Wikipedia:Move review
 |
| 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]
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]
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
are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the |
| 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:
|
| 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: |
| 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.
|
| 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. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the MRV closer thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
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 Close | Not Moved | No Action Required | Closed |
| 2. Endorse Close | Move to new title | No Action Required | Closed |
| 3. Overturn Close | 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 | ||
| 4. Overturn Close | Move to new title | Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate | Open |
| 5. Relist | Not Moved | Reopen and relist RM | Open |
| 6. Relist | Move to new title | Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM | Open |
Notes[edit]
- ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
- ^ 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]
2023 May[edit]
German occupation of Hungary (closed)[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The RM was for German invasion of Hungary. The current title was suggested only after two support !votes and a relist. The suggestion—which was proposed with a question mark—received one support !vote and one oppose (me). The lone unambiguous supporter of the move that the closer enacted argued that the article as it stands should be entirely revamped. The close was a supervote based on the closer's understanding of the word "invasion" and whether or not the article as it is should even exist—issues that were touched on by single participants and not deeply discussed in the RM. Given that there was no opposition to the move as proposed, I believe the closer should have gone with that. Otherwise, it should be reopened to see if a discussion on the move the closer prefers actually develops. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
King Hussein[edit]
Close was a supervote. There is clear support for the name actually proposed in the RM, Hussein, King of Jordan. No need to choose a name which violates a guideline. The name chosen by the closer had the explicit support of 2 out of 10 participants and was explicitly opposed by one with most not commenting on it or !voting before it was proposed. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC) N.B. I was uninvolved. Srnec (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Relist: Almost no alignment between the close and discussion. Also violates WP:SOVEREIGN. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn to Hussein, King of Jordan as the title actually supported by the clear majority of participants. (I'm not sure if it's improper for me to comment here as the nominator of the original rm so if it is please just remove this). estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Any editor can particpate in this review process, the RM's nom, the closer, anybody. And it is good form to say whether you're involved or uninvolved, which you did. Welcome to Move review! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy close – endorse! <uninvolved> This was a tough call as all BARTENDER calls usually are. Trout the closer for not being forthcoming in the closing statement that instead of a move review, a new move request can be opened at any time. Make it two trouts for suggesting to the nom to come to move review instead of starting a fresh RM. Because of all this I ask for a speeedy close of this review so a new RM can be opened if editors can suggest a better title. Myself I prefer Amakuru's King Hussein of Jordan, but that's just me. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved) - the guiding policy for move discussions is WP:COMMONNAME, and I demonstrated clear evidence that not only is "King Hussein" the overwhelming name commonly used in sources for this individual, but also that the proposed "Hussein, King of Jordan" is dead last out of any of the available options - [1]. The use of a "bartender" close (new terminology for me there, I haven't seen that one before!) was entirely unnecessary here, when policy so was clearly against the original proposal, but in any case we've got the correct result, and this move review is really unnecessary. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Policy is clearly on the side of the original proposal and against the current title. COMMONNAME is not some Google results trump card. Srnec (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Err no. WP:COMMONNAME is the policy here and has been since the early days of Wikipedia. And we use ngrams routinely for this, they're far more robust than a mere Google search. Practically every reliable source called him King Hussein or King Hussein of Jordan. The proposed title carried no evidence of common name at all on the other hand, indeed it is clearly vastly less common than even the original status quo title. There is no conceivable way that a closer could have found consensus for "Hussein, King of Jordan" given the evidence presented, and as you know the discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE. — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- COMMONNAME is far from the only policy regarding article titles. There are several other policies, namely WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONSISTENT, the latter of which is what gives WP:SOVEREIGN any authority here. And, Hussein of Jordan is not the only King Hussein out there, by the way. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- COMMONNAME is a part of the policy, not the whole policy. One of the things it says is: Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. —Srnec (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Err no. WP:COMMONNAME is the policy here and has been since the early days of Wikipedia. And we use ngrams routinely for this, they're far more robust than a mere Google search. Practically every reliable source called him King Hussein or King Hussein of Jordan. The proposed title carried no evidence of common name at all on the other hand, indeed it is clearly vastly less common than even the original status quo title. There is no conceivable way that a closer could have found consensus for "Hussein, King of Jordan" given the evidence presented, and as you know the discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE. — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Policy is clearly on the side of the original proposal and against the current title. COMMONNAME is not some Google results trump card. Srnec (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn: As Estar8806 noted above, WP:SOVEREIGN applies. "1. Article titles are not normally prefixed with 'King', 'Queen', 'Emperor' or equivalent." (Which weighs against the title "King Hussein".) "4. ... When there is no ordinal, the formats John of Bohemia and Joanna of Castile or Stephen, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain are used." (Which weighs in favor of the title "Hussein, King of Jordan".) Likewise, unnumbered prefatory text "For example, there are several kings and an emperor who are most commonly called Henry IV; their articles are titled Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, and so on." (Viz. "Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz", reason enough why "of Jordan" should be part of the present page's title; as, arguably, should the patronymic "bin Talal".) – .Raven .talk 06:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist <uninvolved> The option chosen should have been allowed to be discussed properly. The only proper argument I see, regarding Common name, was put forth only by the last commenter. Whether or not it is applicable hasnt been discussed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
4 May 2023 Serbia shootings (closed)[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Consensus existed to move the page somewhere, but the discussion was not relisted Jax 0677 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School shooting (closed)[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Consensus existed to move the page somewhere, but the discussion was not relisted Jax 0677 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Hindu terrorism (closed)[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Endorse Close: The closer’s good faith close was consistent with the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI and the closer duly engaged with closing concerns as this MV was initiated. Years ago when the Move Review Process was created, editors were duly apprehensive that discussions on any given move review process would spiral into a contentious rehash of the pro/con arguments discussed during the RM. This particular MV is a real manifestation of those apprehensions. Very little of the discussion in this MV had to do with the decision the closer made—the purpose of the MV. That point was made by several editors but to no avail as the majority of the discussion was about the substantive merits of the title change—not the purpose of the MV. Contentious article titles like this have little chance of real consensus in the short term. Thus I am move protecting this article for 1 year. I encourage interested editors to focus on the article content, good sourcing and NPOV encyclopedic prose AND NOT the TITLE. Readers will and have found this content under the current and other titles. That will not change.Mike Cline (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC) There could be only 2 outcomes: 1) Move to Hindutva terrorism = There is a clear cut distinction between Hindu and Hindutva which was discussed with reliable sources. The participants made more policy-based arguments in favor of "Hindutva terrorism" than any other option. 2) Relist = With more than a dozen participants, lack of relisting is obviously not something we usually see in such huge discussions. Now even if "no consensus" was the final result, then aren't we supposed to move back to "Saffron terror" (the original title) per WP:STATUSQUO? The last MR confirmed there was no consensus for this page move from "Saffron terror" to "Hindu terorrism".[2] Dympies (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
N'Ko script[edit]
Current title of page resulted from undiscussed WP:RMUM 2019 move; reverted with challenge reasons 9 April 2023; RE-reverted by original mover later that day (as "rv. ignorant move"); RtM to status quo ante ("N'Ko alphabet") filed the next day. Original mover opposed RtM. The only other oppose !vote argued "Manding languages is plural. That says it." But (1) That article says it's a "dialect continuum" rather than fully separate languages; (2) the term "language-specific" in WP:NCWS#Alphabets, per WT:NCWS consensus, can refer to "one or more languages", as that commenter theirself had earlier agreed.
• Closer counted the second !vote, though consensus is supposed to be based on sound policy/guideline-based reasons rather than a raw !vote count: per WP:RMNAC, "Non-administrators are reminded that closing a discussion calls for an impartial assessment of consensus or lack of it, although arguments supported by directly relevant policy and guidelines are given more weight (while keeping broader Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and consensus in mind)."
• Closer's closure said "not moved. There doesn't appear to be much of an appetite for a move at this time." Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, "... sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title."
• Closer argued that the challenged move was itself the stable version: "In my opinion, if an article title remains at one location for at least a year or two, then I would argue that it's 'stable'." (The status quo ante being sought by the RtM had been in place nearly EIGHT years.) Per WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE, the presumption that an unchallenged move meets consensus lasts only until it IS challenged, which it was this year; and the time intervening is irrelevant: "While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, the act of challenging it (in good faith) removes that default assumption, by definition. 'It's been here a long time' does not equate to 'it has had actual consensus for a long time'. [...] There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a false consensus)." One specific example given, of an argument to avoid, is: "Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it." [emphasis added]
• In other words, the "most recent stable version" referred to the one preceding the challenged move. That the mover had RE-reverted (move-warred) to keep their version the current status quo should not privilege it.
• Discussion on closer's talkpage included these details. Closer declined to reconsider. Please see full discussion on both pages. Also, per WP:RMNOMIN: "... if a page has been moved from a long-standing title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move." – .Raven .talk 03:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just noting that I am aware of this discussion. SkyWarrior 03:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Most recent stable version is "N'Ko script"; it had been stable there for 4 years before Raven's recent undiscussed move.
- The topic is under discussion at NCWS, but Raven has submitted nine duplicate RfM's regardless (all without notifying NCWS). NCWS currently states that articles on scripts should generally be labeled "X script" and that alphabets based on those scripts should be at "X alphabet"; by that convention, this article is at the correct location.
- The discussion at NCWS is whether an exception should be made for scripts that comprise a single alphabet, per the example of Greek alphabet. However, even if that exception is granted, it's not clear that it would apply to N'Ko, which is used primarily for a Manding standard but may also be used for the various Manding languages. I'm not clear on that, and sources don't seem to go into a lot of detail (e.g. not detailing different N'Ko alphabets for different Manding languages vs a single N'ko alphabet used only for the N'Ko standard of Manding), but it's probably safest to keep this as "script" even if we decide to move scripts used only for a single language to "X alphabet".
- Really, it's the multiple recent moves of articles on single-language scripts to "X alphabet" that should probably be reviewed, as an attempt by Raven to preempt the decision at NCWS. — kwami (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- > "Most recent stable version is "N'Ko script" — already addressed in the 4th paragraph up top, citing and quoting WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE; also WP:RMNOMIN's "... the default title will be the title prior to the contested move."> "Raven has submitted nine duplicate RfM's" — ❌FALSE: each RtM was on a different alphabet's talkpage, for that alphabet alone – in response to kwami's undiscussed moves of those pages FROM "alphabet" TO "script", after kwami (still without discussion) reverted their reversions to status quo ante, in order to keep them in kwami's own preferred versions. You'll notice that was move-warring, against WP:RMUM: "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in §Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." You'll also notice the procedure there laid out is submitting an RtM on the article's talkpage – which kwami should have done, but didn't, so I did instead. kwami is complaining here that I followed the directed procedure.> "(all without notifying NCWS)" — Per docs, RtMs automatically notify WikiProjects that have tagged the page as of interest to them, as for instance WP:WikiProject Writing systems had tagged Talk:N'Ko script.> "The topic is under discussion at NCWS...." — ❌FALSE: see that RfC's lede, "Should "alphabet" in WP:NCWS include letter-sets for specific uses (e.g. ISO basic Latin alphabet, International Phonetic Alphabet, Theban alphabet), as well as for specific languages...?" [emphasis added] (WP:NCWS#Alphabets already covers "for specific languages", quote: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters" – and previous WT:NCWS consensus, from when that text was added, had already clarified that "language-specific" includes 'specific to more than one language', e.g. "But sometimes languages share alphabets, don't they?" [kwami (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2011]; answered by "If an alphabet is specific to more than one language then it’s still language-specific." [Christoph Päper 22:40, 16 August 2011]; and "... the description should cover the plural: Alphabet is specific to one or more languages. Still, in the singular phrasing, to me it reads like covered as well. Somehow, the singular one does not exclude the plural (it does not exclude another language). If I am correct in this, we can use the simpler option." [DePiep 08:08, 17 August 2011] Note that kwami participated in the conversation, and did not post disagreement with the others.) The move request on Talk:N'Ko script accordingly quotes the RfC on NCWS: "Since [the page move requests mentioned] cite and quote the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets, they are unaffected if this RFC fails. Since they are also compatible with this RFC's proposal(s), they are unaffected if this RFC succeeds. In other words, they are unaffected by this RFC either way." [emphasis in original]> "The discussion at NCWS is whether an exception should be made for scripts that comprise a single alphabet" — ❌FALSE: kwami's own 2011 comments on that topic were 12 years before the 2023 RfC: "... if we have separate articles for the script and alphabet, they should be called just that. But generally we won't. We'll have one article that combines the two. Our conventions should keep that in mind. Since the emphasis tends to be on the alphabet itself, IMO that should be the title." [kwami 10:38, 4 August 2011] Also, "... Any alphabet article is likely to have some background info on the script, esp. if the script is predominantly a single alphabet, and I don't see how calling in an 'alphabet' would make the article hostile to such info...." [kwami, 12:56, 5 August 2011] No dissent found. kwami now contradicts kwami then.
- > "the multiple recent moves of articles on single-language scripts to 'X alphabet'... should probably be reviewed, as an attempt by Raven to preempt the decision at NCWS." [emphasis added] — ❌FALSE yet again, since the move requests cited the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets, and would also be consistent with the RfC's proposal; in short, whether the RfC succeeds or fails had no effect on the move requests already granted, and would have none on this request. (BTW, see the closer's remark on, e.g. Talk:Kaddare alphabet: "The result of the move request was: moved. The only objection is in reference to an RFC that would have no impact on this article regardless of the outcome.")I assume good faith, but this is still a remarkable number of false claims by kwami; and, as noted, kwami even contradicts kwami's own earlier posts. Curious. – .Raven .talk 04:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse. The closer in this RM has clearly followed the closing procedures, and has correctly interpreted consensus. I was uninvolved with the RM, and it is clear to me that I likely would have closed in a similar manner. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved) two other editors disagreed with you, and no one else agreed, and I see no basis to discount either. That's what it comes down to. All of this pontificating about stable versions is irrelevant because the discussion was closed with an explicit consensus not to move, not "no consensus" * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Except that the 2nd-opposed's reason given ("'Manding languages' is plural") was neither quite accurate (Manding languages, despite the title, refers to "a dialect continuum" within Manding, aka "varieties of Manding"), nor — even if it had been accurate — excluded it from WP:NCWS#Alphabet's "language-specific" qualification (the WT:NCWS consensus, including that same !voter, had agreed that "language specific" meant to "one or more languages"). A raw !vote count, taking no notice of the validity of the reasons given, is called a "false consensus". Otherwise we needn't have given reasons at all, or could say "Oppose, because it's Wednesday" (the date of !vote being actually a Saturday). – .Raven .talk 01:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is clearly not as clear-cut your days of the week example, as the length of this discussion and the RM itself show. Of course, you insist you're right and everyone else is so obviously mistaken that their positions should be ignored, but that's you can't just nullify your way into a consensus like that, no matter how hard you try. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- > "everyone else", "their" – ? I referred to one !vote.> "you can't just nullify your way into a consensus" – Nor a "no consensus"? If the validity of a reason given is irrelevant, is WP:RM wrong in saying "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments"? And is WP:RMNOMIN wrong in saying "like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority"? And is the "{{notavote}}" template wrong in saying "consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes"? Should these then be edited to revise them? – .Raven .talk 04:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is clearly not as clear-cut your days of the week example, as the length of this discussion and the RM itself show. Of course, you insist you're right and everyone else is so obviously mistaken that their positions should be ignored, but that's you can't just nullify your way into a consensus like that, no matter how hard you try. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- > "... I see no reason to discount either." – WP:DISCARD: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." – As for instance an argument that is both (a) a misunderstanding of the matter of issue vs. what the article mentioned actually says, the commenter calling "plural" what the article describes as "a dialect continuum"; and (b) irrelevant, because the WP:NCWS#Alphabets criterion "language-specific" was consensus-defined in WT:NCWS as "specific to one or more languages". – .Raven .talk 02:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Except that the 2nd-opposed's reason given ("'Manding languages' is plural") was neither quite accurate (Manding languages, despite the title, refers to "a dialect continuum" within Manding, aka "varieties of Manding"), nor — even if it had been accurate — excluded it from WP:NCWS#Alphabet's "language-specific" qualification (the WT:NCWS consensus, including that same !voter, had agreed that "language specific" meant to "one or more languages"). A raw !vote count, taking no notice of the validity of the reasons given, is called a "false consensus". Otherwise we needn't have given reasons at all, or could say "Oppose, because it's Wednesday" (the date of !vote being actually a Saturday). – .Raven .talk 01:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn. Not involved in this RM, have been involved in similar discussions. I read this RM as closer to no consensus, which should mean a move back to N'Ko alphabet. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Then it should not be moved at all since N'Ko script was the stable version before the undiscussed move by the OP. Cheers --Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Reminder of above citations: Per WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE, the presumption that an unchallenged move meets consensus lasts only until it IS challenged, which it was this year; and the time intervening is irrelevant: "While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, the act of challenging it (in good faith) removes that default assumption, by definition. 'It's been here a long time' does not equate to 'it has had actual consensus for a long time'. [...] There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a false consensus)." One specific example given, of an argument to avoid, is: "Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it." [emphasis added] In other words, the "most recent stable version" referred to the one preceding the challenged move. That the mover had RE-reverted (move-warred) to keep their version the current status quo should not privilege it. [...] Also, per WP:RMNOMIN: "... if a page has been moved from a long-standing title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move."(The 'contested move' being the move from 'alphabet' to 'script') – .Raven .talk 04:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Then it should not be moved at all since N'Ko script was the stable version before the undiscussed move by the OP. Cheers --Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
| Year | 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 |
 | Search Move review archives
| |