Qibli Mosque – Overturned to no consensus. No consensus has been achieved in the RM and MR as to whether disambiguation is needed at all, and what the best form would be. However, the move review has concluded that "Qibli Mosque", a good-faith attempt at a Solomonic solution by the closer, is what nobody wanted. So we're back to square one. Procedurally, the page title should be restored to Al-Aqsa Mosque without prejudice, but I will check out first whether it will be better to continue the ongoing page traffic assessment. No such user (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
It was a long discussion with three alternative names, none of which had consensus. The rationale for the move was that Al-Aqsa mosque is an ambiguous term that could refer to the congregational mosque or to the whole compound, also known as Temple Mount, Haram al-Sharif or al-Aqsa Mosque compound. There was no consensus on that. For many editors the congregational mosque is the primary topic since the compound is mainly known by those other unambiguous names. The article was finally moved to Qibli Mosque. The argument was that WP:NATURAL allows to chose a less common name that is not ambiguous. But again there was no consensus for that, since some editors felt that name is too obscure and doesn't meet WP:NATURAL. Vpab15 (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we organize this move review so that involved parties vote in one section, and uninvolved parties in another section? The IVc review is a mess to read with involved parties mixing their votes with uninvolved parties. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that the editors opposed to all moves away from the existing title for the purpose of disambiguation provided little evidence that the congregational mosque was the primary topic, while those in favour of disambiguation provided plenty of evidence that significant ambiguity existed. The choice for the closer was therefore between one of several disambiguation options backed up by evidence of the need for disambiguation or a status quo inadequately supported by evidence of the subject being a clear primary topic. A tough call, but ultimately a necessary one. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And we're not discussing notability here. Notability is about whether a specific subject should have an entry, which is not in doubt for the object of any of the redirects. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summary table of votes below:
Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque)
Al-Qibli Mosque
Qibli Mosque
Overall position on title disambiguation
Explicit Support votes
Onceinawhile (as nom)
Khestwol (as nom)
Andrewa (as nom)
Andrewa
Iskandar323
Andrewa
Khestwol
Khestwol
Selfstudier
Onceinawhile
Onceinawhile
Dan Palraz
Iskandar323
Iskandar323
Nableezy
Nableezy
Nableezy
Al Ameer
Nishidani
Nishidani
Vice Regent
Selfstudier
Selfstudier
Vice Regent
Vice Regent
Dan Palraz
Al Ameer
TOTAL
7
2
8
10
Explicit Oppose votes
Tombah
Necrothesp
Drsmoo
Tombah
Necrothesp
Tombah
Necrothesp
Necrothesp
Khestwol
gidonb
Vpab15
Number57
Number57
Srnec (implicit)
Number57
Vpab15
Vpab15
Drsmoo
Drsmoo
StellarNerd
StellarNerd
Srnec
Andrewa
gidonb
Srnec
TOTAL
9
4
4
8
The are two qualitative overlays to this:
1) Over almost seven weeks of discussion, no editors changed their view from support to oppose, but two editors changed their views from oppose to support
2) A number of the oppose votes continually referred to policies which were out of scope for the discussion, or were unable to back-up their claims with sources
@Onceinawhile: My opposition to the original was explicit (a bolded oppose). My opposition to the al-Qibli proposal was also explicit (although not a bolded oppose). My opposition to the final proposal was merely implicit in my earlier comment on the second. Srnec (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very helpful. I have updated the table. I have also added another column showing the overall position on title disambiguation - adding up all the voters across the three proposals, and recognizing that two of the voters moved from oppose to support. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Involved, supported move)
The RM extended over a long period with several relists and plenty of participation afaik all the relevant information was discussed at length in the RM. That there was and is a significant amount of ambiguity in respect of the original title (al-Aqsa mosque) was clearly demonstrated.
So that we all can simply know what exactly this ambiguity is, there is a pic of the sanctuary here, the subject of discussion is the key code number 118 with description Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Qibly Mosque and in the text underneath it says
Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif is a sacred area in Jerusalem of immense religious importance to all Muslims and includes all of its 144 dunums (144,000 m2) (“the Sacred Compound”). The area includes the Qibli Mosque of Al-Aqsa, the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock, all of the buildings, walls, courtyards, and environs above and beneath the ground."
In other words, "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is the name given to the whole area as well as to the building with the silver dome (which is also known as Al-Qibli Mosque). That's the ambiguity. The choice faced by the closer was whether it ought to be resolved and decided that the ambiguity justified a change of title. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and encourage opening a new RM for the Qibli option. Given that my clear opposition did not register with the proposer (see above), I wonder whether it registered with the closer. Srnec (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Involved, opposed the original proposal but supported the 2 counterproposals) - happy that the RM was finally closed, and that the ambiguity in the title is removed. Khestwol (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Involved, supported move) - per the above, the important note that the 'Qibli Mosque' option proposals won over former opposers, and the close being a clearly positive step towards disambiguation - with the closer's decision being supported by straightforward and policy-abiding logic. Overturning this would be a move to re-ambiguate, and not serve the project. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (Involved) There were two fundamental questions posed by the RM: is disambiguation required, and if so, what should the new name be? There was no consensus that supported disambiguation, and I think in most cases the RM would have ended there. However, the closer continued to extend the RM. In his initial extension, the closer wrote “the opponents keep citing "COMMONNAME" (which I don't find relevant as the supporters are not trying to move to anything other than "Al-Aqsa Mosque" + disambiguator)”. However, as can be seen by the move result, the move was in fact made to a completely different name, which contradicts the stated justification for extending. Equally puzzling, the RM was closed within 30 minutes of the proposer requesting a closure on the closer’s talk page. This did not even allow 24 hours for pinged users to reply to the latest proposal, which required significant scrolling to even be viable on mobile. At no point was there consensus for what is now the move result. On ARBPIA subjects, it is of particular importance to A. Respect community consensus B. Avoid citogenesis(the current name does not fit the criteria of “fairly common” as it’s below the usage threshold on Google Trends and Ngrams) This is particularly true given the long-term title stability of the article. The RM should be reverted back to the title it was stable at, then there should be an RFC to determine if disambiguation is required. If so, an RM can be made to move to a new title. What definitely should not happen is the process that did: having no consensus to disambiguate, extending by saying the commonname argument is irrelevant as there is no change to the name, and then changing away from the commonname to a new name before involved users have a chance to reply. Drsmoo (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (Involved). I don't believe a disambiguation issue ever existed here; the terms Al-Aqsa Mosque and Temple Mount have been used to refer to the silver-domed structure and the entire compound on Wikipedia for as long as 20 years now; these are also the common terms in academic literature. According to most English-language sources, there is no other Al-Aqsa Mosque besides the silver-domed structure itself; the entire compound is usually referred to as the Temple Mount or the Haram al-Sharif ("Noble Sanctuary"). When the entire compound is referred to as "Al-Aqsa", it is always "Al-Aqsa Compound" or "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound", with the name "Al-Aqsa Mosque" preserved for the mosque itself. The term "Qibli Mosque" is pretty recent (maybe a byproduct of recent developments?) and extremely rare in English sources. Sadly, I wasn't able to oppose it during the discussion itself - the RM was closed too quickly. My opinion is similar to Drsmoo's - the whole process was far from good practice. The best way to go is to issue a RFC to determine if disambiguation is actually needed. Tombah (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. In my opinion, the name "Al Aqsa" is used by almost everyone, for the mosque itself. Almost no one know about the Qibli name. Atbannett (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has just over 500 edits. The user's involvement in this discussion came within four hours of the seven-week RM being closed,[1] in an apparent coincidence alongside a second user also with just over 500 edits.[2]Onceinawhile (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost no one know about the Qibli name" is an incorrect claim. Because if so, then why is the article's title (al-Muṣallā al-Qiblī) on Arabic Wikipedia? Certainly, Muslims know about this name all over the world. Plus, UNESCO and the US government have used this name. Khestwol (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabic Wikipedia will use the Arabic name. That is not relevant for the question of what the name in English Wikipedia should be. Vpab15 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stop the relitigation and let uninvolved editors participate. Obviously that applies to me as well. I am as guilty as any other and I shouldn't have responded. Vpab15 (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, involved. It was a difficult call made more difficult by several editors indulging in borderline IDHT and TE without quite crossing the boundary into clear disruption. There is no better alternative, nor any better supported alternative, to Qibli Mosque, the eventual result of the RM. And yes, I did propose that title myself. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my !vote: One thing that made this a good close is the closing comment noting a long debate demonstrating ambiguity in the article title (my emphasis). That cut through the many irrelevant arguments that we are still seeing, one most obvious one being that the Temple Mount is the third holiest site in Islam. Um, this is not about that article, nor is holiness mentioned in WP:AT... So that is very clearly a POV argument. That ambiguity, which was the reason for the RM, having been decided by consensus (which we seem to now need an RfC to show, but is it really in question) there was no policy-based alternative to a move, and the only question was, where to? The result chosen by closer (which I again disclose was my own suggestion) was the best available, and again we had rough consensus on that. So it was not just a good close, it was a very good close. We should proceed with the RfC, but not because the result is in doubt. Rather, because we need to move on. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It is true that the process here had some serious problems. I personally didn't get a chance to reply since this was closed too quickly after the last name was suggested... Anyway, as a matter of fact, as other editors mentioned above, there was no consensus at all for disambiguation in the first place, and the selected term is much rare. Can anybody tell who was the first to use it and when? To sum up, reversing this move would be a good start. Let's start over by discussing the root question - is there really a disambiguation issue here? And this question refers to the English language, of course.Eladkarmel (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I am uninvolved, and did not participate. This is a misleading and almost unknown name. Worse, in terms of process, the new proposal wasn't properly advertised and was proposed at the last minute. Onceinawhile opened this page move for Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque), and there was overwhelming opposition to it. This move was open for seven weeks, there was no reason for anyone to come to it seeing that it was a sprawling discussion going nowhere. There was also repeated badgering by Onceandwhile on user talk pages and Wikipedia projects throughout the discussion. There is also badgering on this discussion. Five days before the close a new section, buried at the bottom, was opened on Qibli mosque. Once there was an assembly of votes, by chance, Onceinwawhile liked, Onceandwhile went over to User talk:Mellohi! and canvassed them to close it. The improper closing, by canvassing, and improper advertising makes this a flawed process, tainted at its very heart. The page should be moved back. If the Qibli name merits discussion, it should be done in a fresh requested move that is properly advertised with the desired targed spelled out clearly so that it shows up nicely at current discussions at requested moves with the proposed title.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The admin stated "As for the late comments on the RM discussion, that sounds like off-wiki canvassing, which is not wonderful". The statistical improbability for the timing and manner of their votes is strong evidence for the conclusion of canvassing. Do you disagree?
@חוקרת: I see from your edit history that you are a new editor, with almost half of your edits being semi automated.[3] And you had never edited at WP:SPI previously. Please could you let us know how you became aware of the SPI investigation? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Over 80% of of the responses occurred within the 24 hours after I sent out a mass ping. Including another user who wasn't pinged. Users with over 500 edits are perfectly permitted to comment on either the Move request or the post-move comments. This little inquisition is blatant tendentiousdisruptive editing. If you want to Harass editors, at least have the courtesy to only do so on their talk pages. Drsmoo (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% of the users who edited between your final ping and the RM's closure had previously commented on the RM. The ping did miss at least one editor who had previously commented, and therefore was likely to be watching the discussion. I consider it extremely surprising that previously uninvolved editors with such limited experience at enwiki would appear so soon after the RM closure. It is also worth remembering that we have a good reason to have our antennas up here, as the RM already attracted an editor who has subsequently been confirmed and blocked on 20 June as a sock of Icewhiz;[4] historical behavior by Icewhiz would suggest his involvement in this discussion did not finish with that sock being blocked. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The move closure occurring right after the ping, and too soon, is one of the central points in overturning the move. It makes no difference if the comment is before/after the closure. It is permitted either way. It is worth remembering that you were recently (a few months ago) ARBPIA-blocked for 1 week for tendentious, conspiratorial attacks on other editors. I think we should focus on content, not contributors. If you wish to hound other users based on no evidence, this is certainly not the place to do it. Drsmoo (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked a pertinent question to חוקרת in the knowledge that (a) an admin suggested there has been off-wiki canvassing, and (b) we had a confirmed sock in the RM discussion. We should all be aligned on the need to ensure this discussion has not been compromised. Do you have an alternative proposal to ensure the integrity of this discussion? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed the fact that the section on "Al-Qibli Mosque" had been open for ten days, where both the forms "al-Qibli" and "Qibli" were discussed. Khestwol (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The initial section was strongly opposed, by a 2-1 ratio. The full move request was closed instantly(within 30 minutes, including close message) after Onceinawhile directly messaged the closer asking it to be closed, which did not give time for all pinged users to see it. Total responses before the premature close were 8-7, which also indicates no consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn For two reasons the discussion was closed too early only five days have been passed. The consensus was assessed wrongly the closer didn't explain why oppose comments should be disregarded as I read his close comment it seems to me as a WP:SUPERVOTE --Shrike (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move review is not Move request part II. Or part VII in this case. And pretending to be uninvolved in this move request when you are decidedly involved in the topic is kind of silly, but whatever. Yall should restrict this discussion to was the move closure proper or improper. And it would be so much better if it were outside voices, not those opposed to the move saying overturn and those in favor saying endorse. nableezy - 21:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn <uninvolved> – reclose soon after under WP:OTHEROPTIONS and choose a probably more appropriate title. In finding a consensus to move away from the old title to a different title, perhaps with dabbing, I had to discount several oppose !votes as not applicable. So supporters with their complex and varying rationales led to this assessment. I seldom challenge like this; however, in this case after reading the RM, it appears that the current name of the article only came close (but no cigar) to consensus. I would have to really study this to be able to choose a title under OTHEROPTIONS, but I don't agree that the current name, "Qibli Mosque", satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. So I doubt that I would choose the current title for this article. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there23:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Add that I find it unworthy of the RM's nom (who should know better) that they actually solicited the closer on his talk page, and trout the closer of the RM for going ahead with that closure and not admonishing the nom for the improper solicitation. Technically, that solicitation disqualified the closer from ending this particular RM. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not reading anything into it, just sayin' that WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest, the closer's instruction guide, specifically prohibits editors from soliciting individuals to close move requests. The closer must be aware of this, and the RM's nom has been around long enough to know better, as well. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there23:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t know that, thanks. Reading it now, that rule appears to be written solely to ensure impartiality. That was assured here as the closer was the relister, and had not been solicited. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's understandable, and forgivable certainly, if an editor hasn't much closing experience and hasn't read the closing instructions. But even a "hint" of CoI should be avoided. The closer should have made you aware and immediately recuse himself from any further action. Your asking him to close the RM disqualified him, and he should have pointed you to WP:CR and taken no more action in that RM. It's worth at least a trout, tho' some editors consider it worth a {{WHALE}} (for when a trout just isn't enough ). P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there00:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, and create an RFC to determine consensus on a name. I just dont see the consensus here. I voted to move for the record. nableezy - 01:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what OTHEROPTIONS is about. An RM is a specific type of RfC that is used solely to determine consensus on a name. If the closer picks an unpopular title, then instead of opening up a move review, a new RM can be opened at any time to garner consensus for hopefully the highest and best title of the article. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there02:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, if you have a good idea about how to structure a revised RFC / RM, please go ahead. My experience in situations like this is that views on the best title get spread out and consensus can only find the highest percentage / plurality / most preferred, but can never get over 50%. Wikipedia situations like this need a Two-round system to fully resolve, but there is no guidance for one (maybe I can try to draft a guidance proposal for the benefit of the wider community), and I can’t remember seeing one be successful.
The best thing about the outcome so far is that by moving the base name it provided an opportunity to do the traffic assessment, which has provided a very clear answer on whether there was a primary topic.
Should the result of this review be overturn/nocon, then let the article keep its prior title and be the silver domed mosque (since the content now matches that) and then make a new page for the Haram. This would also resolve the ambiguity. Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it is now statistically certain that most editors typing in the words “Al Aqsa Mosque” are looking for the Temple Mount / Haram. Directing them to the wrong subject would be inappropriate. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth yeah I get the distinction between RMs and RFCs, but RFCs run for longer by default and generally attract wider participation. Beyond that, it would be hugely helpful if there were limits on how many times one person could respond in the RFC, as the larger the wall of text becomes the less likely it is to get that wider particpation. nableezy - 13:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Nableezy, that was meant for other editors who often don't get the important distinction between RMs and RfCs. RMs usually get less participation because it is intrinsic to their design to attract editors who are involved with a specific article or page rather than editors who are interested in the broader subject material. An RfC on this title would probably be even much longer and more convoluted than this RM was, but, though a nonstandard procedure, if editors think it's a good idea, then by all means it should be tried. OTHEROPTIONS has worked in the past, so I'm still for using that procedure first. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there15:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is that it takes a decent amount of background information to understand the issue, and that just isnt something that WP's !vote setup is really well suited to deal with. At the very least an RFC on is al-Aqsa Mosque ambiguous would be useful as that doesnt even have agreement (for reasons I cant readily understand tbh but that isnt relevant here). nableezy - 15:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are editors arguing, even here, that there is no (or there is no real) ambiguity.I don't believe a disambiguation issue ever existed here. Difficult to make progress in the face of that, needs to be cleared up, RFC will do that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that was before it became clear that the number of readers coming to Al Aqsa Mosque who are actually looking for the Temple Mount article is almost double the number of readers who are looking for the article about the southern mosque. Before the page was moved there was no way we could have seen that. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Hey, with which tool and by which means does one pull up this sort of traffic assessment? I've been trying with the drop down traffic report, but I can't figure out how to display exit pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article traffic assessment for redirect pages from the Wikipedia page "Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation)"
Hi Iskandar, three new pipes have been created at the Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) page (where the base page Al-Aqsa Mosque is currently redirecting to), using entirely new redirect pages:
[[Al-Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount)|Temple Mount]]
[[Al-Aqsa Mosque (Al-Isra)|''Masjid al-Aqṣā'']]
[[Al-Aqsa Mosque (Qibli Mosque)|Qibli Mosque]]
It is important that they are new, clean, redirect pages, as it allows us to be confident that these redirect pages are not getting views via any other route. This can be verified at:
Out of those that reach that disambiguation page, which are a few, and are then faced with the choice of "Qibli Mosque, a mosque or prayer hall" which is a name they don't recognize and sounds less important. Why are you making new arguments on the review page? This move review is to determine if the non-admin who closed this controversial move assessed the consensus of the discussion correctly, not to discuss your new arguments.PrisonerB (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In a comparison between "the religious site in Jerusalem" vs "a mosque or prayer hall". Most will inherently click "the religious site in Jerusalem", as opposed to "Qibli Mosque - a mosque or prayer hall", which sounds entirely non-important. Not to mention the potential for gaming. Naming should be based on reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“…which are a few” is incorrect. The disambiguation page is currently getting 300 views a day, equal to major pages like History of Jerusalem. That is because the base page is now redirecting there. If you think the page wording could be amended to improve the assessment, please do. Drsmoo already did so a few days ago by putting Qibli Mosque at the top, but it didn’t change the result.
It does need to be discussed now, because if the RM close is going to be overturned, the MR closer will need to decide whether to move the base page back or not. If it is moved back, this assessment will not be able to continue because the disambiguation page will not get enough views (to your point). We must use this moment to ensure everyone has had a chance to have their say on the traffic assessment.
No, don't think so - this is just a traffic assessment of where people landing on Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) are ultimately ending end - thus outlining actual reader usage patterns in a way that was not possible when the page was occupied. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that, people are talking about other options and stuff as if this was a multiple choice affair, it isn't, there are two choices and the closer chose one so if it is overturned we are right back to the beginning with the old name + ambiguity, right? Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that was exactly the point I made in my endorsement note. The discussion did make plain the ambiguity, so a choice of either natural disambiguation or common name (+ parenthetical disambiguator) was ultimately a necessity. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Wikipedia:Move review#Typical move review decision options. Overturn can mean options 3 or 4 on this table. Option 3 would keep the pages as they are right now, but open a new RM. Option 4 would open a new RM but with everything reversed. I don't think it matters either way, as the discussion will get us to the right place in the end. My only point, per my comment to PrisonerB, is that it would be a shame to end the traffic assessment before everyone interested has had a chance to confirm they are happy that it represents a truly fair assessment. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The review won't close imminently, usually takes a while, think you will be able to get a significant stats collection. I think the immediate takeaway of people looking for TM/Haram is the right one, though, on general principles. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I borrowed this from something I was taught by another editor on a different page a couple of years ago. Good to be able to put it to use. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support having that proposed RfC on whether Al-Aqsa Mosque is ambiguous. Personally I think that both the facts and the consensus are clear, but there is as yet no consensus on whether we have that consensus (and here at MR we are seeking consensus, among other things, on whether this consensus existed... painful, but that's the proper process). Andrewa (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (involved). This was the clear outcome. There was obviously no consensus to move to this title that is not commonly used in English-language sources and I'm mystified as to how anyone could see such a consensus in the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (NOT involved). The closer was not an administrator and this is a contentious long discussion that is difficult to assess, therefore it is WP:BADNAC/2. The closer was also called to close the discussion by the move nominator, which shows bias. It is also a supervote, the closer did not assess consensus of the discussion but instead went forward with their idiosyncratic viewpoint. Examining this two month long discussion does not show any consensus.PrisonerB (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time running out to comment on the traffic assessment: Both Temple Mount and this article at the title “Al Aqsa Mosque” have historically had c.1200-1300 views per day (with "Al Aqsa Mosque" being slightly more popular). Post disambiguation c.10 days ago, the Temple Mount article has the same number of daily views but this article is now getting only 200 daily views. This suggests that c.1,000 readers every single day were previously being incorrectly directed to an article they did not want.
We have also seen from the analysis further above that with the Al Aqsa Mosque base name now redirecting to the Al Aqsa Mosque disambiguation page, the disambiguation page is sending more readers to Temple Mount than to this article, albeit not quite on the scale of 1,200 vs 200 per the prior paragraph.
As the original nominator, this is roughly the outcome I had expected, because I have always believed that most readers searching for the title “Al Aqsa Mosque” are looking to learn about “the third holiest site in Islam”, not a building within it. But those previously opposed to disambiguation may find the statistical outcome surprising, and may wish to question the validity of this data. Hence I am pinging all voters to ask now, in case an overturn outcome at this MR also leads the mover to choose to un-disambiguate the base name, are there any niggling uncertainties about these statistics that we could resolve right now to gather even firmer data? For example, perhaps further edits to the wording at the disambiguation page?
This isnt the page to do this, this discussion is not about what name is the correct name. It is only about whether or not there was consensus for the move. All the above is interesting, but entirely irrelevant to this discussion. nableezy - 16:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but as once has noted, the traffic assessment is only possible for as long as the term "Al-Aqsa Mosque" directs to the disambiguation page, and it does provide some fairly compelling supplementary evidence of the ambiguity that exists, the very much mixed reader expectations in typing in the term "Al-Aqsa Mosque", and the original premise for the move: disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest moving the traffic data and the explanation of it into its own section at the article so that it is readily available post move review. Should we proceed to RFC, it will be useful there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. Yes, and it's not just niggling unceratinties. These statistics are interesting but irrelevant to this particular discussion. So in that sense they have no validity here whatsoever. That's one reason they should be moved out of this discussion. Again, give the closer a break. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (involved) Shocked to see this somehow ended up being moved when there was clearly no consensus to do so. I also think the bludgeoning of this discussion by Onceinawhile needs to be prevented going forwards. Number5716:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (involved, briefly, and in the summary above) There was no consensus to change the name of Al Aqsa to Qibli. gidonb (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (half-invovled, voted in the beginning of the discussion, but didn't participate in the Qibli proposal). There is no way that discussion can be read as consensus for anything, it just a bludgeoned mess. I would have voted against Qibli if I were around to comment on it. The nominator's repeated postings to closer's Mellohi!'s talk page pleading for a close do not look good. Mellohi! was also (7/5)pinged (7/14) as a !voter in the discussion by two separate editors, so is involved in the discussion. --StellarNerd (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). There was no consensus for the Qibli Mosque closure. In particular, while a closer could fairly discount the relevance of WP:COMMONNAME arguments in relation to the original proposal for parenthetical disambiguation, the common-name arguments cannot be discounted in relation to the Qibli Mosque proposal. The argument that Qibli Mosque is not common enough to qualify as natural disambiguation was within policy and was adequately supported by evidence. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and start a fresh discussion. (I edit in the area but did not vote in the RM.) I'm !voting against several people I usually agree with, though I don't agree with all the arguments of their opponents either. First some facts: (A) The use of "Al-Aqsa Mosque" to refer to either or both the compound and the building at its southern end is commonplace and has centuries of history. (B) In English usage today and at least since the 19th century, "Al-Aqsa Mosque" overwhelmingly refers to the building and much less commonly to the compound. (C) "Al-Qibli Mosque" is a name used by some official bodies and writers on Islam, but as a name in both common English and scholarly English it is a tiny minority. Relevant opinions: (1) Any claim that WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant to the discussion is preposterous. Similarly with WP:NATURAL (note the explicit policy against using obscure names). (2) If two topics with the same name need separate articles, we qualify some or all of the article titles, such as Rome, Rome, Georgia, Rome, Indiana, etc etc. If necessary, we make a dab page as well. What we don't do is change one of them to a title that few people have heard of. That's not disambiguation, it's obscuration. (3) If we follow normal practice, the article about the building would be called "Al-Aqsa Mosque" and the article about the compound would be qualified (for example "Al-Aqsa Mosque (compound)"). As a compromise, it would be acceptable for both of them to be "Al-Aqsa Mosque (qualified)". For these reasons, I believe that the page move created an unsatisfactory state of affairs that should be rectified. Zerotalk14:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: I am ok with all these points, except for (B) which is incorrect. I say this with certainty having read hundreds of sources over the last couple of months through this discussion. In the 21st century, usage of Al Aqsa Mosque for the compound is extremely common. It is the primary name for the Temple Mount used by Muslim writers in English today – whether scholars, journalists or users of social media. Yitzhak Reiter explains this (see quote in cite 61), but you can see for yourself in google scholar or Al Jazeera / other major English-language news outlets from the region etc. Western media has started to follow this, often disambiguating by adding the word compound or deleting the word mosque, but other times leaving it completely ambiguous when reporting on “clashes at Al Aqsa Mosque” or similar (note when reviewing sources:– between 1967 and 2014, Israel never once entered the Aqsa (Qibli) building itself.[5]) As Reiter correctly says, the “Haram al-Sharif” name has fallen out of local usage, and “Aqsa” or “Aqsa mosque” has become a globally recognized brand in the conflict in reference to the Temple Mount. This is borne out by the disambiguation traffic analysis so far, and more data with the latest changes to the disambiguation page text should clarify this further. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: I won't answer expansively since this is not the right place. (a) I stand by (B). (b) "Local usage" and "Muslim writers" are relevant to COMMMONNAME but not its main criterion, and "started to follow this" works against you. (d) I have several articles of Reiter where he uses "Al-Aqsa Mosque" to refer to the building. Zerotalk03:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus to overturn is fairly clear here, idk if the mover can simply overturn it himself, but if mello agrees that there is a consensus (and I think that obvious at this point) could they do so if allowed, and if not can we get this closed out? nableezy - 00:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to overturn given that I wanted the move review to be opened in the first place to get outside input; the non-participants so far generally support an overturn to no consensus. Unfortunately, as I am going on a long car trip, I will not be available for many hours from now. If anyone feels like closing as overturn and reverting the move, they may do so without asking me. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, BUT the traffic assessment is still going. We just had a new comment from Apaugasma (who kindly then amended the disambiguation page) so we need the base page to continue to redirect to the disambiguation page to see how the stats play out again. The disambiguation page was getting zero views before the move, so if the base page stops redirecting there, the assessment will be over.
We really need to ensure everyone has had a chance to review the traffic assessment statistics, and if they disagree with the way the disambiguation page is pointing readers, to edit it and to watch the stats in their version. I have seen that some editors continue to find it hard to believe that the main topic sought when a reader searches for the term Al Aqsa Mosque is consistently showing to be Temple Mount, and these editors need the chance to achieve absolute certainty.
Per Wikipedia:Pageview statistics, unique page views are not tracked. So it would be easy to manipulate the results by just visiting a link over and over again (or coding a simple python bot). This is far from a scientific system, and Wikipedia would be better going with reliable sources, especially given the the sensitivity of this subject. Drsmoo (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have certainty that there is no substantial manipulation, because the stats being shown are lower than expected, not higher than expected. There is no way of reducing the page views. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
..."We have certainty"? Someone could just add a decent chunk of hits to whichever one they wanted based on the observed trend for num hits. Drsmoo (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do have certainty. Remember, the disambiguation page is currently top of the google results for "aqsa mosque", "aqsa" and similar. So we can be certain that it is getting a healthy number of real views. Yet so few of those have been choosing to go to the article about the southern building, in each of the various forms the dab page has been shown in so far. And no bad actor is able to artificially lower the number of views. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained here, I don't think that the traffic stats show what Once believes they show. Not because of manipulation, but because of the experimental design. Zerotalk02:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zero. This is exactly why the traffic assessment must be allowed to continue, so we can test each editor's view of the right experimental design. Apaugasma just left another detailed comment[6] so we need to make more tweaks to test that. And I will respond to your points as well, so we can create two or more additional versions to text. I as wrote elsewhere, after having things this way for 20 years, a lot of editors are understandably finding it difficult to believe that statistical conclusions suggesting that most readers are actually looking to learn about the wider compound, so it needs pressure testing from all angles. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally don't see how the on-going traffic assessment is relevant to this Move Review. It should continue on the article's talk page rather than here, and a new WP:RM opened if need be after this WP:MR is concluded. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
