EJ? If you say that Jerusalem is occupied by Israel, then wasn't it occupied by Jordan from 48-67?Sir Joseph(talk)00:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closer:My role is closer was simply to answer the question "bickering aside, what is the most appropriate title for the article"? The key part of the close isthe article titles policy on title consistency;one could also look atthe "COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom"close I made a few days ago for how to close an RM without resorting to a simplistic vote-counting exercise. For this topic, there have been two discussions atTalk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bankwhich both returned results that "occupation" wasn't appropriate for the title because it was seen to be not reflective of the entire period mentioned. On its own, I could see the reason for a "no consensus" result, but the idea of an isolated consensus island isn't what consensus is about in the first place. Also, for what it's worth, the Arab-Israeli conflict is a quagmire of circular bad-faith arguments, not only on Wikipedia, but in reality too, and while I have myownviews on the matter, I have no desire to get bogged down in the political debate on Wikipedia.Sceptre(talk)01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn CloseThere was a clear consensus not to move.The arguments by the opposes were legitimate and based on policy.The closer role was not choose "most appropriate title for the article" but to asses a consensus and that not what he did he instead he choose to cast aWP:SUPERVOTEas evident by his comment here --Shrike(talk)06:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseI was the proposer of the move. In my view, it corresponds to Wikipedia practice andWP:RMCLOSE.The "vote count", to the extent that it applies here, was 3 in favor and 3 against (one of the latter having made no comment other than simply to say "oppose" ) and one other whose position was that it was a matter of fact. The close referred to recent existing consensus positions about the central issue elsewhere and noted that those supported the move. It seems inappropriate that the closer should be accused of "bias" on his talk page in these circumstances.Selfstudier(talk)10:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseAccording to sheer!vote count, it 'appears' as no consensus to move, but consensus is not a vote. Since there was a previous no consensus to moveJordanian annexation of the West Bankto occupation, the closer correctly extrapolated from there that there is no overall consensus on Wikipedia to label the Jordanian period an occupation, hence the move away from occupation to rule. As per the OP's equivalence arguments, while this is not the place to relitigate the wider conflict, there is a clear difference on the ground between the time an Arab power ruled over fellow Arabs than when Israeli Jews did the same.Havradim(talk)18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that because Jordan is an Arab power, it was OK to violate the UN partition plan but the same can't be said for Israel? That seems to be hypocritical, and OR and SYNTH. It also shows the difference between annexation and occupation when no such extrapolation is warranted. But at least someone is open enough to admit the hypocrisy of why articles are biased, "when an Arab does something, it's OK.."Sir Joseph(talk)18:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The plan wasn't 'violated' by Jordan. Arab governments rejected the plan. Then Israel captured their portion of the mandate plus territory meant for the Arab state, and Jordan, Egypt and Iraq captured the remainder. The international community recognised Israel proper but not Jerusalem, which was outside their mandate, as was Jordan in the West Bank; so Israel in West Jerusalem and Jordan in East Jerusalem were both unrecognised. But the only time the international community declared something as 'occupied territory' was Israel in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.Havradim(talk)19:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unrecognized, why is Israel occupying Jerusalem then? If Jordan wasn't occupying EJ as you say because it was outside the mandate, and Israel captured it from Jordan, then it stands to follow that it's now still not being occupied being that Israel captured it from a power who was not occupying it.Sir Joseph(talk)19:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unrecognised and occupied are two very different things. To say that Israel capturing from unrecognised Jordanian territory means they couldn't possibly be occupying is exactly original research when virtually the entire world calls it an occupation. Calling Jordan in '48 an occupier means calling Israel in '48 an occupier as well. Do you want there to be an article namedIsraeli occupation of West Jerusalem?This discussion is turning into a repeat of previous arguments when it should be focused on the merits of the technical close.Havradim(talk)20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic makes no sense. Was Jordan an occupier or not? It's as simple as that. As I pointed out up top, we already have an article,Israeli occupation of the West Bank,should we now change it toIsraeli rule of the West Bank?You also just said in the above paragraph, that calling Jordan an occupier means calling Israel an occupier. Guess what? We do call Israel an occupier. That's the whole point in pointing out the hypocrisy. That's why this should be overturned. Thank you for realizing it.Sir Joseph(talk)20:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.I did not participate in the move request. The opposes were policy based (eg COMMONNAME); it wasn't for the closer to choose the most appropriate name, and certainly not by applying the consensus from a different move discussion to this move discussion. I see no consensus in this move discussion.Levivich[dubious–discuss]20:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn1. The comment of the closing editor was "I don't particularly see the comments in opposition to such a move are particularly persuasive to move away from the much larger consensus that" occupation "is desirable in articles titles regarding the topic." That sounds to me like the closing editor saw a consensus to keep the name with "occupation". 2. Based on the votes, there was no consensus for the move. 3. Per analog from other articles related to the IP-conflict that use "occupation". 4. The argument of the closing editor, that "occupation" was not used atJordanian annexation of the West Bank,is not a valid argument, since neither is "rule" used in that article name.Debresser(talk)21:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AtIs-Pal Collaboration,there is an open RFC initially about adding boilerplate to all West Bank village articles, namely "(WB village) came underJordanianrule.... "A second leg of this RFC has been established proposing that the word" rule "in this boilerplate ought to be replaced by" occupation ".(!) And here is a comment from your good self there:" In any case, as said elsewhere by others, sources call it "rule". "Selfstudier(talk)11:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I missed out a word from that closing statement, which should've been evident. I've fixed the closure now to fix that typo.Sceptre(talk)05:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I did not participate, and I generally think thatoccupiedandoccupationare the correct terms for the period that Jordan held the West Bank, both from prior to and after the annexation. But our article on it is titledJordanian annexation,notJordanian occupation,and the entire set of articles related to that should follow that title based on the policy on consistency in titles across a topic. These ancillary articles should follow that, and if editors want to change how Wikipedia refers to the control Jordan held over the West Bank they should do so atTalk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank.nableezy-23:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to no consensus- On what grounds could this decision possibly be defended? The vote was evenly split between the two sides, and it does indeed look like the opposes were relying on more strongly policy-based reasons for calling it a de facto occupation as most sources do. Worse of all though, was the nonsensical closing statement. The closer claimed there was a "much larger consensus that occupation is desirable", but the link provided doesn't show anything even remotely like that. This incoherent closing statement should alone be enough to have the ruling overturned.ErinRC(talk)06:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved). Everyone at Wikipedia knows it'sWP:NOTAVOTEand that closers are supposed to look at the relevant policies referenced in the discussion. Then, when a closer actually does it, you get all "surprised Pikachu".RedSlash20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Supervote.No clear consensus, for sure. Was there a rough consensus to move? I'm not sure. Reading through everything, I feel inclined to!vote "support" for the move, if it was still open. There are pros and cons. The difference is small, but emotive. In the end, I do not think the closer gave a closing rationale nearly good enough to justify the close. They should not have closed it, but should have!voted instead, it was not ready to be closed. --SmokeyJoe(talk)04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how a statement that says that "occupation" and "rule" are both deemed less preferable is relevant to a review of the move from one to the other?Debresser(talk)20:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RM was filed on 14 April and nearly a week later at 17:51, 21 April there wasconsensus to move(also closed by Buidhe) and the pages were then moved byJHunterJat 19:10/19:11. I then started fixing the links andKingofaces43questioned the close, posted a message on my talk page once I'd nearly finished fixing the links, and then move the DAB back[6].The previous setup was then restored byAnthony Appleyard.At 17:22, 28 April it was again closed by Buidhe as no consensus which I think was correct but for the previous consensus. There have over the last few years been several cases where there was consensus and then soon after these's been a dispute about if the move should have taken place such asNew York,World Heritage Site,BuryandCategory:Cars.The 1st 2 were later reverted (NY in the 2016 RM) but the 2nd 2 stayed as they were. Some feel that the stable title should be retained, that is before the prior consensus but that means people wanting a RM have to both get a successful RMandhope no one objects to the move in the next few months which is asking too much IMO since then you might as well just make undiscussed moves. I thinkthiscomment pretty much sums up the situation, in other words for here "Consensus to move (fungus) away from primary topic" "No consensus to move DAB away from primary topic". In addition there is also the point that "no consensus" in primary topics should arguably mean that there is no primary topic though that its self hasn't yet gained consensus, seeWikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 51#No consensus in primary topic discussions.See alsodiscussionwithCertes.IMO there were strong arguments on both sides such as that multiple topics have high page views and long-term significance in favour of no primary topic and that the fungus is more significant and primary for just "Mold" and functions as a broad concept article for some other topics.Crouch, Swale(talk)18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what this review is intended to accomplish or really can at this point, but organismal/fungalmoldhas been treated as the primary topic since before the RM discussion, and is the current status quo. There hasn't been consensus to treat it as a term with no primary topic, and we've had general consensus in the past that the currentmoldarticle act as a generalWP:CONCEPTDABfocusing mostly on fungal mold, but directing readers to all the other non-fungal molds.
When I first found the initial move discussion that had been closed, I found verysuperficial!votes that didn't really contribute in terms ofWP:CONSENSUSpolicy if I had seen and closed it earlier, and some issues that really needed editors who had background in biology given some of the mistakes that came up later. Part of that was Crouch Swale's opening comments where they tried to compareslime moldorwater moldpage views against fungal mold. That would be like sayingdragonflyexists and needs to be weighed againstflyin a move discussion. If you're using the searchbox for fly, you're generally not looking for a dragonfly. Those of us who deal with organism name titles know this can be a tricky subject for those not familiar with it. That's in part why I asked Buidhe to relist the discussion and asked Wikiproject Fungi to hopefully get some biological background due to how trickyWP:COMMONNAMEissues are, including mold nomenclature. I won't rehash that background of the RM discussion beyond that though.
In that discussion, it was brought up that at best among the competing non-organism mold subjects, onlyMolding (process)(often differentiated from living mold by the ing suffix) has some page views worth considering, but still nowhere near the overarching living mold subject. It was floated if that someone could really establish a significant competing subject among non-living mold, we could easily followWP:2DABSand add that subject to the current mold page along with the disambig for everything else. No one has followed up on that yet. This isn't the right talk page for that though. As someone who was initially uninvolved, I still think the conversation could be closed as consensus for living mold. Some behavior issues exacerbated the discussion as well, so I can see why it would be closed as no consensus. The actual weight of the subjects brought up weren't really directly weighed in the close, but nothing was really brought up as a truly competing subject to the status quo. That is what's needed to establish consensus for no primary topic.Kingofaces43(talk)23:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This review is intended to get the original close restored. As noted there was aconsensusto treat it as a term with no primary topic. Not that the absence of this would prevent that consensus but I'd note that there was previous questioning of the primary topic atTalk:Mold (disambiguation)#Moldingin 2016 by 2 editors who supported the 2020 move.
Arguments likeI fail to see how there is a primary topic between Mold (fungus) and Mold (casting). Both have extremely high historical significanceandThe fungus doesn't seem significantly above other topics for either usage or long-term significance perWP:PRIMARYTOPICare surely strong even though they might not give much weight to the fact people might be more likely to search for "Molding" or similar. And the arguments that this is a broad concept article for slime and water mold doesn't seem to be the case since even the top of the fungus article saysSlime molds and water molds arenot fungiand are discussed in separate articles(emphasis). Indeed "mo(u)ld(s)" is the noun for such a container anyway.
The manufactoring/cooking topics indeed would be competing non living topics that would mean 2DABS wouldn't work since even ignoring slime and leaf mold there are 2 articles there.Crouch, Swale(talk)20:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to rehash RM discussions, so I'll just comment on your mention of the hatnote for slime and water molds. Both of those are actual formal taxonomic groups, unlike the generalized mold term that focuses on fungi but has historical use with other organisms. The third paragraph of the lead outlines this and why the article has broad-concept components,Molds are considered to be microbes and do not form a specific taxonomic or phylogenetic grouping, but can be found in the divisions Zygomycota and Ascomycota. In the past, most molds were classified within the Deuteromycota.[5] Mold had been used as a common name for now non-fungal groups such as water molds or slime molds that were previously classified as fungi.I know organism common name issues can be confusing, but this is generally how such cases are handled.Kingofaces43(talk)15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.I read multiple good arguments against, it was an easy "co consensus" close, almost could have been closed as "consensus to not move", and could not have been closed as "consensus to move". --SmokeyJoe(talk)21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was on the 2nd week after reopening, on the 1st week there was consensus for the move, that points to consensus to move followed by no consensus to move back.Crouch, Swale(talk)16:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're trying to sneak this move through on a technicality. If there were truly consensus to move the article, you wouldn't have to do that.Rreagan007(talk)20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well you were the only one to have opposed despite several of us supporting it with valid arguments for the move. While you're arguments were also strong they didn't overcome the clear consensus. 7 days is the standard amount of time for a move so unless you think closing the discussion 2 and a half hours early amounts to sneaking the move through on a technicality I don't see you're point. If everyone simply asked primary topic moves they disagree with to be re-opened and then notified projects interested in that topic its likely that there would be no consensus but that doesn't override the previous consensus, in this case found on the 21st.Crouch, Swale(talk)21:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't like most move requests about things pop culture or some obscure topic stub. This article is a very important core scientific article and conducting a broader discussion with more notice provided to editors was a completely appropriate thing to do.Rreagan007(talk)21:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The move back to the longstanding title was a procedural move when the original discussion was reopened by the original closer who deemed the close premature, which doesn't require consensus. The original closer is able to do that at his own discretion. If there were truly consensus that this article should be moved, you could simply renominate it. But you know that won't work because there really isn't consensus for the move, as is demonstrated in the previous discussion.Rreagan007(talk)20:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see clear evidence the closer thought the close was premature, therewastruly a consensus for the moves at the 1st close as demonstrated by that close and there was no consensus on the 2nd close so the original close should have stuck.Crouch, Swale(talk)20:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He must have thought it was premature, as he reopened it. And if there had been true consensus, it wouldn't have changed with an additional week of discussion. What actually happened here was that not enough editors were made aware that a move discussion was taking place, so a full discussion did not take place until more people became aware of it. And now you're trying to argue that this page should be moved anyway despite the lack of a current consensus to do so because you think there was a brief moment in time of a few days where there was a consensus to move the article that had been at its current location for many years. Well I don't buy that argument. If there was "consensus" to move the article after a week of discussion, but not after two weeks of discussion, then it didn't really exist in the first place. The consensus that you are claiming existed for a few days for the move was merely an illusion created by lack of awareness that a move discussion was taking place. Achieving consensus isn't supposed to be a process that you can game or trick your way through in order to get your desired outcome, which is what it feels like you're attempting to do here.Rreagan007(talk)00:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reopening appears to be because that was requested rather than the close being premature. If there was a consensus to overturn the previous closure then that would have happened on the 2nd week. There is no requirement or expectation to notify projects since the article alerts somewhat deals with that (as was noted at the cars discussion) and even when the fungi and microbiology wikiprojects notified there was still a lack of consensus, no editors from manufacturing or cookery were notified and if they had have been it might have been different. I understand this is a major topic and manual notification of the projects was probably OK but that didn't invalidate the previous consensus. Both the nomination and closure followed the spirit and letter of our PAG. You don't have to have both a consensus in a discussionandno one challenging the change for a while, only one or the other is required. Similarly for example you makingRaleigha redirect toRaleigh, North Carolinawasn't challenged for over 2 years and was therefore implied consensus, what we have here is express consensus for the change, implied consensus isn't also required.Crouch, Swale(talk)20:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it appears that the reopening was requested, but that request did not have to be granted by the closer if he thought reopening was unwarranted. He determined that reopening was warranted and thus reopened the discussion for another week. There was nothing improper about that, and with the extra week of discussion it became readily apparent that there was no consensus for the move and the discussion was then properly closed as no consensus.Rreagan007(talk)21:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it didn't since there was no consensus, had the 2nd close been the result of clear consensus to have the fungus at the basename then that would suggest a false consensus but that didn't happen.Crouch, Swale(talk)20:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't simply look at the first week of discussion in isolation and claim that there was consensus, because the discussion didn't end at the end of the first week. It was relisted for a second week of discussion, as is allowed under the requested moves procedure.Rreagan007(talk)23:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can, the 1st close was correct and perWP:MOVEDThis almost always sets a consensus for the new title, and further requests to move the page are likely to fail unless new information or arguments are brought forth.That means that that consensus needs to be respected. If such "new information" comes up (like it did) then there can be a new discussion but that doesn't invalidate the previous one.Crouch, Swale(talk)20:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've avoided contributing to the wall of text effect going on here, but you can't just go declaring consensus when a close was undone. That is getting intoWP:WIKILAWYERINGterritory and pretty much every editor here is cautioning you about these actions. The whole point ofWP:IMRis that a close can be invalidated to relist the discussion. My initial move review process was by the book, and we can't cherrypick to say only part of the move discussion should be weighed because it was before or after the relisting. That would never fly whether it's here, AfD, etc. If there had been an entirely different close a few months ago, that would be a different story, but this is all one single move discussion that was recently "resolved" with the most recent close.Kingofaces43(talk)01:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not going into WIKILAWYERING territory, if we allow this then we could allow anyone who disagrees with a successful RM to ask for it to be re-opened and then notify projects and get a lack of consensus. That isn't fair on those wanting a RM to have to (1) get a successful RMand(2) hope no one objects to the close. The spirit and letter of RMCI is that a correctly closed RM discussion is binding. Otherwise why use RM if the decisions aren't binding, I might as well have requested this a RMT. With AFD discussions its a bit different because anytime there is new sources etc showing notability then there might no longer be a good reason to delete. That's not the same with RM discussions, the only difference was new arguments.Crouch, Swale(talk)08:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if we allow this then we could allow anyone who disagrees with a successful RM to ask for it to be re-opened and then notify projects...That is exactly how a valid objection to a close process is supposed to work.Kingofaces43(talk)16:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse?- I am confused, despite the best efforts of the proposer here. My initial understanding on reading this was that this Kingoffaces guy saw a move he didn't like and reverted it himself. That isn't what happened; instead, the initial closer self-reverted and relisted, which is I guess okay. I would have endorsed his original close as a correct read of the consensus that was there when he closed it. But now, with all the other well-reasoned opposes, it seems logical to endorse the new closure. (The idea that "no consensus" means "haha, so there is no primary topic!" isn't really backed up in either Wikipedia policy or practice.) I recommend to all move closers to really think through your closures and then not self-revert like this, since it can lead to a lot of controversy.RedSlash17:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs any clarification on what I did, I was following the first step ofWP:IMRby asking the closer to set aside the first close to relist it for more input, and that was it. That was under,[Closer was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.The first close was undone to get more community input, which was part of the normal review process.Kingofaces43(talk)18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
Rabbit hemorrhagic disease–No consensus.The decision ultimately hinges on whetherICTVshould be treated as an authoritative source likeIUPAC,particularly whenWP:ENGVARis concerned. Further discussion of this individual case is not going to get us anywhere. I recommend opening an RfC on the talk page ofWP:NCMEDto clarify this point.King of ♥♦♣♠04:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
Should have been closed as not moved from the British English spelling, givenWP:RETAINand the majority of opinions against a move. However, the closer ignored all arguments except the one which stated that the ICTV name used the American spelling and "the spelling of the scientific name is not optional". However, firstly Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the ICTV, and secondly, the ICTV's own website states thatthis only applies to the Latin taxon names of viruses.It doesnotapply to the common English names of viruses.Therefore these virus names may, in contrast to taxon names, be translated as desired into local languages and alphabets.This includes British English, which is used by many of the references in the article, themselves written by scientists (not all of them British) who presumably know what they're talking about and who quite happily use the spelling "haemorrhagic". --Necrothesp(talk)09:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:This move was very obvious from my perspective from the get go and is normally uncontroversial so I immediately moved it as soon as I saw it (though via a messy manner since I was unfamiliar with round robin moves). My move was undone and I let the discussion go ahead with others participating. The opponents of the move have seemingly ignored or shown a lack of awareness or understanding of the arguments made by those supportive of the move (including myself) and of what is standard practice, so I will try to explain this and respond to OP (Necrothesp).
1. The article being discussed has three types of names in use: the disease name, the species name, and the common names of the virus. The species name is decided by the ICTV (WP:OFFICIALNAMES) whereas the others are not. WP:ENGVAR, including WP:RETAIN, didn't apply to this article because it had inconsistent spelling used throughout the article and the ae & e spellings would not be considered regional variations in the context of the species name. For both the disease name and the common name of the virus,WP:COMMONNAMEandWP:CONSISTENTwould have applied as the e spelling is more common among both experts and non-experts and it is standard on WP to use the e spelling for articles like this. It also needed to be moved in order to help prevent further edit warring over the spelling, which was occurring prior to the move due to the spelling inconsistencies in the article.
2. The OP states that the ICTV uses the American spelling. This is incorrect since because the ICTV decides what the official name of the species is, that is therefore the global name, including the British name. Trying to frame this as an America vs British issue is misleading.
3. "firstly Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the ICTV"This would set a bad precedent for WP as it would misinform readers and undermine the legitimacy WP to not follow official taxonomy.
4. "the ICTV's own website states that this only applies to the Latin taxon names of viruses. It does not apply to the common English names of viruses. Therefore these virus names may, in contrast to taxon names, be translated as desired into local languages and alphabets."This is out of context and the source has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No mention is made of regional variations within English as the source is discussing non-English languages and non-Latin scripts.
To suggest that WP:ENGVAR / WP:RETAIN should apply means ignoring the rules for when those policies are supposed to be applied, ignoring WP:COMMONNAME, ignoring WP:OFFICIALNAMES, ignoring WP:CONSISTENT, ignoring the ICTV, and ignoring that using the ae spelling was causing inconsistent spelling throughout the article and an edit war over the spelling. Therefore, the move should stand and the e spelling should continue to be used from now on so that this issue can be resolved.Velayinosu(talk)23:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is out of context and the source has nothing to do with the topic at hand.Of course it does, since the closer's only stated reason for not closing this RM as a no consensus was another part of this source (i.e. the ICTV website) quoted by a contributor to the discussion!using the ae spelling was causing inconsistent spelling throughout the article and an edit war over the spelling.And that's why we have RMs, to end these edit wars. The spelling should have been established as "ae" as was the clear result of the RM. Then anyone who edit warred over it could be referred to the RM. Your whole statement seems to be suggesting that the many scientists who have spelt it "haemorrhagic" in the sources are incorrect. I would suggest to you that they actually are not and the fact they have spelt it this way means that manyexpertsin the field do spell it this way. --Necrothesp(talk)21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time that you have used the source incorrectly. As I have tried to explain, there is a difference between a species name and acommon name.Andes orthohantavirusis the species name but it has the common names "Andes hantavirus" and "Andes virus". All three are used among experts. The word "common" is not being used here in the sense of "more frequent" but is being used as in "non-taxonomic" or "non-scientific". Note that this is different than WP:COMMONNAME, which concerns frequency and recognizability. The taxonomic name is "Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus". No other recognized spelling for the species exists, so any spelling other than that is incorrect. However, the ae spelling is used for common names of the virus, such as "rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus type 2", which is a subtype of the species, not the species taxon itself. This discrepancy means that this article is not capable of having consistent spelling if the ae spelling is used. If ae is used consistently, then the article is incorrect because the species name uses the e spelling. If e is used consistently, then the article is correct.Velayinosu(talk)04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I put it to you that manyexpertswho have written articles cited in this article have spelt the word "haemorrhagic" and therefore presumably did not agree with you that it was incorrect. This is clearly an ENGVAR issue, whether you want to admit it or not andWP:RETAINtherefore clearly applies. --Necrothesp(talk)14:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The standard procedure for enacting virus taxonomy is that experts submit proposals and these proposals are approved and ratified by other experts. It is the experts who you are referring to who decided that the species name is to use the e spelling (note that there is a difference between scientific/taxonomic names andcommon names). If the experts wanted the species to be spelled ae then they would have changed its name but they haven't. Only one spelling is recognized for the species name, so WP:ENGVAR is non-applicable in terms of that.Velayinosu(talk)04:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.That was not a consensus. Checking the user_talk discussion swings me to sayWP:Supevote.Reference 3 spells it "haemorrhagic", and it looks like a plainWP:RETAINcase. One of the characteristics of RETAIN is people saying things like "very obvious from my perspective". The discussion is a plain "no consensus", and for "no consensus" WP:RETAIN applies. --SmokeyJoe(talk)13:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was an obvious move in the sense that normally articles like this are moved without discussion or controversy. There is a longstanding consensus among virus article contributors to defer to the ICTV's spelling, so if no move request had been made then this article would have eventually been moved by myself or someone else anyways. And WP:RETAIN doesn't apply in this case as I have explained. If the move is overturned on the basis of WP:RETAIN, then it will have to be moved again.Velayinosu(talk)04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. It’s obvious that it is obvious to you, but that discussion does not show others being persuaded. You should cite your “There is a longstanding consensus among virus article contributors to defer to the ICTV's spelling”. —SmokeyJoe(talk)07:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ICTV is referencedin WP:VIRUS's guidelines.In addition to that, the consensus is agreed upon because no one objects to it. We routinely move virus articles without discussion to conform to ICTV taxonomy and we've never had any disagreements about this. If you look at the move proposal forRabbit hemorrhagic disease,you'll notice that there was a clear divide between users who contribute to virus articles and those who do not. The move proposer and main contributor of the article is an expert in the article's subject and I and the two others who supported the move contribute regularly to virus articles. The opponents of the move are people who, if you check their edit history, do not regularly contribute to virus articles. And judging from my conversation with the OP of the move review, it seems to be that opponents of the move did not understand what was being discussed. If the people who do not help with virus articles had stayed out of the discussion as they should have, then the move proposal would have been 4-0 in favor of the move, reflecting the consensus that exists among us who edit virus articles. I think that that's a more productive way of thinking about this rather than giving equal weight to non-contributors.Velayinosu(talk)05:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree in giving greater weight to the article editors, that weighting really should come thorough with cited detail in the evidence in their!votes. In this case, I do not see subject expert arguments, but an age-old haem/hem ENGVAR argument, which like I pointed out is evident in the third reference.Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses/Guidelinesdoes not to my reading speak to ICTV governing spelling decisions. The only occurrence of "spell" on the WikiProject page doesn't seem relevant. So, I think you are over-reaching, and I think your “There is a longstanding consensus among virus article contributors to defer to the ICTV's spelling” remains uncited. I see no evidence of RETAIN being superceded, and repeat by!vote here that the closerWP:Supervoted.User:Peter coxheadmade a strong-looking!vote, but he cited a directory source only, and the next 3!voters were 2:1 against, the last two arguing WP:RETAIN. It was a "no consensus" mis-closed with a Supervote. --SmokeyJoe(talk)02:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that WP:ENGVAR applies in this case since the species name only has one spelling and using ae for the disease causes the article to have inconsistent spelling. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT do clearly apply though (why would WP:ENGVAR override the other policies and not vice versa?). Since it doesn't seem clear enough that the ICTV is to be followed, I'll try to amend WP:VIRUS's guidelines sometime in the near future to make sure that this is stated clearly. Some parts are outdated or ambiguous or could be worded better so it is due for some changes anyways. If the article is moved back to ae, then I'll see if I can move it to the correct and more common spelling later after updating the guidelines.Velayinosu(talk)04:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN apply until there is a consensus otherwise. Seeking a consensus to document a consensus atWP:VIRUSis definitely the best was forward for this. The talk page consensus is more important thanWP:VIRUS,because it is a Wiki Project page, not a{{guideline}}.COMMONNAME and CONSISTENCY can be very strong reasons to overcome ENGVAR. It is parallel tohaemoglobin,where I am surprised there is ongoing dispute, andsulphur,where I believe the IUPAC spelling is decisive, chemists all using "sulfur", with chemists by far the dominant group that talks about this element. --SmokeyJoe(talk)21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.There are exceptions to WP:RETAIN, and I think this is a valid one. The scientific name of the virus should be applied to the spelling that is used for the disease, as this article is not just about the disease, it is also about the virus that causes it. However, the rest of the spellings throughout the article should be retained as whatever variant of English the article was started with. The change in the title and spelling of the disease should not be used as an excuse to change the spellings in the rest of the article text to a version of English other that what the article initially used, whatever that was.Rreagan007(talk)20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and trout- this is as clear-cut a case of WP:RETAIN as you could hope for. "The name is ___" - what a terrible justification for a closure. Yeah, the name is ____ if you're an American. I am, incidentally, very much an American, and I would never write hemaerraeoegaeic or whatever they write in Britain. But that's irrelevant; it's a perfectly valid name in its own variety of English and it's just as recognizable as the American version would be. I would highly recommend to the closer to learn from this experience and not to close similar move requests until he understands our naming policies better.RedSlash18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am the person who closed the discussion and moved the article to its new title. Although the move discussion was inconclusive and theWP:RETAINargument was put forward by several editors, "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority". I felt that it was common sense that the title of the article about the disease should agree with the title of the article about the virus, an internationally accepted name, and that this argument completely outweighed "WP:RETAIN".Cwmhiraeth(talk)09:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been mulling over this RM, and this does carry some weight. RETAIN isn't always the end all on naming subjects. Sometimes retaining what was there first causes wider issues with consistency, etc.Kingofaces43(talk)16:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But we don'thavea separate article about the virus! So how is this in the slightest relevant? Plus see my comments about even the ICTV's own website not being in agreement that virus names (as opposed to taxon names, which are in Latin) have to conform to what they use (they just happen to use American English). --Necrothesp(talk)15:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because the disease and virus share an article. Again, you are citing the ICTV incorrectly. The web page that you linked to is about non-English languages and non-Latin scripts. Also, Latin is not used to give viruses taxonomic names the same way it is for animals, plants, etc. (though it is the case that many words in virus names are ultimately derived from Latin). You can see the scientific names of viruseshere.This article uses both the scientific name and common names, but spelling the species as ae is simply incorrect, so e should be used if we want to be accurate.Velayinosu(talk)00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore these virus names may, in contrast to taxon names, be translated as desired into local languages and alphabets.I see no reference to it only referring to non-English languages.spelling the species as ae is simply incorrect.What a load of drivel. All the esteemed scientists who have used that spelling are incorrect are they? What a truly arrogant statement. It's simply an American spelling. It's no more or less correct than the British spelling. --Necrothesp(talk)16:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who reads your source will understand that it is talking about other languages and that it does not mention spelling variation in English. & the sentence you are quoting is about common names, not scientific names. There is a difference and the article uses both. Scientists spell common names however they want, but it is the ICTV that decides the spelling of scientific names, as your source says. Essentially, the ae spelling is a common name, not the scientific one.Velayinosu(talk)03:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds exactly what necessitatesWP:RETAIN.How many different English-speaking nations have you worked in? Wikipedia does not delegate decisions to ICTV, not without an explicit consensus to do so. The closer was wrong toWP:SUPERVOTEtheir wrong opinion onWP:RETAIN.--SmokeyJoe(talk)04:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Calidum,that would be true if the participants discussed the case an an exception to RETAIN. However, three participants!voted that RETAIN applies, and no one argued that it did not, the supporters ignored the RETAIN argument. It is not OK for the closer to SUPERVOTE an unstated anti-RETAIN argument. --SmokeyJoe(talk)00:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.<uninvolved>IMHO this is an exception to RETAIN and more commonly seen both in scientific and other global communities. The SUPERVOTE link might need to be reread in this case, because this was not a supervote by the closer; this was a good read of an unusual type of consensus.P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there05:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
