- Farux(talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
Forgive me for I am compelled to open this review of my closure. There appeared to be no consensus in this request for either the current title or the proposed name. So I believe I followed the closing instructions atWP:RMCI#Determining consensuscorrectly when I moved the article back to its stable, long-term title,Farux,which had been in place from August 2008 until January 2022. Another editor has reverted this to "Farukh" against the long-term consensus, which makes it necessary for me to learn if I was correct both in my reading of the lack of consensus and in the way I followed the closing instructions to move the article back to its stable title. Thank you for your participation.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there23:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse.I read this through last night with an eye toward closing it, but Paine beat me to it. I don't see a consensus either. Neither side's arguments are particularly strong: once we discount all the SPAs and non-policy-based arguments (e.g. appeals to the "official name", the previous name, or the name that the villagers themselves use), we're left with one side arguing that the the raw number of Google hits proves theWP:COMMONNAME,and the other side arguing that those queries are flawed in some way (e.g. because they don't consider alternate names). The emphases on the raw numbers of Google hits are problematic since COMMONNAME focuses on prevalence "in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources", and the number of Google hits is only loosely correlated to that (see alsoWP:SET). In short, neither side makes a particularly compelling case as to the common name, so given the divided!vote tally "no consensus" is the best conclusion. I also agree with Paine that reverting to the stable title (Farux) was appropriate perWP:TITLECHANGES,but since no one seems to prefer that title, I don't really have a problem with the choice to move it back to Farukh for now.Extraordinary Writ(talk)00:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The move discussion regarding moving "Farukh" to "Parukh" was closed with no consensus. I understand how it would be difficult to close it any other way because of the level of disruption in the discussion.
- However, Paine Ellsworth then moved the article to "Farux" stating that it was the "long-term consensus name" for the village pointing toWP:RMNOMIN[1].
- As I understand the guideline, moving an article back to a stable name (which I understand from the guideline is not defined as a name that the article had when it was a stub) is recommended when "a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help", I don't believe that was the case here - the move from "Farux" to "Farukh" was not the topic of the move discussion.
- The anglicization of "Farux" to "Farukh" was a not a point of contention or the subject of the move discussion, this article (and the majority of the Nagorno-Karabakh geographic articles for villages) had minimal content and sources (using GEOnet Names Server as the only source for the name) and there was little historical or political context present on the article for years until recently.
- "Farukh", the stable name post-stub status for the article that I moved the article back to, has been used widely in international media along with the likely common name "Parukh" (https://www.google.com/search?q=Farukh+Nagorno-Karabakh&tbm=nws). Farux is problematic on many accounts - it's not the common name, as well as not the current Azerbaijani official name for the village, which is Fərrux.
- I believe the rationale used with regard to the guidelines in moving "Farukh" to "Farux" after the move close was incorrect and created a clearly problematic state for the article with regard to the article's readability and quality.AntonSamuel(talk)03:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above by editor Extraordinary Writ, when there is no consensus for either title in a move request, then Wikipedia's article titlepolicyis to move the article's title back to the most stable title. So when I moved the article back to "Farux" I was following the community consensus in the article title policy. While I'm not particularly married to the name "Farux", I am in complete agreement with article title policy, which should be followed unless very good reason can be shown that it shouldn't. In the move request there was no consensus either for "Parukh" or for "Farukh", so until such consensus is built, the article title should comply with policy and be retained at "Farux".P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there04:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorsethe close. Good close. An even better super close would have commented on why there was no agreement.
- This MRV is really about the post RM move.AntonSamuel(talk·contribs) appears to have initiated a post-RM move war. Is this correct? Ask him to revert that move. Warn that move warring is block worthy. If he fails to self-revert, revert the move and warn him. —SmokeyJoe(talk)05:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe:I don't intend to start amove war,I believed the move to "Farux" was problematic enough to justify a move back to "Farukh" as I explained above. If the administrator recommendation for me is to self-revert I will do it.AntonSamuel(talk)05:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Admin help}}<- Declined, this discussion should come to a conclusion before some sysop-only action is needed. —xaosfluxTalk14:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:AntonSamuelabove, not unreasonably, requests that an admin confirm that one should not bold-move post RM close, and that having been informed, he should self-revert his move.
- If he objects to the outcome of the RM, as closed, he should talk to the closer, and if dissatisfied, take to to MRV (which is here).SmokeyJoe(talk)06:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe:Thank you for requesting an administrator to help, to be clear, I did discuss the issue with the closer before moving the article back:[2][3]AntonSamuel(talk)06:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be noted here that there was discussion where I expressed that the title should remain at "Farux", and also that editor AntonSamuel had actually supported the move to "Parukh" but in all fairness did not revert back to that title, instead reverting back to the current title in the RM, "Farukh".P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there15:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no-consensus close, overturn Farux.There is indeed no consensus on whether to spell the village's name with a P or an F, which was the main topic of the RM. But therewasa consensus shared by both supporters and opposers to spell it with a "kh" at the end of the name and not with an X, with extensive English-language sourcing backing up spellings in "-kh". The "last stable version" ruleshould be ignored herebecause it goes against both consensus andWP:UE.—Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi!(Đầu cảo)18:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Have no idea where you're seeing a consensus for the "kh" ending! Farux with an "x" was only mentioned once – see comment below.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there20:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sort of the point. Surely if any of the many participants thought the article should have been moved back to "Farux" they would not have been shy about saying so, no?Colin M(talk)21:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter, or shouldn't. Neither title had consensus. Article title policy is to move the article back to the stable, consensus spelling, "Farux". That should be the end of it until editors build a consensus for another spelling.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there06:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The participants supported either "Far(r)ukh" (all RM opposers) or "Parukh" (all RM supporters). Both these spellings end in "kh". Since everyone supported a spelling with "kh", there is a consensus to spell with the "kh". —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi!(Đầu cảo)22:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In the first place, you and editor Colin M are raising an issue that was not discussed in the move request. That means you are rearguing the request and not focusing upon the closure. At MRV we focus on the closure and do not reargue the proposal. In the second place, the argument that just because both supporters and opposers wanted a name that ended a certain way, a consensus for that ending emerged appears to me to be lacking in logic. Even if there is a consensus for the "kh" ending, which first letter should it be? "F" or "P"? There was no consensus for either the current title or the proposed one. No consensus. So the title that the article has now, "Farukh", is a title that does not have consensus. The title should be moved back to the long-term, stable title that had consensus for more than thirteen years. When editors can come to a consensus for a different spelling, only then should the title be changed from "Farux".P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there15:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's perfectly possible for consensus to be against the stable name and for it to be not used accordingly. Forcing the stable name when consensus is against it violates consensus. This is not news for you. The reason why the name of theCanada convoy protestis a thing is because you in particular rejected a stable name because consensus was against it.Canada convoy protest"is a title that does not have consensus" because another no consensus RM where it was found that "a broad agreement that status quo is less than ideal" turned up a month or so later. In the case of Farukh, everyone agreed to do the exact opposite of using the X, and you violated consensus by forcing the X when everyone supported the kh. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi!(Đầu cảo)16:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's "perfectly possible"; however, you have failed to show anywhere that consensus was explicitly against the stable title. The stable title was only mentioned once in the RM and not because anybody was against it. Editors did show two things, they either liked one or the other of the choices in the RM, and they had no explicit opinion about the stable title. If the involved editors liked or disliked the stable title, they did not express an opinion about it at all. Therefore, there are only two consensuses that emerge from that RM: 1) the consensus of the stable title, a consensus of more than thirteen years, and 2) that of thearticle-title policy,a community consensus that shaped that policy. Both titles in the RM were either supported or opposed pretty evenly, so the only, the absolute only choice was to return the article back to its stable title. You have not shown any consensus against the stable title, Farux, because you can't read all those editors' minds. We don't really know if they were for or against the stable title, because they never said so either way. You have yet to show any good reason to go against policy.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no-consensus close, overturn Farux.I think Mellohi! is right on the money here. The close looks like a good application ofWP:NOCONon the surface, but on closer inspection, moving back to Farux seems to besplitting the baby,in that it's an outcome thatnoneof the participants supported (compareWP:NOGOODOPTIONS- the situation is sort of analogous to if we had an RM proposing to move from Farux, where there was roughly equal policy-based support for moving to Farukh and moving to Parukh, but no participants arguing to keep the current title).Colin M(talk)19:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.There was no consensus whatsoever for either spelling; therefore, there was no consensus nor mention that ending the title with "kh" rather than "x" was the preferred spelling. In fact there was only one mention of "Farux" in the entire discussion, which was one editor pointing out to another editor, "the previous name was 'Farux'. One of the users moved the page to Parukh recently, after more than 13 years." So until a consensus is garnered for either Farukh or Parukh, the article title should go back to its stable, long-term title, "Farux". That'spolicy,Wikipedia article titlepolicy.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there20:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- SuggestionI think Paine should make a new RM onTalk:Farukhto change it from Farukh to Farux. He may use the stable version argument in his RM submission statement. Then we can verify directly whether there was no support for the X, as Opposes will be directly against it. A third party (i.e. someone who did not participate in either the previous RM, the extra RM, or this MRV) gets to close it. If it closes as "not moved", the "kh" is used, and if it closes as "moved", the X will be used. The RM should not be closed as "no consensus", as that would be redundant with moving in this specific case. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi!(Đầu cảo)20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want me to open a move request to move from a no-consensus title to a title that already has a 13-year consensus? What really should happen here is that we should go with Wikipedia policy and title the page with "Farux". Then any editor could begin an informal discussion to try to build consensus for another spelling. When a consensus begins to emerge, then a new RM can be opened to change "Farux" to... whatever other spelling that has gained substantial agreement. That's really the way this should proceed.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there20:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Your policy concerns could serve as your argument in the new RM. If enough people agreed with your argument, the new RM could be closed as "move" and we'd be done.
- The new RM would eventually end conclusively, while reiterating the exact same policy argument in this MRV ad nauseam is not leading anywhere. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi!(Đầu cảo)20:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's putting the cart before the horse. The stable title already has consensus; you have not shown otherwise. The title "Farukh" has no more consensus than has "Parukh", "Farrukh" or any other title suggested in the RM. Articles deserve consensus titles, not titles that have not gained consensus. Almost everybody else gets that, why don't you?P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there21:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get it either. You're saying that, in the absence of anyone mentioning "Farux" in the RM, it should be assumed to have consensus (because it was the stable title before). I'm saying the opposite. The absence of evidence (for consensus in favor of "Farux" ) is actually evidence of absence in this case. Why? Because if editors supported the title "Farux",they would have said so.That's how RM discussions work. We're allowed to order off-menu.Colin M(talk)21:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Off-menu", brings to mind what may be a plausible comparison... just as nobody mentioned disfavor for "Farux", I have never told you what I don't like on my pizza. And from that you would infer that I don't like pepperoni. We cannot read their minds, so if the involved editors don't explicitly detest Farux, there really is no way of telling from the RM who is okay with it and who isn't. It's ludicrous to think we can, just as it is with the pizza, since I do like pepperoni (and sausage with lots of mozzarella!)P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there22:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- EndorseThere is no consensus for the proposed names as such there was no need to engage in thismove war.The problem is serious and I don't think that another page move should be started in "few months" but anytime when talk page discussion makes it somewhat certain that which name would be the better choice.Captain Jack Sparrow(talk)11:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt has been virtually settled that the original RM had no consensus on the P vs. F debate it was focused on. But the main debate in the MRV now is whether something written on a policy page suggesting what to do next should be held as a hard statute, i.e.is treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy appropriate here?—Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi!(Đầu cảo)19:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Old tired argument used only by those who know that policy does not support their args. Policy is shaped and formed by consensus, long-term consensus similar to the long-term consensus that supports "Farux" as the title of the article. Just as it is not fair to the article for it to sport a no-consensus title spelling such as "Farukh", it is not fair to the many editors who worked hard over the years to form Wikipedia policies. You might sing a different tune the next time you participate in a policy debate and the ideas you support are included in the policy. No, Wikipedia tries to avoid bureaucracy, which is why thepolicyWP:IAReven exists. But there has to be good reason to go against the article title policy, and no good reason to do that has been shown in this move review.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there00:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some time later this week I plan to ping all the RM participants towards somewhere to directly discuss about the X vs. kh problem, and whether they approve of the X spelling. Could be on the article talk, could be on Anton's talk, wherever. If such a discussion directly demonstrates consensus against the X (even without resolving the old P vs. F debate), would "Farukh", which I assume was the longest stable title without the X, be fine by you? A major counterargument of yours was that the participants did not voice direct opposition against the X. But if we did verify their opposition to the X, would the story be different? —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi!(Đầu cảo)01:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be better than expecting reviewers here to "assume" consensus is against the "x" ending. Only two editors (on my talk page) have expressed disfavor for the "x" ending. If it can be shown that there is consensus against the "x", that would bring us a step closer, yes; however, it would also present us with an interesting dilemma (def. #1:"A circumstance in which a choice must be made between two or more alternatives that seem equally undesirable" ). The RM made it clear that neither "Farukh" nor "Parukh" enjoyed consensus. If you gather together all the RM editors, or even if you just start an informal discussion to see who shows up and gives an opinion, and you find that the "x" ending no longer enjoys its baker's-dozen-year-long consensus, then we will have a situation in which no title has consensus! In a case like that, what would you name the article? Still think it would be better to revert the bold move, land the title back on "Farux", and reopen discussion from that point, because as of right now, this present moment, the only title that enjoys consensus is "Farux". It would be better to build a consensus for a new title rather than to completely destroy it and leave us with no title that has consensus. I'd like to find out what title is in demand. I'm not interested in what title ain't in demand.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there04:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If my suggested investigation does end in ruling out the most stable title, we may instead move on to the second-most stable title. The RM was mostly free of Armenia vs. Azerbaijan partisanship, surprisingly (you noted especially that Anton restored Farukh even though he was a Parukh supporter); instead it rested mainly on COMMONNAME arguments. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi!(Đầu cảo)05:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't misunderstand, please, because I consider "argument" to be beneficial for Wikipedia (I've seen so many times when differing opinions led to encyclopedic improvement). We differ in that I don't consider "Farukh" to be a stable title, because the move log shows withthis edit,"Farukh" first became the title just four months ago. That was just after editor AntonSamuel had moved the page to "Parukh" and was promptly reverted back to "Farux". No stability there especially compared to the stability of "Farux". So there is no "more stable" or "less stable" title, there is only extremely stable (Farux) compared with the instability of any other title. "Farukh" is a no-consensus, non-stable title, and I think this articledeserves better than that!P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What you're saying is like claiming that mosquitoes and elephants are the same size (when they are clearly not) just because they are both smaller than blue whales. There is a meaningful difference of stability between "Farukh" and "Parukh"; "Parukh" lasted for only two days while "Farukh" lasted for months. Wouldn't "Farukh" be significantly more stable than "Parukh"? —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi!(Đầu cảo)15:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If a store has no spinach, then Popeye goes without. The only title with stability is "Farux". Farukh cannot be "more" stable than another title if it has no stability at all in the first place. 4 months on Wikipedia has never been enough to establish stability, especially when compared with more than 13 years of stability enjoyed by "Farux".
- Our cards are on the table, nothing more to add. I'm going to wait and see what the closer thinks. Please don't engage me again on this issue. Turn off the oven; we are done here.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.put'r there21:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and move back toFarux,with a humungousWP:TROUTslap forAntonSamuelfor just willy-nilly overturning this. This is a miniature wheel war and it's not okay. The longstanding title is certainly Farux. I amuninvolvedand agnostic regarding the actual best title for the article, but the close was great. (It could have been a bit longer, but I don't think that would have forestalled these problems.)RedSlash20:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
