This was aWP:SNOWclose after the RM in question was open for two days. There were several options proposed in the discussion, and while I can see that the title as moved did receive the most!votes, the vast majority of comments (for any of the proposed titles) do not make reference to any policy or guideline, and are purevotes.Additionally, the closer provided absolutely no rationale to support a snow close nor did they address any of the very valid points brought up in the discussion by those who opposed the new name/supported others. This just looks like a bad attempt at aWP:BARTENDERclose to me. I brought up this matter to the closer aspolling is not a substitute for discussion,but I received no response. At the very least, this discussion should have been allowed to continue for a normal length of time. -estar8806(talk)★20:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseclosure and snow close; suggest a speedy close applies here also. Any other close at the time would have been an effective supervote; this discussion is a textbook exercise in BURO, considering the sodding airstrikes continued for another, err,week.Even if the close had aligned with the OP's suggestion, it wouldstill' be out of date. Would the OP suggest we have an RM every other day. Stone me.SerialNumber5412913:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point actually. Slipped my mind that the date in the original title was misleading, my grievance was more so with the imprecision of "strikes". Going to withdraw this an open a new RM instead.estar8806(talk)★19:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the close of this review.Please do not modify it.
WP:RMCI,Further, any move request that is out of keeping withnaming conventionsor is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason toignore rules,should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it.The relevant naming convention isWP:NCE,which fairly explicitly limits the omission of years from the title (WP:NOYEAR) to matters that can be evaluated withhistoric perspective.Such perspective does not exist after just a couple of weeks. Also considerWP:BLPCRIME(raised at the RM as well) which seems to unambiguously disallow this type of article title where we name a BLP as we have in this instance. Additionally,WP:BADNAC#2, given the contentious nature of this subject, an administrator really should have been the one to close this. Finally,User_talk:Compassionate727#Non-admin_closureswhere the closer was asked to not close discussions that could be contentious in the future (from May 1, 2024). At best, the outcome should be "no consensus" with no prejudice to starting a new RM that considers existing naming conventions and content policies. —Locke Cole•t•c05:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relistwhile I can see where the closer's head was at with the closure. I would agree with the nom that an nc close without prejudice, as in just a quick read through this discussion looks like aWP:TRAINWRECKto me.--estar8806(talk)★20:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved) as a reasonable interpretation of consensus. Also I note thatWP:BADNACis an essay (i.e. the opinion of one or more individual editors) and is as such not a consensus-backed guideline or policy. In my opinion, adminship shouldn't grant a user any more ability to close contentious RMs than anyone else. PerWP:ADMIN,Admins are no more important than any other editor, they just have access to more tools.Bensci54(talk)01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are no more important than any other editorMore important, agreed. But admins are also typically much more versed in how to interpret consensus and are aware of issues such asWP:LOCALCONand are more likely to follow the instructions atWP:RMCI.WP:IARexists, but no argument was made at the RM that would have merited invoking IAR. —Locke Cole•t•c05:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved) Just skimming through the RM, 5 different editors (including Locke Cole and estar8806 who both commented here) mentioned WP:NOYEAR/WP:NCE or WP:BLPCRIME, while at least 30 different editors supported a title that included the words 'assassination attempt'. The NOYEAR/NCE/BLPCRIME arguments were made early on in the discussion and did not gain traction, meanwhile many of the latter votes were to support the move. The RM wasn't contentious and the closer did not supervote, so these vague handwaves at the WP:BADNAC essay aren't convincing.Some1(talk)02:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCE/WP:NOYEARsaysSome articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it.The month or days should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident...And more importantly,As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement.Theplease discuss it with other editorspart is the Requested Move, and only three editors (including you and estar8806) cited WP:NCE/NOYEAR in the RM, while a vast majority of the participants in the RM supported titles that omitted the year.Some1(talk)16:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this close, open to a separate RM(involved) If I'm reading this correctly (do correct me if I'm wrong), Locke Cole wants this to be relisted because the year is omitted from the title? I was one of the people who preferred disambiguation by date rather than location, but the main focus of the requested move was whether it should be called an attempted assassination, which sources created after the RM solidified. For context, the original title wasTrump International Golf Club shooting.
Reopening this requested move is just going to reignite arguments on if we should call it an assassination attempt. It would be less confusing to keep the current name for now, and maybe open a second requested move (like whatZekerocks11attempted) so it's clear that the question is how to disambiguate it, not what the overall event should be categorized as. This is a situation where a relist might complicate matters, but a different solution may be better.Unnamed anon(talk)05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the close of this review.Please do not modify it.
TheWP:COMMONNAMEin use by reliable third-party sources such as the Seattle Times (1,2,3),for the past 30+ years,is "Symphony Station" capital-S proper noun.
This common name wentcompletely unchallengedin the requested move. Not a singleWP:SOURCEwas provided showing "Symphony" or "Symphony station" usage.
We have a guideline atWP:USSTATIONto specifically cover this case. The top item in the naming convention isGenerally, U.S. station articles should be titled by their common name, followed by "station" if not already part of the name.It goes on to sayIn cases where the word "Station" is part of the proper name, it should be capitalized.andin cases where "station" is not part of the proper name, or is not usually capitalized in sources, it should be in written in lower case.I'm not sure to which the "proper name" refers, but both theWP:COMMONNAMEandWP:OFFICIALNAMEare "Symphony Station" and it is usually (always) capitalized in sources.
Rather than following the two guidelines above, the closer instead went with their interpretation of "the spirit" of the guideline:The spirit of WP:USSTATION would point to this being non-capitalized.But theactual guidelineshows that "Symphony Station" should be capitalized and has a piece written specifically to cover this case.
Closer also wrote in their closeIndeed, the station does not even use "station" it its signage, which would indicate it is just a regular station, as opposed to "named transit center" to quote the guideline..This is not true. While some platform signs do show the abbreviated "Symphony", other signs show "Symphony Station". Such as the signsat the recent renaming of the station,where officials stood at a "Symphony Station" podium underneath a permanent "SYMPHONY STATION" sign in front of the transit facility. Also unclear what"a regular station"is and why thatWP:ORshould be considered.
In our required discussion prior to this MR,closer wroteAnyways, on Wikipedia there is a pretty high bar for whether something is considered a proper noun: "consistently" capitalized, not just usually. I believe another user was able to find sources that did not capitalize it, so in cases like that Wikipedia defaults to not capitalizing.Other users actually didnotprovide any reliable source showing "Symphony station" in use. Comment from an oppose voter that statedboth "Symphony Station" and "Symphony station" are equally correct ways to refer to itshould have been disregarded, as again not a single source was presented in the RM showing uncapitalized usage. Upon this being pointed out, closer saidI concede that you are correct in that none of the links provided actually included a lowercase "Symphony station."
There is aWP:CONSISTENTargument in the close and discussion, which I agree with. But the solution to achieve consistency should be to subsequently movethe other Sound Transit stationsto match their common names (which in all/most cases will be "Station" ). Moving the other station articles based on the result of this RM was supported by several participants, and even both of the oppose voters were open to moving the Seattle stations and/or all US stations.
Finally, the closer wroteFurther, the article as currently named maintains consistency with the current capitalization of the majority of US stations, and OP claims to not want to shift the guideline for the entire US. Arguments that Seattle stations are somehow different do not seem to hold water, as similar arguments could be made for many other cites.Seattle stationsaredifferent per their cited usage in reliable third-party sources, which consistently capitalize "Station". I don't think though it's valid to require the massive scope ofall US rail stationsto be consistent amongst each other at the expense of disregarding theirWP:COMMONNAMES,and this point of view was supported by others in the RM:Expanding the scope of this discussion to the entire country is an unnecessary escalation and does not result in productive reasoning here..PK-WIKI(talk)17:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Sense of the group was not to move. Arguments against can not be discounted. The closer's summary and explanations don't matter. The outcome was reasonable.—Alalch E.22:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsea no-consensus outcome here, if not the current "not moved" close. However, while the closer's commentary may have been intended to summarize the discussion, it happened to look quite a bit like a new comment in opposition to the move; such closing comments may make things more likely to end up here. The close suggests that theofficial nameis determinative in choosing an article name. Further, the user talk comment stating that "on Wikipedia there is a pretty high bar for whether something is considered a proper noun: 'consistently' capitalized, not just usually" is a questionable interpretation ofWP:MOS-CAPS.The guideline actually states that Wikipedia capitalizes when terms are "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". That is, the guideline requires evidence that a substantial majority of RS capitalize the term systematically. This equates pretty accurately to "usually capitalized in RS" rather than "always capitalized in RS".Dekimasuよ!01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the close of this review.Please do not modify it.
I was not a participant of this RM, but there are several issues with this closure.
the closer of this RM is involved. PerWP:RMCIAn involved editor may comment in a move discussion, solicit a closure, or make a new move request at a later date, but may not close an open move request. When you are an involved editor, trust the process and leave the close to one of the many, many other editors on Wikipedia who are capable of closing move discussions.
the closer's rationale is invalid. RMs are not!vote counts and so a simple vote count is not a valid closure rationale. Closures need to be made byWP:CONSENSUS.
this close was an early closure, only after 3 days. SNOW does not seem valid with a 30–16 vote count.
Again, this is asinine as it is so obvious that this page should be moved since there was a second attempt. We couldn't have kept it as the original name as there are now two assassination attempts. We needed to disambiguate, and there was a consensus to keep use a geographical name.Scuba02:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural issues aside, the mere fact of there being two assassination attempts does not mean that we need a disambiguation page at the base name. I think many participants in the discussion were unaware of this. I would argue the July attempt is obviously theprimary topic(as Trump was actually shot and someone died; this was comparable to the2016 incident) and will ultimately be what people refer to in 10 years when talking about the "attempted assassination of Donald Trump". The other page does need a disambiguator but can be linked by ahatnoteat the top of the main title.CFA💬03:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist(uninvolved), and move the disambiguation page that was subsequently created toAttempted assassination of Donald Trump (disambiguation)for the time being. This is an involved NAC that took place in under three days over substantial objections, where many "supporting" comments were not related to policy or guidelines. As such it needs to be reverted and reopened, although we might end up with a better discussion if we were to start over now that the Florida situation is no longer the top story on the news. There is a reason we don't allow involved closes: what seems "obvious" or "asinine" to those involved in the discussion is supposed to be evaluated by an uninvolved editor. Further, it is probably not a good idea for editors to be performing closes when they might feel the need to call subsequent objections asinine.Dekimasuよ!02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and relist(uninvolved). An involved and early closure of an RM with substantial and reasonable disagreement by an inexperienced closer. PerWP:RMNAC( "If an administrator notices a clearly improper move closure, they should revert the closure and re-open the discussion."), I would suggest an admin just revert the close.SilverLocust💬03:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the close of this review.Please do not modify it.
I and others would like an opportunity to comment on the discussion. I want the conversation re-opened to give more space and time for additional comments, and then re-evaluated based on a more complete discourse. The discussion on the talk page is not representative of the discourse, and it is apparent from other discussion includingWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Now_that_the_main_article_has_been_moved_to_LGBTQ,_all_sub-articles_(including_the_Wikiproject)_can_follow_suitthat there are people who have more to say and other people who want to give comment. The move from LGBT -> LGBTQ would affect 50,000 links, so is a very high impact change, but the move discussion lasted 10 days and included about 20 people, so was very small relative to the consequences. There were several previous move discussions, and participants in those discussions were not notified. Because this is such a complex move affecting so many articles, there is no reason to act in haste, and nothing would be lost by opening the discussion for a while longer to advertise it and let everyone say what they want to say. I do not object to the the move closure as an interpretation of the comments considered, but it is apparent now that thousands of articles are going to be affected that there are more people who would have commented, had they known the discussion was happening. It is problematic and an error that now that 10-day discussion is shutting down conversation as instead of debating the name, some people are arguing on the basis of the matter being settled on the basis of representative consensus discussion being reached. That small group was not the fullness of discussion. Thanks for considering.Bluerasberry(talk)21:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsemove (involved) of the one article, but support having an RFC regarding mass renaming additional articles and (especially) the wikiproject.lizthegrey(talk)21:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supportreopen of the main article rename and agree that the more widespread changes should be settled via an RFC. The matter of all the many, many categories affected and the tens of thousands of pages that would be impacted was not at any point discussed during the page move, but was only declared afterwards, and is now already in progress viaspeedy renames.If those categories are required by policy to be renamed to follow this page renaming then I think that more eyes are required on the original rename. With that in mind, I note theopeneronly notifiedone projectwhen the intent was to enact widespread category changes with a broader impact. Projects likeWP:HISTORYandWP:BIOGRAPHYwould have a clear interest in such moves, so this is possibleWP:VOTESTACKING.I believe the question of whether Wikipedia as a whole should blanket move all LGBT categories affecting all historical figures and events and organisations and so on to LGBTQ raisesWP:BLPCATissues and is a matter that should be settled via an RFC, not a single page move with minimal participation.Void if removed(talk)21:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a nickel for every time a GENSEX editor notifiedWP:LGBTof an LGBT-related discussion and was wrongly accused of canvassing in an XfD, I'd havetwo nickels.
Let's be serious, now. What unique stake do these projects realistically hold in what language the catnames use? Do we need to notifyWP:WikiProject Foodon behalf ofCategory:LGBT chefs?
Endorsemove (involved) - as was outlined on both the actual RM, as well as the follow up courtesy notification I posted on WT following the closure of the RM that is referenced above. The outcome was proper and well in line with our policies, specificallyWP:COMMONNAME.It is also wrongly stated on the duration, the move request was opened on the 14nd and closed on the 27th, two weeks (13 days) later, after being relisted once to allow more discussion on LGBTQ vs LGBTQ+ (as it was already prettyWP:SNOWBALLclear that the move was supported as it was in due process to that of last year that was already trending to LGBTQ and just needed one final datapoint, which arrived this year). The move was published beforehand onWT:LGBT(just as it has in prior years RMs on the topic, following convention) as well as being seen by many of the page watchers of the actual page. Several of the people that commented on the RM were also involved in the RM a year prior and it reflects the consensus of the wider community in line with our policies. This was also pointed out by the closing adminUser:Dekimasuon their talk pageUser_talk:Dekimasu#LGBT_->_LGBTQ_move.As it appears the user wants to re-litigate the move, this move review itself may actually run short ofWP:MRNOTas it does not appear that the there was improper process for this move other than their personal disagreement with the move as they have outlined on the Wikitalk page, which is specifically out of scope of a move-review.Raladic(talk)22:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsemove (involved) - per Raladic. I don't see here, or in the RM, or in the discussion atWT:LGBT,any actual policy-based arguments against the move, or the natural result that follows from the application ofWP:CONSUB.--Trystan(talk)22:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsemove. - per the arguments here by Radalic and Trystan, and my own understanding. In the past, as some of you may remember, I boldly moved many pages from LGBT to LGBTQ, which was reversed because LGBT wasnotthe consensus at the time (it was a clear learning experience, to say the least). Thishaschanged. There has been continual discussion about this over the years, so this is nothing new. I strongly support this move and hope that others also follow suit. I can understand why some oppose this above and want this discussion to continue. But, I do not feel that is necessary at this time. I tend to not get involved in discussions like this, but I feel compelled to share my opinion here.--Historyday01(talk)22:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved; saw discussion atWT:LGBT). The discussion was well-attended by RM standards, and the closer correctly read the consensus. If there are concerns about how and when "LGBTQ" should be used in other articles' prose and bodies, thenthat'sa matter for an RfC; but that's separate from what this article should be titled. Wishing a discussion had gone a different way is not a reason to reöpen it, and notifying the wikiproject most relevant to a discussion is very very very clearly, per policy and every noticeboard thread to consider the question, not canvassing.--Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe)22:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, I saw the discussion first on WT:LGBT as well. As I noted in my comment, I tend to not get involved in discussions such as these, but I do get updates from the WikiProject all the time, and that's where I saw about this move. I agree with what you are saying here wholeheartedly.Historyday01(talk)23:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to elaborate, since I wrote the above in a hurry while waiting on a train platform. There are three related questions about the terminology ofLGBTvs.LGBTQvs. something else:
Question 1 is what this RM was held to settle. Question 3 is not part of the RM process: That's a question for MoS, or for informal guidance by WP:LGBT. Personally, going forward I intend to use "LGBTQ" in prose unless: that would be anachronistic; the statement in question specifically only applies to L, G, B, and T people; or the usage is part of a quote or an organization's name. But it's not within move review's jurisdiction to set any standard on that.But it's Question 2, I think, that has begotten this move review. So I'll note that, while there's a general expectation that child articles will have the same terminology as the parent article, that is not an absolute rule. For an article whereLGBTis being used descriptively in the title, in most cases a summary move to add theQ,citing this move, would seem appropriate. But if there are specific cases where there's a valid objection (i.e. not just disagreeing with the main article's move, but more akin to the exceptions I raised above regarding Question 3), then of course it is just and proper to object to that move and send it to RM instead.That is to say, we have procedures for this: RM for cases where summary moves citing this one are possibly incorrect; RfC and informal consensus-building for the prose question. This MRV, though, can only address whether the RM was closed correctly, and it was.--Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe)04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comments.I recognize thatWP:MRis a less common process, but I was not informed of this review as required by the page instructions, nor of post-close discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies,and the editor who initiated this request has never contacted me. However, to be clear, I was contacted about the close by a different editor and I have no objection to having the close reviewed. At my talk page, I made the following reply in response toVoid if removed:"Thank you for your message. I do not believe that the consensus of the discussion was in question, that the neutrally worded WikiProject notification was inappropriate, or that the number of articles affected should prevent the community from renaming articles. I see little in the discussion that leads me to believe it represented an unrepresentative cross-section of the editorship or a local consensus. Whether the outcome of the move of the article should apply to particular other parts of the encyclopedia as a result of further discussion is something that again can be determined by the community. Since I find the outcome of the discussion clear, I do not intend to reopen it at this time. Of course you are free to question this atWikipedia:Move reviewif necessary, and I'm sorry to have reached a conclusion with which you disagree. "This still reflects my perspective.A small further point is the question of the duration of the discussion. As those familiar with the RM process will recognize, most RM discussions last one week. The discussion was open for significantly longer, and no new positions had been expressed for over 3.5 days when the close was made. There was significant policy-based discussion in the RM and a significant number of editors participated. We have not often found it to be the case that leaving discussions open longer, or reopening them, yields better results than closing discussions when the result is clear. More broadly, RfC should not be considered a process that supersedes RMs. As I wrote, the scope of the changes implied by the close can of course be determined in subsequent discussion by the community, but switching from an RM to an RfC to determine the title ofLGBTQafter the discussion has closed would have the appearance of forum shopping. The process of using RM discussions to determine article titles has clear community support. Finally, I do not intend to relitigate the close further here. The editor who opened the request is welcome to discuss related topics with me in more detail on my talk page at any time (even though that hasn't happened so far) and I'd like to make it clear that my close is unrelated to any personal (or academic, etc.) views on this subject. Best,Dekimasuよ!23:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved in the RM, though I have been working through the category renames). Tamzin says a lot of good, and I echo everything they said – in particular, while updating the words "LGBT" to "LGBTQ" in prose would be a matter for an RfC, moving articles is a matter for an RM. While I personally notify previous RM participants when I open repeat RMs, there is no policy mandating that anyone do so. Nor is only notifying the single most relevant WikiProject canvassing in any way, shape, or form. (Heck, I would guess that notifying a group of editors who openly associate under the Q-lessWikiProject LGBT studieswould make itmorelikely the RM would find consensus to exclude the Q.) Finally, it would be forum shopping to request an RfC just because you dislike the outcome of the RM. If you wish to reverse the move, open a new RM.HouseBlaster(talk• he/they)23:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsemove, reject the idea that move automatically means there's consensus for an immediate mass change everywhere else. Closer did not find consensus that it would, simply suggested it might. I think if the proposer had made that part of the RM, someone would have said, "Oh, wow, that's too big for us here. We're going to need broader community input".Raladic,did you havethisin mind when you made the initial proposal?Valereee(talk)12:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's why I posted that note there after the close, to ensure that there is community awareness since the closer mentioned the likely follow up cleanup of subtopics, so I figured it would be wise to raise this point with the community after the move of the main topic in the most relevant forum beingWT:LGBT.
So, without trying to pre-empt anything of this MR, just as I noted above, I followed the community agreement that was established over the years (since I've followed it closely and was also involved in prior year MR on the point) that we would first move the main topic when the time and data to support it comes and then, appropriate sub-topics can follow suit, just as @Tamzinnoted above.Raladic(talk)14:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raladic,but if you already had in mind you intended to then assume it meant something much bigger, why didn't you mention that in your proposal? It feels like you left out something pretty major: you were in fact proposing a MOS default for Wikipedia.Valereee(talk)12:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As OwenBlacker stated below, this has been the going pattern for years of this RM discussions of LGBT -> LGBTQ across the entirety of the related article space. Many times sub-articles, the main article, the Wikiproject ([1]) would be moved or a discussion on that talk page or an RM and the consensus has always been that when the time comes, and the data supports it the main article can move.
After that time of the main article actually moving, with community support (which is what the note is for, afterwards to ensure anyone who wasn't already aware), the sub-articles can follow per our standard policies with the support of the community. More contentious ones maybe with a separate RM discussion, such as has already happened and was started by another userhere forLGBTQ cultureandLGBTQ communityand some others may probably be boldly moved.
I don't think it was any secret, at least not to the involved editing community who has been active on the Wikiproject or on LGBTQ related articles as it has been an ongoing discussion for years with a new discussion popping up every few months and someone would re-iterate that same point I just summarized (even theopener of the MR was aware of it since 2021and has participated in the "we'll do it when the time comes and data supports it" mantra auto-reply on the Wikiproject), almost like it was an internalized mantra of the related editing community at this point.Raladic(talk)15:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be clear to others, not just to the 'involved community'. I object to making the assumption that this RM demonstrated consensus for anything more than the stated proposal.Valereee(talk)15:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why for more contentious follow ups, we may haveTalk:LGBTQ community#Requested_move_27_August_2024where people can argue policy as has already happened in that linked case and found support by the wider editing community as well.
I wasn't trying to imply it's guaranteed we move everything, just that the initial move of the main article, again, fully grounded in our policies (as the endorsements of the MR here show) was the reasonable starting point. The follow ups on a case-by-case basis, whether they be likely-uncontroversial bold moves, or whether they be done in RM discussions is the logical follow up (grounded in our policies such asWP:CONSUB,orWP:C2D) and it looks like that process is starting to happen.
Involved commentThe closer correctly read the consensus atTalk:LGBTQ,but it should also be noted that no specific consensus was found for mass-moving pages. This move review is based on a faulty premise that moving the article LGBT (which is about the initialism) to LGBTQ would necessarily mean that all articles should use LGBTQ. Consistency is part of our article naming criteria, but it's just one criterion out of many that we consider when choosing an article name. There are always going to be articles where consistency is not as important as some other criterion (one example isLGBTI history of the Olympic and Paralympic Games,which has used LGBTI long before the pagemove). Articlesshouldbe RM-ed one by one when consensus will not necessarily clear (as has already happened). ~F4U(talk•they/it)00:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsethe move, but the closer's conclusion that this move means everything can radiate outwards was broader than the discussion at hand, which simply appeared to be about the title of this page. However, this move can be used as evidence that this is the common term - it appears the objection is that it may not be the common term universally for all related topics, which needs to be discussed further.SportingFlyerT·C06:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very briefly, what you said is in fact what I wrote above (e.g. "the scope of the changes implied by the close can of course be determined in subsequent discussion by the community" ) and in the close. I did not write here or elsewhere that the result should be used to "radiate everything outwards" without discussion. I am sure there are many cases where discussion (or simply not proposing a title change) is warranted, and there are probably others in which the clear consensus in the original discussion here is likely to indicate that moves would be uncontroversial.Dekimasuよ!07:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I thinkand may imply that templates, categories, etc. should also be moved; please consider contributing to this sort of cleanup.which is what was written in the close broadly implies that this provides for a larger consensus than was found.SportingFlyerT·C17:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, involved.MR exists for when a closer or the community make a mistake,notso editors who missed the window of discussion can get the last word in an otherwise well-attended and discussion showing strong consensus. The argument presented is not P&G, but that we shouldright great wrongsand use the proposer's favorite term instead. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️(💬•📝)10:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move, involved.This was probably the 3rd or 4th RM discussion on recognising that "LGBTQ" or "LGBTQ+" is the most widely-used current term in English and, while it might not have been clearly stated in the latest discussion, that we were discussing renaming the standard term for the sexuality-and-gender community across enwiki was explicitly clear in at least one of the previous 2 discussions. For the sake of consistency, we should replicate the page-name change across categories. For the sake of the more-recentCOMMONNAMEwe should rename fromLGBTtoLGBTQ.I would have hoped thatthe notification on WT:WikiProject LGBT studiesshould have ben sufficient. (I don't remember if it was also mentioned on WMLGBT+'s Telegram chat.) That said, if we do need to review (because too many people were unaware of the most-recent RM discussion), then we should explicitly include the scope of all related pages and categories, for the sake of consistency. — OwenBlacker(he/him;Talk)12:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved, though I haverecently closed a RMthat was predicated on this). I think closure was appropriate, and the concern about mass renaming of articles can be tackled on a case by case basis where appropriate and that large scale changes can be addressed by appropriate RFC, but this is not the venue to dispute the concerns raised by the appellant here.Bobby Cohn(talk)14:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it was open for two weeks to begin with (after being relisted after the first week) as I pointed out above and as the closing admin noted, no new comments were made for the last 3 1/2 days of the second week.Raladic(talk)02:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsemove as per @Raladic.I also don't think there's a strong need to discuss every single title change, or even to discuss a general policy for all affected articles, asWP:CONSUBcovers most situations, and commonsense covers most of the rest. (E.g., if a proper name includes another initialism, the title obviously needs to use that initialism.) Decisions for individual pages may need to take the specifics of those topics into consideration, so we can't really make a blanket judgement anyway.Lewisguile(talk)12:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.The move request was open for two weeks, and when it was closed there hadn't been a!vote in the past three days; there's no reason to think that this was closed excessively hastily. Even Bluerasberry, in opening this move review, admits "I do not object to the the move closure as an interpretation of the comments considered"! It seems that what Bluerasberry really objects to is people taking the precedent of this move to argue that every other page with "LGBT" in the title should be moved to the "LGBTQ" equivalent, but I don't find that a compelling reason to reopenthisdiscussion.Caeciliusinhorto-public(talk)14:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Involved Endorse.As an opposer, the close was good and accurately judged the consensus. Those who supported the move had a stronger backing in policy,were more numerous,etc. The issue of whether a discussion of 20 people should be enough for CONSUB to be applied to thousands of pages is another matter, and is being discussed at WT:LGBT.Sincerely, Dilettante15:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.A single editor can make decisions about what change to make to the encyclopedia. A small number of editors can make decisions about what change to make to the encyclopedia. So can 20. The arguments for what to do were grounded in policy. Process was followed correctly. There was a consensus to move. Everything "LGBT" should be moved to "LGBTQ" to follow the main article, just likeCategory:LGBTwas renamed toCategory:LGBTQ.This is just normal. Moving a number of articles, changing a number of links etc. is not a problem. Opposing it is a waste of energy. It's just going to happen.—Alalch E.06:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the close of this review.Please do not modify it.
