Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Move review

"WP:MR" redirects here. For move requests, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. For the use of "Mr."/"Mrs."/Ms" in articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Subsequent use.
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:


Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.

While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is not

edit
Shortcut

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

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.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Instructions

edit

Initiating move reviews

edit
Shortcut

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

  • [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.

Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review request

edit
 
1.

Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond.

2.

Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: 

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:move review list
|page=
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
|reason=
}}  ~~~~

If either the |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When

  • |closer= < closer's username > and
  • |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >

are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion.

If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.

3.

If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: {{move review talk|date=14 November 2024}}. Do not tag the article.

5.

If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November}}
6.

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.

 

Commenting in a move review

edit

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.

Closing reviews

edit

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.

Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.

Typical move review decision options

edit

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV closer's decision RM closer's decision Move review closed as Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse Moved / Not moved No action required Closed
2. Overturn Not moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM Open
Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM Closed
Moved Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate Open
3. Relist Moved / Not moved Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title Open

 

Notes

edit
  1. ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
  2. ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussions

edit

2024 November

edit

Big Ben

edit
Big Ben (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Estar8806 closed the discussion based on WP:SNOW. This is the first move request since 2018, and it was closed after less than twelve hours. The closure has been treated like a vote, with the fact all comments before the closure opposed the move being used as evidence that it had no chance of succeeding. I believe that estar8806 has also misunderstood the 'support' argument.

While it is unlikely that the page would have been moved, SNOW requires certainty and I do not think this threshold was met. At the very least, leaving the discussion open for a week or so would potentially have allowed a more in-depth discussion of the possible names of the article to take place. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse That was the start of a blizzard. Reopening would be needlessly bureaucratic. SportingFlyer T·C 17:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (involved, commented but didn't !vote) I can't think this move will succeed, given that 7 people had opposed in less than 12 hours into the RM and those people clearly grounded their reasons on COMMONNAME I can't see how this would result in anything other than "not moved" or if you're very lucky "no consensus" if left open for a whole week so I'd say unless the OP really wants it to run for a whole week that closing early was fine per WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (involved, opener) I would be interested to know what counts as a 'clearly grounded' reason for closure purposes, because from my perspective it seems that the oppose votes which rely on COMMONNAME have simply mentioned the policy without actually explaining why it's relevant in this case. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). I would close it the same way. "Big Ben" is the clear common name and there is no chance that it would be moved to the less natural and recognizable (even if more precise) title "Elizabeth Tower". SilverLocust 💬 01:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved), while typically I am of the opinion that SNOWs shouldn't happen right away, a SNOW close was appropriate in this instance. Closer makes good points in their discussion about the self-realized shortcomings in this RM. Bobby Cohn (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Very clear case for a SNOW close. The many opposers had a clear, policy-based argument and several called for an early close, either explicitly or by writing "strong oppose". Toadspike [Talk] 10:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit
Carousel (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This was closed as not moved, without any actual consensus to not move. The opposing side was asking for consensus to make an exception to the guideline, and while that kind of consensus can sometimes be found if the numbers are lopsided enough, it can't be created out of nothing in an evenly-matched discusssion. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus or relist (uninvolved): there's no consensus here for a no move closure, per appellant; especially in the case of what—at least to me—appear to be stronger policy arguments, for the exact scenario as described above. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-ish. Overturn to moved I think "no consensus" is probably a more precise result, but for moves, I view "no consensus to move" and "not moved" as equivalent, whereas an AfD a "no consensus" is quite a bit weaker than a "keep." Also, after reviewing the policy guidelines, I am not completely convinced this is a situation where those wishing for a move have a stronger policy argument, as the guidelines are vague about this specific scenario. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked at WP:PRIMARYFILM again, and I think I mis-interpreted it the first time: I believe it says if the film's name is not the primary topic, it must be disambiguated, even if it is far and away the primary topic as far as films are concerned. I'm not sure I agree, but the last discussion strongly opposed changing this. In that case there's not much room here for argument, even though the discussion itself was clearly a "no consensus." SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those endorsing this discussion is that this is one of the areas where policy is - I wouldn't say it's necessarily clear, but it is specific per WP:PRIMARYFILM. Simply looking at the consensus without looking at whether the arguments were in line with what we traditionally do in this situation is not the correct way to approach this move review. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Advise the nominator to put more rationale into the nomination statement. If you don’t, it is often a trainwreck, and a net waste of time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding others’ !votes to overturn, I share a feeling of dissatisfaction with the result, but I dont agree there is a consensus to move evident in the discussion. It could be relisted, but I think it should wait two months for a better nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feedback noted. I should have done a better job explaining that there. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to moved <uninvolved>. Personally I disagree with WP:PRIMARYFILM, but it very specifically prohibits incomplete disambiguation even when it's otherwise allowed, and so far there's been consensus against changing that. Per the closing instructions, closers generally have to avoid a title that's "out of keeping with naming conventions...regardless of how many of the participants support it". Changes to the guideline should be made by RfC, not RM. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. < uninvolved > Agree with editor SmokeyJoe above. In this case "not moved" is synonymous with "no consensus", and the latter may or may not have been a more precise closure decision. Again, in this case the result is the same whether "no consensus" or "not moved" is used; however, that is not always the case. There have been exceptions. Open for two weeks I see no reason to relist, as it is doubtful that the outcome would be altered. I would recommend that editors strengthen their arguments to move the page, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a rename. I think that this closure was then a reasonable end to the survey and discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse < uninvolved >. The nominator and proponents of the move did not make a compelling case. Maybe it should have been closed as no consensus, but that's really splitting hairs. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perspiration (closed)

edit
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Perspiration (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

When including all comments from the initial discussion, regardless of whether they were directly about the proposal, the vote was evenly split at 50/50 (4:4). The closing message was 'no consensus', which is accurate based on the numbers alone. However, since WP:RMCI requires evaluating arguments as well as numbers, I will briefly summarize these: opposers preferred 'perspiration', feeling it sounded more encyclopedic (WP:TONE) and less ambiguous than 'sweat', referring to both the fluid and the process, thereby avoiding confusion about the article's focus. Supporters, on the other hand, emphasized the statistical prevalence of 'sweat' over 'perspiration' (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MEDTITLE), refuted the claim that 'sweat' describes a different phenomenon than 'perspiration' when referring to the fluid, and advocated for a clear focus on either the fluid or the process. Overall, this decision appears to contrast factual arguments (statistics) with personal preferences. –Tobias (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closer comment): while !votes with rationales like seems more encyclopedic are not especially helpful, there was a key argument on the "oppose" side that lead me to mark it "no consensus". (That said, WP:TONE plays some role and should not be entirely discarded. A formal tone is important.) Basically, the argument put forward by WhatamIdoing: Also, it's not clear to me whether this article ought to be about "the fluid" or about "the process of excreting the fluid". "Perspiration" works for both, but with the proposed name, it would have to be either sweat (the wet stuff itself, as a collection of water and some other chemicals) or sweating (the process of making the wet stuff; Diaphoresis). As this article currently covers both (and that seems fine to me), then having a name that covers both in the same grammatical form seems convenient. This argument is just as valid and as strong as the COMMONNAME-based one; we shouldn't be swayed into thinking that numbers-based rationales are somehow more worthy or more powerful. (I would also like to note: I did not make the close based on the numbers alone.) Sweat is a bit too ambiguous a term, and does not cover the entirety of the article subject. Therefore I think the arguments are equally matched. (Remember I don't have to defend the ambiguity argument as better than the other one, and I don't think it is. I just have to show it has equal weight). I would not characterize that argument as a personal preference.
If this response is unsatisfactory, I'm happy to elaborate further on why I think my close is appropriate. Cremastra (u — c) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. This discussion wasn't that well attended and since its especially controversial (otherwise we wouldn't be here), it could use more input from the community.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved): WP:TONE / WP:SLANG is a legitimate reason to oppose this proposed move, and that is basically what people mean by saying the current title "seems more encyclopedic". "Sweating" was also mentioned as a possibility, which also seems like a good candidate, but didn't gain clear traction. The RM was relisted and was open for more than two weeks. No consensus was evident, so the RM was closed as "no consensus", which seems fine. Less formal terminology is often avoided in Wikipedia article titles (Defecation, Feces, Urine, Sexual intercourse, etc.). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there was no consensus in that discussion. There are functionally two different, potentially correct arguments with about equal support. In fact, I will even go further and say that I do not think the argument that sweat was the COMMONNAME was clearly made (I wouldn't think a simple ngrams shows anything useful since it's not limited to medical topics.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There's no tone or slang problem. There was no consensus around the issue of whether an article whose main subject is sweating, while also discussing sweat as the result of sweating, should be named "Sweat"; it was said that perspiration means both sweat and sweating, while sweat does not mean sweating and is therefore not the name for sweating for it to even qualify as the single most common obvious name for sweating.—Alalch E. 12:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was no consensus, and it was closed as No Consensus. Move Review is not Requested Move round 2. Relist would have been valid, but closure as No Consensus was also valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. That was a “no consensus” heavily leaning to “rough consensus to not move”. The nomination was weak and two support arguments were weak, as in not engaging with actual evidence, while the oppose arguments had more substance. No consensus is a good close because overall it was a superficial discussion in an unimportant move. A future fresh nomination should be expected to have more rationale. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Israel–Hamas war (closed)

edit
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Israel–Hamas war (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
See also other post-move discussions here, here, here and here.

There was a broad consensus for a move of the title away from Hamas and towards Gaza based on increasing and converging use of Gaza by RS. While initially a move to Israel-Gaza war found mixed support, I proposed a compromise for a move to Gaza War, which found great support among editors as a middle ground solution. Despite this the move was closed as no consensus, and there were attempts by several editors to discuss a rereview with the closing editor, to which they did not agree with. To add to that, three editors who had voted against were found to be sockpuppets. This really needs a rereview to accurately reflect the established consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (involved). Most editors didn’t participate in the alternative proposal, and their silence cannot be interpreted as endorsement of it. This is particularly the case because Gaza War has previously been considered and rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has claimed that their silence was an endorsement. As for the prior consensus argument, it is irrelevant given the passage of time and new sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two proposals. Here is a tally of the !vote count of each one:
"Support" "Oppose" Support % Note
Move "Israel–Hamas war" to "Israel–Gaza war" 50
List
GeoffreyA,kashmīrī,Ïvana,Unbandito,Jebiguess,Mast303,Charles Essie,Scuba,Urro,إيان,HadesTTW,CoolAndUniqueUsername,Genabab,Haskko,nableezy,Stephan rostie,Yeoutie,Selfstudier,Jeppiz,JOEBRO64,BarrelProof,Levivich,Pachu Kannan,Makeandtoss,Iskandar323,Ainty Painty,20WattSphere,Josethewikier,Clayoquot,Aszx5000,RealKnockout,Black roses124,Kire1975,ByVarying,Est. 2021,Wellington Bay,WillowCity,Chicdat,Abo Yemen,C&C,Gödel2200,Benpiano800,EmilePersaud,Hydrangeans,Snowstormfigorion,Havradim,TyphoonAmpil,Albert Mond,VR,DFlhb
 37
List
BilledMammal,PaPiker,UnspokenPassion,Longhornsg,Kowal2701,Drocj,웬디러비,The Mountain of Eden,InvadingInvader,Jdcomix,Figureofnine,Hogo-2020,DecafPotato,Nashhinton,MaskedSinger,IanMacM,The Weather Event Writer,JohnAdams1800,xDanielx,Excel23,IntrepidContributor,FortunateSons,Alaexis,Kalpesh Manna 2002,Eladkarmel,InfiniteNexus,Clear Looking Glass,photogenic scientist,LuxembourgLover,Benjitheijneb,Swordman97,Drsruli,Awesome Aasim,IJA,Some1,Katangais,Yovt
 57% All of the "Support" !votes in this section supported moving away from "Israel–Hamas war", with many supporting a move to Gaza war instead.
Move "Israel–Hamas war" to "Gaza war" 37
List
Stephan rostie,Black roses124,GeoffreyA,Pachu Kannan,Chicdat,Clayoquot,Gödel2200,Selfstudier,Levivich,CNC,Hydrangeans,JOEBRO64,Ïvana,Jeaucques Quœure,GnocchiFan,Shadowwarrior8,JasonMacker,Lewisguile,نعم البدل,Vanilla Wizard,WikiFouf,Bluethricecreamman,Raskolnikov.Rev,Chuckstablers,Jotamide,20WattSphere,HadesTTW,pma,CoolAndUniqueUsername,Smallangryplanet,Kingofthedead,Braganza,PadFoot,Nojus R,VR,SP00KY,Parham wiki
 10
List
XavierGreen,Mast303,modern_primat,Alaexis,Mag1cal,Drsruli ,Coretheapple,MaGioZal,Andre,Yovt
 79% Most supporters in this section were ok with both dates and without dates, while some had a strong preference to omit dates. One[1] of those who opposed this title, also opposed Israel-Hamas war (in favor of Israel-Gaza war).

Note some users !voted in both sections but most only !voted in one section.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Discussions of this size and time length are often incredibly hard to judge and more often than not both sides have equally strong policy arguments, even if one has more !votes behind it. In most cases, no consensus is the only possible and responsible close. I'd agree with the closer, give it a few more months (or less, as always if something changes more clearly), and maybe propose Gaza war or some variation of it next time around, but I don't see how a close in favor of any particular opinion could've been anything but a WP:SUPERVOTE.estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Gaza war I thought there was clear consensus for a move to that title at this time, and this is how I would have closed the discussion. A no consensus close is easier because it's a contentious topic but I'm not sure it's correct here given there's a clear numerical advantage to move. Given the nature of the discussion, this may necessitate another immediate move discussion, and I think that's fine. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse IMHO, the closer made the right call by closing the RM as 'no consensus' on moving Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Gaza war. The 'Common ground' section raised additional questions, but I doubt most editors who participated in the main RM bothered to scroll down far enough to see it (or took the time to engage with that part). As the closer suggested, editors should give it a few months and then open a new RM. This time, they can ask whether Israel–Hamas war should be moved to Gaza war [with or without dates] and see if the consensus is clearer without the other options getting in the way. Some1 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the common ground section, why not support a relist? It would be time consuming and unnecessary to start this process all over again in a few months. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) - If I had participated, I might not have noticed the Common Ground containing an alternate proposal. The option of Gaza War was not obvious. What is obvious was the choice between Israel-Hamas War and Israel-Gaza War, and that was no consensus and closed as No Consensus. A separate RM should be started to rename the article Gaza War, which will probably pass. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) Once again a split between editors as to whether it ought to be Gaza war or Israel Gaza war, in the face of which the closer is stuck with a no consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - this requested move discussion should have followed, not ignored, a procedural requested move of Gaza War (which is a disambiguation page). The claim that …many supporting a move to Gaza war instead is questionable, with several editors basing their argument solely through Yes, which are not valid arguments.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mast303
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.


2024 October

edit

AIM-174B

edit
AIM-174B (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

For clarity, this request was ultimately closed by USER:Vpab15. It was initially closed (in good-faith) by USER:Asukite, and re-opened at my request. USER:Vpab15 ultimately closed it (in good-faith) ostensibly on-behalf of USER:Asukite, with a consensus of 3 (three) in-favor of KEEPING "AIM-174B" and 2 (two) in-favor of moving to "AIM-174." (full disclosure, I am the original author of the AIM-174 article) My position is that the article should be MOVED/REVERTED to “AIM-174.” My rationale for a MR:


1. "AIM-174 air-to-air missile" was moved to "AIM-174B", in good-faith, but without discussion, as per WP:RM. WP:BOLD does not exempt one from WP. At the very least the page should be reverted, per WP:RMUM. This was my rationale for attempting to move it on my own, originally, but was unable to do so for technical reasons, and ultimately began this move discussion. I recognize that "air-to-air missile" is unneeded due to WP:CONCISE.

2. The term “AIM-174” is freely-used -- admittedly alongside "AIM-174B" -- among sources[1][2][3] and is easily recognizable.

3. WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE emphasize titles should be concise and precise, obviously. The title “AIM-174” is sufficiently precise to cover the entire missile family, including the AIM-174B variant. It avoids unnecessary complexity and redundancy.

4. WP:CONSISTENT, virtually all missiles -- and ALL U.S. air-to-air-missiles -- use the base model as their article title. While the AIM-174B is the only known operational variant, does that mean we should change the AIM-54 Phoenix article to "AIM-54C," given that, at the end of the Phoenix's life, it was the only operational variant? Per WP:CONSISTENT, see: AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-26 Falcon, AIM-47 Falcon, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-68 Big Q, AIM-82, AIM-95 Agile, AIM-97 Seekbat, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132, AIM-152 AAAM, AIM-260

5. WP:DISAMBIG, WP:PRECISE; the current title “AIM-174B” may imply that there are multiple significant variants that require disambiguation. However, the primary subject of the article is the AIM-174 missile as a whole, with the AIM-174B being a variant, in-line with US missile naming conventions. Using “AIM-174” as the title encompasses all possible variants without the need for additional disambiguation or future discussion. FOR EXAMPLE: All AIM-9Xs are AIM-9s. All AIM-7Cs are AIM-7s. etc.

6. No one has made any attempt at editing the body or lead, which opens with "AIM-174." Indeed, as it stands currently, "AIM-174B" is not mentioned until the end of the intro. (and intro which, in full disclosure, I wrote) Indeed, I would argue that as a compromise, we could move the mention of the "AIM-174B" up to within the first sentence or two.
MWFwiki (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.realcleardefense.com/2024/10/04/navys_new_aim-174_vlraam_could_pierce_chinas_anti-access_bubble_1062926.html
  2. ^ https://www.yahoo.com/news/navy-very-long-range-aim-220539674.html
  3. ^ https://www.yahoo.com/news/aim-174-missile-seen-super-161323697.html
Involved editor comment - I just want to note that I regret reverting my closure in this case as it has likely made the situation worse and now involved another editor who was inevitably dragged into this - thanks, in any case, and sorry for that.
I won't offer any opinion as to the close, but will note that of the prevalent voices in the discussion, there was an imbalance in civility and a clear lack of consensus. ASUKITE 03:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, move to AIM-174 This is a very tricky discussion, because the original page was "AIM-174 air-to-air missile", it was moved unilaterally to "AIM-174B" recently in September (note the suffix), and the move discussion was to move it from "AIM-174B" to "AIM-174." In short, we have two different moves here: whether to remove "air-to-air missile" and whether the suffix should be used. In terms of dropping the "missile" part, I think there's clear consensus in that discussion to shorten the name. I do not see any consensus as to whether it should be AIM-174 or AIM-174B, though, but rather two opposing arguments without a clear policy winner. As a result, it should revert to whatever the status quo is, which in this case would be "AIM-174" without the "missile" part. If anything, I'm not sure discussion doesn't favour the shorter title - one opposer wants to maintain the status quo, but there isn't a status quo, and one of the non-specifically-voting commenters says it's unnecessary without being completely supportive of it. SportingFlyer T·C 05:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your analysis of the separation of the problems with the RM identifies the issue I have parsing the RM and this MRV. I do think that there are two issues that may have individually been separated and could be read as consensus against the longer disambiguator but no consensus for B/no B. I take issue with the participating mover's interpretation of policy "Unfortunately for you, a no consensus decision will result in this article staying here" in the RM, and would instead endorse your idea that aligns with policy, that a no consensus would take us back the original title, sans extra disambiguatotr. This is definitely a policy argument that is splitting hairs, but I think you've correctly identified the issues at play here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw that and completely disagree that a "no consensus" result would validate a recent page move. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also surprised other people think there was consensus here. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the strongest consensus but the view that the close was not outside the scope of WP:RMCI is reasonable and good faith interpretation. The outcome could have swung either way here, to be honest. I've refrained from bolding my opinion here as well. You win some, you lose some. The view that I wanted to make sure I endorsed in my reply to your !vote above was the idea that the procedure may be complicated on the reversal and I stand by that, in the event the decision is reversed or vacated, that should be the proper policy procedure. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The RM starter was not happy with a certain element of a bold move, while the other part was non-contentious. He contested said element of the move and failed, as the consensus was to keep the specific contested change made to the name. The bold move was therefore taken over by a consensus at RM: implicit consensus concerning the non-contentious element + explicit consensus concerning the remaining contentious element = consensus for the entire thing. The closer correctly recognized this.—Alalch E. 23:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It's easy to see both sides of this issue, and I tend to agree with Alalch E. that the closer correctly read the RM survey and discussion. This closure was reasonable and in line with the closing instructions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality law of North Macedonia (closed)

edit
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nationality law of North Macedonia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The move request for renaming Nationality law of North Macedonia to "North Macedonian nationality law" was closed as not move, (although with votes 3-2 in favour of my proposal), and the closer relied the decision on a statement of WP:MOSMAC that is not part of the community consensus reached in the 2019-RFC. This statement tells us Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether.

There are two main problems with this statement and the closure of the move request:

1) A recent move request for renaming Macedonian denar to "Denar of North Macedonia" was rejected, and the followed-up move review was rejected unanimously, and none of the editors was convinced about the above statement, which I include in the move review. The two different decisions made in these two recent move requests tell us that decisions are made without considering wikipedia policies WP:NC and guidelines WP:MOSMAC. If there is a guideline that tells us to avoid adjectives in article titles, then Macedonian denar should be renamed to "Denar of North Macedonia". If this is not true, then Nationality law of North Macedonia should be renamed to "North Macedonian nationality law". Either way is okay, but my brain cannot accept double standards by pointing to the same guideline/exception/statement. One of the participants in the two move requests opposed Denar of North Macedonia but then strongly defended Nationality law of North Macedonia, pushing double standards in a non-scientific way.

2) I will share here some research that I did and already discussed with the closer and shows that the closer was trapped (me too as well a few weeks ago) by a statement, the validity of which has been raised in Talk:2019 North Macedonian presidential election#Article title move and includes a discussion about the statement: Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether started by an editor, FlavrSavr, who was involved in the RFC 2019 and who opposed "North" in all cases (shown in the votes in all questions).

Editors Teratix and Number 57 participated in the long discussion with FlavrSavr.

FlavrSavr said: The actual policy clearly states that Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. and specifies in which cases "North Macedonian" may be used.

Number57 said: Then whoever has formulated the policy has ignored the outcome of the RfC. Perhaps this needs to be flagged up at WP:AN or somewhere, as it's not really acceptable for a clear outcome from a community discussion to be ignored when translating it into policy.

FlavrSavr then responded to Number 57 with a long message that includes: The sentence in question was proposed by me and inspired by Argean's and other comments in the RfC - this really was a no-brainer for most of us as it seems to be a natural and neutral resolution, and this wasn't opposed by anyone.

MJL (main contributor of WP:MOSMAC) joined the discussion and added: Actually, on a second read through, I have become very concerned by Number 57's comments.

Future Perfect at Sunrise joined the discussion and added: The sentence in question ... was not covered by the original RfC but was written into the draft unilaterally by MJL – certainly with the best of intentions. and ... And if there are groups of articles where local editors consider adjectival titles preferable for WP:CONSISTENCY reasons, we definitely have a problem and I'm not sure at all we should treat that WP:NCMAC sentence as authoritative.

qedk (one of the three editors in the closing of RFC 2019) commented: Since, the LOCALCONSENSUS surrounding the inclusion of that singular sentence has certainly changed, either it should be removed, or reframed in a manner, where it doesn't sound like policy. And given, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS explicity states — Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale, this particular statement cannot be held above the policy formed at the behest of the community. With thanks.

Argean joined the discussion and said: This particular sentence was proposed by FlavrSavr to be added in Future Perfect at Sunrise's first draft and was never questioned by anybody until now.

To remind you that FlavrSavr was involved in the RFC 2019 and opposed "North", so the idea of adding this special statement to WP:MOSMAC was a way to avoid the community consensus as much as possible and was proposed by an editor who disagrees with "North Macedonian", and this was done only after the RFC 2019. Not fair at all in my opinion.

One of the last comments of this discussion was by qedk, who is one of the three closers of the RFC 2019.

qedk said: To note for posterity's sake, the post-RfC drafting was mostly done by FPaS and MJL, and with SilentResident, Argean, Khajidha, FlavrSavr chipping in. Now, if out of those we already have two editors (FPaS and Khajidha in contention, on different things), you cannot say that the LOCALCONSENSUS persists. Noting again, that Teratix and Number 57 do not see it as an accurate summarization as well. I do not mean to question it when you say that it's in good intent and that it's meant to prevent conflicts but what I am saying is, you cannot have it override community consensus, which in this case, was clear and not a LOCALCONSENSUS.

All these prove that the statement about articles has been disputed by multiple editors already, but was not removed from WP:MOSMAC although suggested by the closing panel of the RFC 2019. The argument of the closer of this move request about this statement that doesn't allow adjectives in titles is incorrect, and couldn't be correct because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override community consensus achieved in 2019-RFC, in which The closing panel agrees that there is consensus for Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia. for State-associated and other public entities.

The second argument of the closer about implicit consensus on the WP:MOSMAC guidelines (discussed in the talk page) because nobody removed this incorrect sentence against community consensus is also incorrect because we have multiple examples of article titles that use the adjective, see North Macedonian passport, 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, 2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election, 2024 North Macedonian presidential election, and 2024 North Macedonian parliamentary election. As already mentioned in the move review for Macedonian denar, the reason WP:MOSMAC was used in these examples but not in Macedonian denar and Nationality law of North Macedonia is the lack of experienced editors and the law participation that are eliminated by editors with double standards.

The experienced editors @Number 57 and @Teratix have been consistently using WP:MOSMAC for years in pages of North Macedonian elections, and I don't understand why we need to use double standards enforced by a single editor in other pages.

Nationality law of North Macedonia is completely inconsistent with all other pages of Category:Nationality_law and should be moved all in line with WP:CONSISTENT and WP:MOSMAC and 2019-RFC community consensus.

Thank you all for your time. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer - First off, the move request was closed as no consensus, not as not moved. Additionally, I’m slightly unsure if the nominator is aware about WP:NOTAVOTE, as part of their opening statement here explicitly mentions a vote count: although with votes 3-2 in favour of my proposal. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As long as WP:MOSMAC says what it does, no consensus is the only possible closure; it's a classic case of "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy". The main concern here seems to be that MOSMAC itself doesn't reflect consensus, but that's not an issue for move review: it should be raised on the guideline's talk page and/or in a new RfC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse two distinct policy interpretations without any majority in favour of one or the other, there's no other way to close this. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Appropriate closure of no consensus, two appropriately argued policies that neither may be discounted. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - On the one hand, the close of No Consensus correctly summarizes a lengthy and inconclusive discussion. On the other hand, the appellant's statement, at 1183 words, is also lengthy and inconclusive. Should our instructions for opening a Move Review include a statement that concise statements are usually more effective? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator Thank you everybody for your comments, very appreciated! One question though: votes don't count, arguments count, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override community consensus as correctly or incorrectly written in WP:MOSMAC. So far so good. Then who can explain me why "Denar of North Macedonia" was rejected in the move request and the move review, and now "North Macedonian nationality law" is also rejected in the move request and move review by using the opposite argument? Both the denar and nationality law fall into the same category of WP:MOSMAC -- State-associated and other public entities -- I really want to know. I see double standards here. You look at the problem locally by focusing on the tree but you miss the whole forest. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both moves were closed as "no consensus" which shouldn't be taken as acknowledgement that either of the current titles are the "correct" ones. It just means that there wasn't consensus for or against the moves, which means the end result is maintaining the status quo. RachelTensions (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Macedonian denar was closed as "not moved", but I see your point and is helpful to me, thanks. I read your reasoning as: Editors can argue against proposals even if the proposals are correct per WP:MOSMAC and per all wikipedia policies, and nobody can stop these editors even if we have scientific evidence that proves that. This again goes back to "we count votes" although we say we don't, and we "ignore policies/guidelines" otherwise it would be impossible that "Denar of North Macedonia" was rejected against WP:MOSMAC that tells us Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether., and later "Nationality law of North Macedonia" was maintained because WP:MOSMAC tells us Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether.. This is a contradiction that drives me crazy, and the only reasonable answer for accepting this contradictions is that we override community consensus based on a random group of 2-3 people who are involved in RMs, but this contradicts WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that tells us Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale..
What is the community consensus that cannot be overridden by local consensus? Isn't WP:MOSMAC? Then who is going to apply WP:MOSMAC and ignore local consensus? If WP:MOSMAC tells us to have "Nationality law of North Macedonia", then it also tells us to have "Denar of North Macedonia". Can you decide what WP:MOSMAC tells us and then use it to everything?
You treat the problem as bureaucracy, but we should treat it in a scientific way and build an encyclopedia. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Macedonian denar (closed)

edit
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Macedonian denar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

I opened a move request for Macedonian denar and proposed to move it to Denar of North Macedonia (like in the case of Category:Nationality_law where North Macedonia follows a different format) or to North Macedonian denar which is the most common name backed-up with reliable sources -- 70%. The move request was closed today as "not moved".

In my humble opinion, multiple wikipedia policies have been overlooked. I list my arguments below.

1. Wikipedia tells us what Consensus means: 

Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.

and Wikipedia tells us how consensus is formed: 

editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.

2. North Macedonia's policies Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia tell us what name to use: 

However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural. While reliable sources continue to use both plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in such contexts, the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian".

Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred.

In my humble opinion, the general wikipedia's policies about consensus, and the specific North Macedonia's policies make clear that the editors have set default rules in favour of North Macedonian denar (or perhaps Denar of North Macedonia because of the last clause).

3. On the top of the already clear consensus and naming policies, the talk page of Macedonian denar hides an old move request that is backed-up by a long list Talk:Macedonian denar/Archive 2 of reliable sources that was collected by users who agreed and opposed, and the closer found a clear consensus, and I quote here the summary of their study: 

List of Reliable Sources (North Macedonian denar: 135 findings, North Macedonia denar: 57 findings, Macedonian denar: 89 findings)

Therefore, North Macedonian denar is WP:COMMONNAME and this is backed-up with reliable sources that show: 70% of reliable webpages include "North" (48% is North Macedonian denar) and only 30% use "Macedonian denar".

4. WP:COMMONNAME tells us what common name means: 

Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.

North Macedonian denar is the most common name in reliable sources (70%), precisely identifies the currency of North Macedonia, it is as short as the name of the country, it is the natural adjective in the english language, it is the best distinguishable and recognizable option, and it resembles titles for similar articles, and the most important criterion is that "North Macedonian" was agreed for State-associated and other public entities in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia.

5. Similar discussions have been made for years under the talk pages of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, 2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election, 2024 North Macedonian parliamentary election. There the wikipedia policies for North Macedonia naming were used, because there were experienced editors who protected the pages. In the case of Macedonian denar, the lack of experienced editors involved in the discussion for the move request leads to a messy situation.

6. To see the issue from a different point of view. If an editor thinks there is no clear consensus for North Macedonian denar should wonder if there is clear consensus for Macedonian denar. North Macedonia's policies tell us the default rules to use unless a clear consensus is made against them. I don't see any clear consensus for Macedonian denar, I see only 30% using plain Macedonian. Clear consensus perhaps means 80% or at least 70% but definitely not 30%.

7. To close this discussion, I am convinced that all wikipedia policies suggest North Macedonian denar, and if someone believes there is no clear consensus (because of counting votes instead of using policies and sources) then the answer is found at a wikipedia policy from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia. 

In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).

Sorry for the long comment, I had to do some research to find this information and perhaps it is worth sharing it with editors who are interested but perhaps not aware of it. Thank you everyone for taking the time to read this. Hopefully, after this discussion wikipedia will be improved. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure (uninvolved). Alternatively, a closure of "not moved to Denar of North Macedonia, no consensus on North Macedonian denar" may have been more accurate an acceptable close, but I don't see the original closure as out of step with WP:RMCI. This is getting into WP:Trainwreck-adjecent territory; the RM was opened without a clear preference for the page destination and it looks to me like it was originally argued that Denar of North Macedonia was the preference, only to then shift to arguing that North Macedonian denar was more appropriate. My reading of the consensus and discussion on the RM is that there was a clear consensus against the first, while it is less clear on the second. I don't see grounds here to overturn completely. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time. Overturn completely is not what I ask for. Following wikipedia policies that suggest "North" and considering reliable sources, 70% of which include "North", is exactly what I ask for. It's sad that apparently I didn't manage to send you my message. I would prefer to read comments that consider wikipedia policies and the 70%. If you want to agree with someone you first need to talk about the "same" topic; with the assumption that policies and reliable sources don't matter, which is what your comment implies as they are not discussed, I have no particular reason to disagree with you. Ignoring policies and sources perhaps allows you only with the option of counting votes, and this is the problem as it contradicts Consensus. Denar of North Macedonia is fine fore me (like in the case of Category:Nationality_law); there is a clause that suggests it, and I thought this was clear as well. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there's absolutely no consensus for a move here - every editor opposing clearly did a WP:COMMONNAME search and opposed on valid policy grounds. (Also, just to make sure we haven't made a mistake, I looked into COMMONNAME: I'm also not sure it is 70% more common - I only get 10 results for "North Macedonian denar" on Google Scholar as opposed to 100+ since the country's name change, and normal currency exchange websites use "Macedonian denar." So for me this looks like an unanimous oppose using valid policy arguments.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time. It's interesting your google shows only 10 results. The problem I have with search engines is that I get too many results for North Macedonian denar but they are not reliable. The problem with Macedonian denar is that the results include results for North Macedonian denar giving the impression of a much larger but incorrect number. To make sure you get them right, please see this list Talk:Macedonian denar/Archive 2 of reliable sources discussed in the move request, sorry for forgetting to add a link. Some of these links are not accessible anymore but they are all reliable as judged by the closer who found a clear consensus, and yes as you confirm now with your eyes 70% include "North". Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE 20/10/2024 I looked at google scholar for "Macedonian denar" and see 100 results that include those for "North Macedonian denar", and if you open the first 3 out of 4 results, it is the same book with title "Macedonia's Long Transition" and thus the 100 results you mention include multiple duplicates, and another problem is that the authors of the book are from North Macedonia, which should be excluded according to the way the 2019-RFC for North Macedonia was conducted. I looked at many of the other results and show that the authors are based in North Macedonia. Did you check each of these books to ensure that the reference to Macedonian denar is not at historical context? Because in that case, Macedonian denar would be expected. Another problem with books/research work is that they are prepared for publication much earlier than they are submitted and finally accepted, and in the meantime the authors do not necessarily update every term unless it's critical for the conclusion of the work. Therefore the 100+ results that you reported are incorrect because you didn't check any of the above criteria. The study that shows 70% include "North" have considered all these criteria. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The move you mentioned was overturned. Furthermore this isn't a second move request, but rather a review to see if the person closing made a mistake. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was overturned because users violated wikipedia policies. Everybody accepted the reliability of the sources, which is still 70% and cannot change. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to All: Two editors have commented so far and none of them responded to my quotes for wikipedia policies. We continue playing the same game that started with the move request. People don't see, people don't know, people don't understand, people have all these skills required to overlook wikipedia policies. As a non-experienced user I accept my mistake and the wrong way of expressing my thoughts in the move request, and I opened this move review as suggested by the closer. If editors intentionally avoid discussing wikipedia policies, I recommend to everyone to close this move review ASAP, because we are wasting our time, and we don't help wikipedia becoming better. By avoiding discussing if the closure was correct while ignoring the wikipedia policies written above gives a bad example to editors who have a bias, and from my personal experience I can tell you that you don't help me to learn how I can contribute to wikipedia if its policies are not used. I am not here to bother people, and my experience so far is too much "bureaucracy". People play ping pong and move the ball from the one side to the other without answering my question which by the way is very simple: why North Macedonia's policies Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia that are in favour of "North" are not used for the currency of the country, while reliable sources confirm 70% use "North"? If experienced, not biased, and uninvolved editors don't know the answer, then who knows? Please help me! Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we see you've brought a lot of policy arguments to this WP:MRV. We can also see that those who opposed your arguments did so while citing to WP:COMMONNAME. You'll note that COMMONNAME is a part of our Wikipedia:Article titles project page, this also represents policy. You also feel that your arguments are more in line with policy than those who you feel just don't understand your arguments well enough and that they can't possibly be right. However, in determining consensus (the policy page to which you keep citing) tells us we must consider their views—as wrong as you feel they may be—as well as yours and that neither can be dismissed out of hand because they both contain rational arguments. We also look to see who agreed and disagreed with the respective arguments in their !votes.
You think that editors here also aren't fully considering your policy arguments, and why not, yours are the only ones that could possibly make sense in this situation. However, move review isn't for re-litigating your policy arguments. Review the WP:MRV page and see that it's for determining if the closure was out of scope with WP:RMCI, or if there was significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion. Note that:
  • Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
  • The instructions at § Initiating move reviews outline the two strongest arguments to be made for a proper WP:MRV, as I've summarised above.
You mention above that you aren't looking for an overturn so with this in mind, as well as the instructions for what this process is for, as outline above, I'm not sure what more there is to accomplish here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith and that you are mistakenly distorting my words, I said "Overturn completely is not what I ask for." and as an experienced editor that you are, you know there are five options for the move review decision. Getting comments from experienced editors is what I expect, which was impossible from the rapid closure, and re-opening the move request is the right decision in my humble opinion. WP:COMMONNAME is your argument, but you don't tell me how "Macedonian denar" is more common while 70% of reliable sources include "North". If you give us 500 links for reliable sources of "Macedonian denar" after February 2019 then I will accept it as common name and I will publicly apologize for being wrong. Until then, there is proof for the opposite which you ignore. You also ignore that there is community consensus that suggests "North Macedonian" for State-associated and other public entities in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia.
Community consensus cannot be overwritten by local consensus WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope
Perhaps you should take a look at: 2019-RFC that resulted in the current policies. To make it even easier for you, I report below what the community decided based on a long list of reliable sourced included in the page of the RFC:
  1. State-associated and other public entities: What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement?
    Option B: Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.
    The closing panel agrees that there is consensus for Option B. Furthermore, noting the fact that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement, newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common, and we have the existing policies of WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME.
So yes I understand all the words you wrote, but how you interpret wikipedia policies and common name and you conclude that there is consensus for "Macedonian denar" is something that I honestly cannot understand. Every policy explicitly tells us to use "North Macedonian" or "of North Macedonia". Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your disrespect towards someone you don't know. Perhaps you could limit your comment to the situation and consider policies and argue against them. You found something to criticize me but not the 70% of reliable sources and North Macedonia's policies. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to like or dislike the result, and overlooking community consensus and reliable sources is not how you build it. But this is my humble opinion, you have a different one and thanks for making that clear. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Open Free Eye you've responded to every comment here, in addition to making a follow up "comment to all" after two editors, myself included, left a message. You seem to be repeating a lot of your arguments in each instance. It's safe to assume editors are reading the extent of your arguments and the RM before weighing in. Please be mindful not to WP:BLUDGEON the process and realize that sometimes WP:WALLOFTEXT may work against you. With respect, Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The participants didn't think that the common name is different from the current name of "Macedonian denar]], so they decided not to move, and this was correctly recorded as "not moved".—Alalch E. 18:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think? Do we build encyclopedias based on what we think? Perhaps you should start considering scientific evidence, which shows 70% use "North". Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try again in a few years. —Alalch E. 22:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Archive

edit
Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

See also

edit
The current Wikipedia time is:
11:00, Thursday, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review&oldid=1255329571"