Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 May

< 2019 April	Move review archives	2019 June >

2019 May[edit]

Grafing knife attack – The result was overturn and relist. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This RM ran for exactly one week, during which time it had no supports or opposes other than the nominator's. Given that this topic had already been subject to an RM, which closed as "Not moved" last year, I think it should have at the very least been relisted, given that previous reasons for opposing moves had been expressed, by myself and others. I didn't notice this RM at the time, so I requested a courtesy relist on the closer's talk page on 17 May, but they haven't replied to me since then, and it doesn't look like they've been on-wiki in that period. I'm therefore bringing this here to request a relist, so that I can oppose the proposed move and suggest that, if a move is necessary due to ambiguity reasons, then a better alternative move is to 2016 Munich knife attack. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The attack in question didn't occur in Munich, so why would we say so in the page title? The previous RMs referenced involved other alternative titles that also referenced Munich. Calidum 17:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Calidum, you're arguing the merits of the RM, not the merits of the MRV to relist. In general, any time an RM is closed after one week with little or no discussion, and someone requests a reopen/relist, I think it should be granted. Don't you? --В²C ☎ 17:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Grafing issue was mentioned in the 2016 RM and I expressly opposed it because it's not the WP:COMMONNAME for the incident in English sources. I'm not faulting the closer here, just suggesting that this needs more discussion. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - B2C: I'm referencing the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy meaning that even if the closer should have re-listed the discussion, we can nevertheless endorse the action if we feel the RM would end the same way regardless. There is past precedent in MR discussions to do so. I also don’t believe a move request can be seen as controversial if no one has opposed it after a week. Amakuru: I don’t want to re-litigate the the 2016 move request, but I’m not convinced there wasn’t consensus to move it away from the previous title at that point. Calidum 18:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, Calidum, we know Amakuru would oppose. What others, if any, might do, is pure speculation. With the only one known response an oppose, I don't see how we can feel the close would be closed with consensus to move again. --В²C ☎
Revert move and Relist per nom. This situation also raises the issue of how important it is for a closer to at least be available enough to check notifications and address any questions/requests for a reasonable period after a close. Should Dane return while the MRV is open and agree to revert the move and relist, I think it would be fine for them to do so and then close this MRV as moot. --В²C ☎ 17:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Would have closed the same way; however, wouldn't have had a problem reopening and relisting when asked. The closer, if available, probably would've done same. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 10:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist: I'm sure if Dane was active the talk page message would have been enough, either closure would be fine but anything that allows further discussion where it is viable is preferable. SITH (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per all of the above. There is obviously more to be said and there was not a consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revert move and relist per all what is said. And I wouldn't have closed it this way. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. This move discussion with no quorum was definitely inappropriately closed by the closer. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closer Note: I was away relocating and did not see the original comment on my talk page since I haven't been active on-wiki. I support relisting this. -- Dane ^talk 01:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Parliamentary votes on Brexit – There is a clear consensus to endorse the closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The RM are somehow related to the split below the discussion. Some user suggested splitting the non-meaningful votes to another page, thus oppose this move request. Alternatively, for those opposing the split votes support to this request. However, it seems that there is no obvious consensus on the move (and also the split). Some supporters even raised some other possible titles for the page So, further discussion/opinion may be required. B dash (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum - this seems like a very complicated move request and it seems like it would be better solved by more discussion on the talk page. There is a lot of confusion floating around and I think move review is the wrong forum for this. I'd rather you file an RfC. Red Slash 05:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <uninvolved>. A tricky close, due to the split of the discussion, but I think it was a reasonable call. I agree with Red Slash: the Brexit naming issue is probably not over, especially as it is a developing situation, so I think an RfC would be best, and hopefully there won't be the splitting issue seen at the RM. I would also like to take this opportunity to note the meta-levels of this discussion: we're !voting on the outcome of a !vote about the naming of an article detailing several !votes on the best way of implementing the consensus from a !vote. SITH (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. The oppose !votes seemed to be focused more on a desire to split out some of the votes from the article into a different article, to create a narrower focus. That may be a legitimate argument (although I'd likely oppose it myself as the votes, meaningful or otherwise, kind of belong together as a single entity). But that's a different discussion from the move request. Given the extant scope of the article the assertion that "meaningful vote" is too narrow was not really countered, in addition to arguments that the title is not recognizable or precise enough. — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <Involved, supported the move> There was clear support to move off the previous title, and no particular opposition to the proposed title. The opposition voiced by The Vintage Feminist, and supported by two others, was not really opposition to the proposal, but addressed a bigger issue of re-scoping the article and restructuring content with other articles, and I cannot read that argument as being diminished by this rename. I read a rough consensus for the move as proposed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Reasonable close. And I agree with others above; there are many issues here that are better tackled in more appropriate forum and not MRV. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chairman – Endorsed There is a clear consensus for the close to remain in place, seems like it is snowing in May. qedk (t 桜 c) 10:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closing rationale hinges on the line from WP:COMMONNAME that reads When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. In discussion with this Cuchullain, he stated his view that "Something that gets millions of returns in searches of the sources can be described as "fairly common", even if it's not the most common. During the RM, several participants provided evidence that "chairperson" is significantly less-common than "chairman" or "chair" when describing this topic. Specifically, User:Yair rand reported, without challenge, that the NOW Corpus shows "chairman" with 646,437 uses and "chairperson" with 76,080, for text since 2017. This confirms long-term Google Ngram evidence I provided, again unchallenged, that chairperson is provably not common.

Would Cuchullain claim a term is "fairly common" if there were only a hundred-thousand results? Ten-thousand? Twelve? I believe this move should be overturned based on Cuchullain's incorrect estimation of what "fairly common" constitutes, because that meaning in general language and the spirit of that line in that policy means to consider proportionate commonality, not an arbitrary quantity. Netoholic @ 16:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist to determine which gender-neutral term is the appropriate article title. Even taking everything the closer stated as fact, he chose to move the article to a gender-neutral term that is much less common than an alternative gender-neutral term, which would seem to violate at least the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. There needs to be another discussion about which gender-neutral term to use. Even the closer said so, but says he prefers to wait. Well, I see no reason to wait, as this is something that should be discussed now while the issue is still fresh and involved editors are still engaged in the process. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as someone uninvolved in the original discussion (or any of the preceding ones). As was stated in the close discussion by the closing sysop I think if anything is clear here, it's that a decisive majority of participants disfavor the former title of "chairman" and there are solid grounds for that based, based on both Wikipedia practice and real world experience[1]. This seems an entirely accurate reading of the consensus of the editors who participated in the discussion. The closing statement addressed what elements of COMMONNAME did and didn't appear to hold true in this case and is a reasonable application of that policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. First off, it's clear from the discussion that most participants favored the move. Several who opposed preferred a different gender-neutral title (something recommended by MOS:GNL). In other words, a wide majority of participants found the "chairman" title problematic. I believe that a term that's in demonstrable use in millions of sources, not to mention regular parlance, is "fairly common" in the sense that COMMONNAME intends. Given that, I saw no reason not to uphold the consensus in the discussion, which was in favor of the proposed name (and widely in favor of deprecating the former name). I believe this is a reasonable decision based on applicable policy and the WP:RMCI.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close and Speedy close. As one who prefers a disambiguated Chair (e.g., Chair (role)) variant over Chairperson, but nevertheless recognized I'm in the minority about that since the ranked multi-choice survey of the March 22 RM demonstrated no consensus for a disambiguated Chair variant, and did reveal consensus for Chairperson over Chairman, I proposed this particular move to Chairperson accordingly which confirmed the same 60/40 consensus favoring Chairperson over Chairman that I recognized in the March 22 RM ranked survey. I don't see any grounds on which the closer could have chosen an alternative gender-neutral term as Rreagan007 suggests, especially since the explicit move to a disambiguated Chair was recently rejected by the community. As to the claim made in this MRV nom, consensus in the discussion clearly disagrees about the significance of that argument, and the closer read that correctly. Expecting a closer to go against such a strong consensus is not within any closer's bounds of decision-making. --В²C ☎ 18:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as participant The claim that this terms is not "fairly common" is utterly ridiculous. The first two images in the article are of chairs of international committees whose placards say "chairperson". A recent section on the talk page shows an additional three images of chairs of international deliberative bodies with placards showing them as "chairperson". The ANC refers to its highest positions almost exclusively by "chairperson" (this is well reflected in contemporary corpora). The discussion pointed out why Google hits and Ngrams are not reliable for determining commonality because, given historical and contemporary gender dynamics, positions of power have been predominantly occupied by men. Because of this, of course "chairman" will be more common historically because for most of history women were not even allowed to hold such positions of power. The use of corpora has also been amateurish. Because there are more chairmen than chairwomen we would expect a higher frequency of chairman because it represents both a generic and specific usage whereas chairperson is most commonly a generic.

So what we care about is not raw frequency but rather in what contexts is one used more often than expected given this difference in lexical scope. The NOW corpus gives us this functionality in the comparison tab. "Chairman" is significantly more likely than "chairperson" to appear when used around "John", "Mr", "Executive", "CEO", "Chief", and "Senate" all of which show a heavy statistical bias towards men. "Chairman" is significantly less likely than "chairperson" to be used around the word "commission". Using the NOW corpus's random sample function, I took a random sample of 100 contexts for "chairman" and "chairperson". 6% of uses of "chairperson" were unambiguously references to the position proper rather than a particular individual, and 8% were identified in the same sentence by a masculine pronoun. In the sample of "chairman" contexts, 0% were unambiguously in reference to the position (thought there was one that was unclear, so at least 99% referred to a specific individual) and 0% identified an individual using a feminine pronoun in the same sentence. As "chairperson" has a greater than expected distribution with "commission" and random samples of it in context show "chairman" is rarely if ever used as a generic, the corpus shows no support for the argument that "chairman" is a common generic term, let alone a gender neutral one.

It's absurd that someone can look at a corpus with thousands of hits in international news sources for "chairperson", be confronted with numerous chairs of international committees referred to as "chairperson" both generically and specifically, and then with a straight face contend that it's not a common term. The reason such an absurd argument is being clung to is because once we accept "chairperson" is not an obsure neologism, the COMMONNAME opposes lose all weight since, as I said in my support rationale, that policy does not require us to choose the name with the highest line on Ngrams. The supporters in the discussion recognized this, the closer noted that consensus, and correctly closed the discussion. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes' comment just absolutely nails why editor analysis (WP:OR) of primary sources like n-grams, corpuses, google search results, etc., is unreliable. Leviv ich 21:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC) (!voted support in RM)[reply]

Yes. Also, Wugapodes, thank you especially for this sentence: "Because there are more chairmen than chairwomen we would expect a higher frequency of chairman because it represents both a generic and specific usage whereas chairperson is most commonly a generic." That particular problem with way the numbers were being used in the RM was bugging me afterwards... (also !voted support) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 04:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Time to leap out of the 18th century and into the 21st century, n'est-ce pas? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, with thanks to Wugapodes for that interesting analysis. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse<Involved, I !voted for the move as moved>. Excellent close, the explanation, summary of both the facts and arguments, and not a hint that the closer even has an opinion the matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <kind of involved but with no opinion>. For clarity's sake here's my history with this page:

#Requested move 22 March 2019: I relisted this discussion, closed it as "no consensus", and overturned to "relist" per a request on my talk page. I later "endorsed" the no consensus closure by another user at move review.
#Requested move 8 May 2019: no involvement.
#Move moratorium proposal: supported.

So I don't really have an opinion on the substance of the issue.

Back to the move review, I think this closure was within closing instructions and accurately reflected the consensus of the discussion in question. Like SmokeyJoe, I found the summary very impressive.

SITH (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as endorsed. Please let's just let this die. Red Slash 02:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boxing Day shooting – Endorsed close B dash (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion was relisted ONCE instead of twice, with only two comments following the first relist Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse<uninvolved>. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Relisting, In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. The page also notes Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted up to three times. However, due to the lack of further !votes after the first relist, a no consensus closure was entirely appropriate here. I'd advise waiting a couple of weeks and renominating at requested moves, but the closure was entirely appropriate, so this is the wrong process. SITH (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing was entirely appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Relisting is irrelevant, or a waste of time. The discussion was going nowhere. Assuming hypothetically that a move *is* a good idea, the best way forward is to (1) acknowledge the failure of that nomination to gain the support of others; (2) wait ~ two months, to refresh your perspective and no annoy everyone else; (3) make a fresh RM nomination with a better rationale that addresses the underlying reasons for the opposition in the previous RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wager Mutiny – WP:SNOW Endorsed. I don't see any point in dragging this out longer, and I suggest to the filer that the way to move this forward is to do as they were advised, and file a new request with an explicit single target and see if it can gather consensus. That looks superior to a relist. — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think that this "no consensus" close was a good judgment call. Three people made comments that seemed in favor of moving the page to HMS Wager incident (Geo Swan, Idumea47b, and myself), and only one expressed opposition (Born2cycle). The one that opposed the move did not respond after someone replied to their comment – a comment which seemed rather weakly justified in terms of NPOV, in my opinion. To me it appears that the RM should have been closed in favor of a move to HMS Wager incident as the clear majority supported outcome, or should have at least been kept open longer to see if some reply or additional participation would arrive. The article has a POV title that seems to come from a 1952 book – and it is commented on the Talk page that the title reflects an undue emphasis from that source. There are also other comments on the Talk page that the tone of other aspects of the article is also overly sensationalistic and unencyclopedic. The accusation of "Mutiny" in the article title was clearly not supported by the law, and is an extremely serious allegation to make against a person. Mutiny of a ship's crew is generally considered a terrible crime on par with treason or murder, as it threatens the ability of a ship's crew to work in a unified way and can endanger the lives of all involved. But this article is not about a mutiny on a ship. The ship had sunk and these men were on land and had ceased to be employed as crew, and the ship's former captain's commission had expired and he had no legal authority to command them, so it was not a mutiny at all (under the law as it existed at the time). As I said in the RM discussion, "We should not identify people as mutineers lightly." I expected to watch how the further discussion unfolded after making that remark, and to probably come back and explicitly express support for the move to HMS Wager incident if the RM wasn't soon closed in favor of the majority-supported choice. But without waiting for a reply to that comment (which expressed a majority view), the discussion was closed as "no consensus", less than three hours later. After requesting the discussion to be reopened on the closer's User talk page, the response was "Feel free to start a new request, but I don't believe there was consensus in the last discussion nor did I feel it was necessary to keep it open any longer." I don't think a new request should be necessary, as the discussion seemed to have already settled on a move to HMS Wager incident. If not closed as move, I think the discussion should at least be allowed to continue. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I had a long look at this some time ago, and couldn't find anything worthwhile to say. I definitely dislike all formal RMs that propose a move to the question mark "?". A finding of a consensus to move to HMS Wager incident would have been unreasonable, as it was not properly proposed and not seriously discussed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is absurd. No consensus was the only reasonable option, per SmokeyJoe. Red Slash 00:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: either would have been acceptable in my opinion, obviously this is without prejudice to speedy renomination with the specified target as opposed to an unknown. SITH (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close, and the only reasonable thing to do. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No clear consensus emerged in this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

HK Express – Closed as endorsed. There is a clear consensus that not to moved the page. Regarding the RM in 2015, it is about removing the "Airways", which is not the same case with this. B dash (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

As an involved editor, the page was CONSENSUS to moved to Hong Kong Express in 2015, and then un-discussed move to HK Express. So, in the current 2019 discussion, it seem no consensus to which one is "more common name"/"most commonly known name", but should it be just closed as "not moved???" Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the closer to declare it as “consensus to not move” or “no consensus”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer. I'm not entirely sure what the nominator here is stating, but I thought it was fairly clear there was no consensus to move and I feel my close was 100 percent appropriate. Calidum 19:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So, "no consensus"? You close omits that detail. I recommend as standard advice that Matthew wait no less than two months, from the close of this discussion, to make a fresh nomination with a better rationale than last time and that addresses the opposition voiced in the previous RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I see nothing wrong with closing the discussion as "not moved". —BarrelProof (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see it as better when closers summarize the discussion. Minimally "no consensus" or "consensus for <something>". If the reading is difficult, explain the reason for that summary. I don't think it is good to expect later readers to have to go to the closer' user_talk to ask. It's a small thing, I didn't say "wrong". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: There was almost no support for the proposed move (two clearly opposed and just one weak non-bolded "I would tend to support" in a comment that acknowledged that sources were mixed), and the article has been at this title since 2015. Two people expressing opposition explicitly said that the current title is the common name of the topic. I do not understand the rationale given for questioning this closure. I think the complaint is that there was an undiscussed move, but that was nearly 4 years ago. The general reaction to this RM proposal was clearly negative. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: I commit the sin of closing RMs as not moved but usually from the context of the discussion it's clear as to whether it means consensus not to move or no consensus. Either way, SmokeyJoe's advice to the nominator seems wise. Consensus can change, and there's a snowball's chance in hell that this close gets anything other than re-worded. The functional outcome is the same: the title stays the same. Also, please, please, please check with the closer on their talk page before bringing it to move review, I sometimes modify my closures upon such requests. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Almost automatically endorsed when I saw there had been no discussion on the closer's talk page. After looking more closely, this was definitely a "consensus to not move", which is what "not moved" means according to the closing instructions, and which is significantly different from "no consensus to move". Yes, closers' explanations can often keep their closes out of MRV; however, discussions on closers' talk pages can do even more toward that end! In my opinion, this type of MRV should be automatically and immediately closed, because it wastes a lot of time. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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