Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 September

<2015 August	Move review archives	2015 October>

2015 September

[edit]

Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics–Result: OverturnReviews are not places to debate the move request again, but to discuss if the close was appropriate. The comments that focus on the close itself regard it as a supervote or inappropriate, and that includes Tiggerjay's Endorse, where Tiggerjay agrees with the close, but disagrees with the method. It's the method we are looking at here. Having found that consensus here is that the close was inappropriate, I look to see if the move request should be relisted or the close overturned. Disregarding the IP vote due to the temporary status of that account (two months), but including Nyttend's closing comment as a vote, there is only a slight numerical support for the move, however the arguments in favour of the move are slightly more solid. Lugnuts raised a good point about using a distinguish hatnote, but Jenk24 felt there would still be room for confusion. Though I am overturning the close, and will do the move to Association football at the 1956 Summer Olympics, there will be no objection from me if someone wanted to open a move request to return the article to Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics.SilkTork^{✔Tea time}18:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

A frankly bizarre close that claims the discussion, which had been open for over seven weeks and was commented upon by several of our more experienced RM closers, "should have been closed immediately, because moving pages away from naming conventions is a profoundly bad, and actually non-enforceable, idea". I've discussed this with the closer, but he remains adamant thatWP:CONLIMITEDapplies here and that there would need to be a consensus to change the entire Olympics naming convention (something which the RM had no intention to change and, as far as I can tell, is not written up anywhere anyway). This is a simple case of a title that you would usually expect to be fine being ambiguous. If the consensus was that association football is the primary topic here, even for a descriptive title, or that, ofour naming criteria,consistency was deemed more important than recognisability and precision in this case, then I could live with it even if I disagreed. But this close is completely incorrect and is either a supervote or a misunderstanding of our naming practices. I think it would be best if the RM was reopened and then closed by someone else, but if there was a consensus to "overturn to [moved/no consensus]" instead of the current "failure", then that would also be fine and could arguably save us some time.Jenks24(talk)15:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: a local discussionmay notoverride a naming convention. It doesn't matter what the discussion concluded: local consensus is not permitted to reject broad consensus. Start a discussion about the convention as a whole, and stop trying to force me to ignore policy.Nyttend(talk)15:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about "overriding" a naming convention, which I do notwantto change and which no one in the discussion advocated changing. It's about disambiguating one case out of several dozen because it happens to be ambiguous while the others are not. The same way we moveJoe Bloggs (footballer)toJoe Bloggs (footballer, born 1920)if there happens to be a notable article aboutJoe Bloggs (footballer, born 1950),butTom Bloggs (footballer)can stay where it is (someone else might be able to think of a natural disambiguation example, rather than my parenthetical disambiguation one).Jenks24(talk)15:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturnto moved. The closure is the literal definition of aWP:SUPERVOTE,as the closer injected his own reason, which was not previously introduced by anyone in the actual discussion. There also does not appear to be an actual guideline or policy this move request would override. In fact, moving the page would have been in line withWP:DISAMBIGUATION.Calidum15:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support closureAustralian footballtook place once and once only at the Olympics (as a demo sport), in 1956. Anyone looking forfootballat the (1956) Olympics would expect to find theFootball at the 1956 Summer Olympics(or whatever year they were searching for). Australian football (at the Olympics) is a low-likelyhood search term, and the hatnotes serve the purpose. This current setup conforms toWP:ASTONISHandWP:TITLECHANGES.Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead}16:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.While it is true that local consensus does not override ournaming conventions,I do not see how it applies in this case. Note in particular that dealing with disambiguation is parting of policy. Quoting from the policy pageThese should be seen as goals, not as rules....It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus..PaleAqua(talk)03:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.WP:Supervote.Further, the closer's "a local discussion may not override a naming convention" is not so simple. Conventions have leeway, and exceptional cases provide for exceptions. As long as the discussion properly addresses the guidance of the policy page, a consensus may well be established that the convention does not apply to a particular situation. The most important thing is consensus. Closing a discussion without regard to the discussion is simply not OK. SeeWP:Supervote.WP:CONLIMITEDis subservient toWikipedia:Consensus#Achieving_consensus.--SmokeyJoe(talk)12:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn,I'm afraid. In addition to theWP:SUPERVOTEconcern, the close was an appeal to the authority of conventions that don't really seem forthcoming. I'm not aware of, and can't find, any written convention recommending how Olympic football years should be titled. It's true that they are consistent, but these are by naturedescriptive titlesinvented by Wikipedia editors to serve the readers. Descriptive titles should always make sure the subject is clear, especially in cases where two articles share a name. For most years there's not an issue, but for this particular year, we have Olympic Games featuring two sports called "football" in parts of the English-speaking world.Theseare the relevant naming conventions, and frankly, the change most participants supported is more in line with it than the closer's statement. Respectfully, I have to say the closer misjudged this one and the close should be overturned.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseAlthough done for the wrong reasons, having looked at the discussion, I think the close was probably the right one, and probably one I would have made (or at least closed as no consensus, which effectively has the same outcome); I think the oppose!votes are far stronger than the support ones – specifically the arguments that keeping the existing title ensuresWP:CONSISTENCYand is also in line withWP:TWODABS(very few people outside Australia would consider the word "football" to refer to Aussie rules).Number 5 7 10:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move(Disclaimer: I supported the move in the original RM discussion.) If there were a naming convention that this would violate, the closer might have had a better case. But no one so far has even pointed to a policy or guideline or even a discussion which establishes the consensus he is claiming. If there are actually were a guideline or policy then he would have an argument forWP:CONLIMITEDto apply. Since it clear does not apply here, the closure was clearly invalid.--Aervanath(talk)20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closebutstrongly disagreewith the method and reason provided. The points brought up should have been brought up in the discussion, as the closer should have simply reviewed and (if anything) commented on the consensus brought up. Even though this appears to be aWP:SUPERVOTEit is somewhat irrelevant because the results would have stayed the same. If we changed the close into a (more appropriate) oppose!vote, it would have been less than 60% support. Technically, we could overturn his close, and move his closing comment to a regular vote, but it would still result in no-consensus. So what would the point be? With regard to the actual proposal to move, I would have probably!voted,weak supportif at all, but again, there still seems no consensus after several weeks of discussion.Tiggerjay(talk)18:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale was so bad that it demands to be overturned. That closing statement must not be allowed to stand as a precedent. That it might be overturned for someone else to close, and that reclose citing a different rationale might mean the same net effect on the title is irrelevant to the need to not accept a bizarre supervote mis-citing policy. --SmokeyJoe(talk)04:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.

Denali–Procedural close—wrong forum.This forum is for challenging theclosure of requested move discussions,not bold page moves. PerWP:MRV:"Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page." The page was obviously moved in an independent,WP:BOLDaction and not as the result of a contested RM closure (the RM discussion was closed procedurally as a result of the page move), and the editor is challenging the merits of the move itself. Furthermore, the OP hasalreadyinitiated discussion on this exact matter at the article's talk page, and restarting the exact same discussion in a new forum is inappropriate perWP:FORUMSHOPPING,whether this was intentional or not. Per the recommendations of this page, the current discussion should be converted into a formal requested move back to the old name and determined by consensus.Swarm ♠05:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

The RM from Mount McKinley toDenaliwas closed only 2 hours after it was initiated, with only 5 respondents. Theactual movewas made a mere46 minutesafter the RM was initiated, before the RM was even closed, when there had been only 3 respondents participating. Several editors have expressed opposition on the talk page but didn't get a chance to participate in the very brief discussion. The discussion failed to contain any mention ofWikipedia naming policy.Participating editors' only concern was when the "official" name would change, by which they referred to a press release by the Obama administration. Leaving aside the fact that Congress named the mountain "McKinley", so branches of government disagree with each other, policy explicitly states that we don't necessarily follow the "official" name, but the primary commonly used one. Neither this policy nor any evidence on common usage was produced until after the discussion was closed (it has since been posted in some sections like these:[1],[2],[3],with Britannica and book authors overwhelmingly using "Mount McKinley" instead of "Denali" ). One move supporting respondent's post consisted of "Down with the oppressor", which was also an invalid rationale. The actual moving editor'sedit summaryread "#ThanksObama", which doesn't look good from a neutrality/policy standpoint, and even another move supporter described him as "impatient". The mover has since acknowledged that perhaps he moved too fast (though unfortunately he still opposed reverting even temporarily) andthe closer himself seems to have indicateda preference for an admin to restore the last consensus title (Mount McKinley), though he supports moving to Denali after a discussion of appropriate length occurs, which appears to be at least 7 days. I request that the page be restored to "Mount McKinley" until a RM discussion of appropriate length and scope occurs and a policy based consensus for moving it is fairly established.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byVictorD7(talk•contribs)04:09, 1 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like the article to be reverted back to the original title for the time being. The user that did the moving violatedWP:COMMONNAME,even though I believe he is an administrator. Plus, we have not technically reached consensus yet, while support for Denali is strong. BTW: I closed the discussion AFTER the move had been done, not knowing it would be controversial as I had not participated in the discussion and Wikipedia does not specify a time for when non-controversial discussions are to be closed. I simply saw a discussion open that had no opposition and that had already been carried out, so I closed it.WikIan(talk)04:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VictorD7, stop forum shopping. You already started this discussionTalk:Denali#Proposal_to_restore_last_consensus_name_while_name_discussion_occurs.and a lot of people did comment, overwhelming against changing the name back. If you don't get what you want, you can't just start the same discussion up somewhere else. Do you think everyone should have to come here and repeat their arguments again?DreamFocus04:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following appropriate procedure is hardly "forum shopping". Actually the mover himself repeatedly said a new, formal discussion should be initiated (asking me why I wasn't starting one), and the closer himself, WikIan, has stated above that he would now like an admin to revert the move while a full discussion over an appropriate number of days takes places. On merit this should be a slam dunk reversion to the last consensus title until a real, formal RM involving more than a small handful of personally invested editors can take place.VictorD7(talk)05:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposeper my comments on the article Talk page. The move was done quickly, but Denali is the proper name, there is a strong majority of involved editors in support, and there is no point in changing it back temporarily and causing more confusion. -Kudzu1(talk)05:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That majority has gotten a lot less "strong" in a single day. Determining true consensus on the "proper" name should take at least several days. There's nothing confusing about restoring the title that was present for years until a couple of days ago, and the change may or may not be temporary.VictorD7(talk)05:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the renaming issue became thecause celebre du jourfor the American far right wing? Yes, I expect so. -Kudzu1(talk)05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think politicizing this is helpful.VictorD7(talk)05:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThis is just silly. The name was changed, and has been known in Alaska by the new name since it had a name. The 'closer' of the move is just overwhelmed by the amount of flak they got(mostly from IPs andSPAsfor their closing. But the move was already done before the discussion was closed. There is absolutely no reason to move it back and have another discussion. It's obvious from the most recent discussion the move was correct.Wikipedia is a not a Bureaucracy,IAR.Dave Dial(talk)05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and random Alpha bet soup don't amount to a valid rationale for opposing the undoing of a close the closer himself wants overturned, or opposing a real discussion that lasts at least a few days. Clearly this move is opposed by several editors for well founded reasons. Hopefully the closing admin remembers that Wikipedia consensus is about valid argument weight and policy, and not a simple vote count.VictorD7(talk)05:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will you grow up and stop responding to every editor who makes a comment with your usual hostility and accusations?Dave Dial(talk)05:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- Process for process' sake is the ideology of a bureaucracy.NorthBySouthBaranof(talk)05:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A full, inclusive, fair discussion lasting more than two hours and actually informing respondents of the relevant policy and facts is hardly "process for process' sake".VictorD7(talk)05:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you reasonably believe that there is any chance that a consensus believes the article about a mountain should remain at its former name, or is this just an effort to politically grandstand like the Ohio congressional delegation did for the last 40 years? It's a mountain in Alaska that the overwhelming impossible majority ofAlaskanscall Denali, and have done so, as best we can tell, since the Athabaskan people showed up more than 10,000 years ago. Alaska's mountain is not a political football and this might be quite possibly the silliest and most trivial nonsense the American right wing has ever produced. And that's saying something.NorthBySouthBaranof(talk)05:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments only reveal your own perspective warping biases. Yes, I think the fact that, so far at least, all the evidence presented shows Mount McKinley is the most commonly used name, combined with the fact that this "official" versus "common" name dispute has come up countless times with the common name almost always remaining the article title, means there's a chance that move supporters won't establish a consensus to change the name. Regardless, the principle of having an actual discussion so the community has a chance to participate is important, and that's what's being discussed here, not the merits of the move itself.VictorD7(talk)05:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.