Misplaced Pages

Category:Cars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (RM2) (Discussion with closer)

Closing editor was not aware of community consensus because requesting editor did not notify affected or interested projects/articles.

The closing on 22 Oct was based on the input of just four editors. No article or project notifications were posted. I became aware of this when a discussion was opened at Project:Automobiles.] Based on that discussion it was clear that the project members were not aware of this change and support was lacking.

To initially challenge the closing as well as to show the level of community support for the change I opened up a discussion asking about moving the category name back from Cars to Automobiles on 26 Oct ]. This discussion opened with a discussion of the previously closed move so the context was clear. Notifications were posted at Talk:Car, Category:Cars, Project:Automobiles and Project:Transport. With about 20 editors responding the breakdown was about evenly split and a no-consensus closing. If the original discussion had notified the wider community it's clear there would not have been consensus for the move. I'm requesting the closing be reversed (or seen as no consensus based on the second discussion with wider participation) and the category name reverted to what it had been since being established in 2006.

I suspect I didn't follow the correct procedures throughout this challenge this but I've never previously challenged a closing much less a category move closing so please for give procedural errors here. Springee (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy close – MR does not deal with categories, only RMs. Move to WP:DRV. In any case, this is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. We just had a second CfD, which determined that there was no consensus to move the 'cars' category to 'automobiles'. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• This has been discussed on the MR talk page. It is here based on the feedback of uninvolved editors. Springee (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please follow the procedures set down by each page. CfDs are reviewed at WP:DRV. WP:MR is for WP:RMs. RGloucester — ☎ 22:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking of procedures, per wp:refactor adding content to a post after someone replies should be done carefully. Your edit here ] added an accusation of bad faith that I would have replied to had it been part of the text when I posted. You should also disclose that you are involved as the editor who posted the move being protested. Springee (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• I will do no such thing. Your 'bad faith', crass disdain for policy, guidelines, and procedure of any kind, have been apparent since the moment I first encountered you. That's about as much as I'm willing to say to you now. In meantime, we've got an old CfD being discussed at MR, when no CfD has ever been discussed at MR...lovely! RGloucester — ☎ 23:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree with User:RGloucester, this is perfectly fine to review here. It doesn’t belong at DRV becuase there is no deletion angle. Not FORUMSHOPPING because this is the logical escalation if someone feels unsatisfied, better to review here than at any other page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. I agree with RGloucester; however, we're here, it's now, let's do it. CfD is the place to discuss category page moves. There is no requirement to advertise the discussion; however, since the usual bot notifications aren't used, the nom has a legitimate grievance. Another way to see the "no consensus" of the second discussion is that because there was no agreement, the consensus of the first discussion should be honored for now. Editors can return to this issue next April or so to again try and garner consensus for reversion back to Category:Automobiles. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    03:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't normal procedure to revert to the long standing version of well anything in Misplaced Pages when a no-consensus is reached? THe problem with a lack of notification in this case is it affects a lot of articles/projects. Springee (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• That applies to unstable titles and those that have been WP:BOLDly renamed, not to titles where a clear consensus (even if notifications were wanting) has resulted in a rename. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    04:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• But that was a "consensus" of just 4 editors. When the number of involved editors was increased to 20 the same question resulted in no consensus. Springee (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Don't see it as "the same question"; see it as "no consensus to revert". As for "just 4 editors", that's why I linked to Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not necessarily mean the same thing as "consensus" elsewhere! Paine Ellsworth, ed.    04:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Paine, we are not here to discuss a category move, but a discussion and it’s close. Interestingly, I find the essence of the dispute here is exactly the same as at Misplaced Pages:Move_review#World_Heritage_site. Does a later better-participated “no consensus” devalue the earlier less-participated “consensus”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• To that specific question I would say... it depends. How much time? If the gap in time is long enough to say something is "the new consensus", I've been told that would typically be about 6 weeks, then I would say the smaller consensus would count as the last stable consensus. Springee (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• I have been thinking the same thing in regard to October's MR. And just like that one, the second RM in this case came way too soon after a clear consensus to move. And just like that one, the "no consensus" outcome of the second, out-of-process RM clearly means that there is no agreement to revert the earlier consensus. So again, I see this as a consensus to move followed by no-consensus to revert that move. I could be wrong. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    04:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

PS. Should add that there is a third resemblance to the October MR, which is that both discussions were closed by trusted admins, the first closed with a consensus to move the category page, and the second closed with no consensus to revert that page move. PS added by Paine Ellsworth, ed.    05:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Restore Original Name The second discussion only 4 days after the first made it clear that that there was not a community consensus for the change at the time it was made. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, if a title has been stable for a long time it shouldn't be changed without consensus. This is also supported by WP:NOCONSENSUS which says when there is no consensus for the change we revert back to the long term stable version. If we keep the new title then, in effect, just four editors will change a title that has been stable for 12 years. If in fact they are correct and the change should be sustained they can try again in 6 months with proper notification. Springee (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was a CFD to move the categories to "cars" that was successful then a CFD to move back to "automobiles" which was unsuccessful. Thus, the status quo ("cars") should stand for the moment. If at some point in the future (and I would recommend leaving it at least 3 months) a strong argument can be made that "automobiles" is better then those arguments should be presented at a CFD. DexDor 07:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• If the two are only 4 days apart and the second one specifically asks about the first why would we accept the option of just 4 editors vs 20? Springee (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• And despite the 20 editors there was no consensus to move back, after the clear consensus to move. As noted its unlikely to be moved back as long as the article is at Car. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• But when more than the original 4 editors weighted in it became clear there was no consensus to move. The question here is should a move request that involved just 4 editors and no outside notification outweigh a larger discussion that occurred just a few days later, notified impacted articles/projects and did, very clearly, ask if the original move was valid or would have been supported. The second CfD did ask if the original move was supported. It was not and should be seen as such. You should also not that you were one of the four editors from the first CfD and this an involved editor. Springee (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• As noted below, the arguments for "Automobiles" appear to be rather weak, the side wanting "Cars" cited relevant guidelines specifying that it is usual for the article and category to match and RGloucester gave extensive arguments and sources for favouring Cars. If anything it should have been closed as "no consensus to move" meaning stronger arguments were presented keeping it at Cars that moving back to Automobiles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Half the editors felt the arguments you presented were unconvincing. What does that say about your claims? Springee (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• That there was no overwhelming consensus locally but that the policies and guidelines favour the status quo better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• That's just your opinion. It wasn't that of the closing editor nor a number of experienced editors. Springee (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse as Category:Cars The arguments that it 1) matches the article Car (which was moved as a result of a RM in 2014) 2) "Car" is more common globally. The arguments that 1) "Cars" is ambiguous were responded that it is overwhelmingly primary and that its only ambiguous because its a more common term, thus other topics (like the film) have been names "Cars" not "Automobiles" because of this (although that was countered). 2) "Cars" can mean other types of veichels, while "Automobiles", was argued against that "Automobiles" is actually more ambiguous. Thus I think the policies and consensus was correct and that (except for extra disambiguation and a slightly different scope) we use the same name as the article and that CFD is not the place to continue the general name debate, that belongs at a new RM for the article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• That addresses the reason you started too change the name, not if the move should be reviewed based on the larger community input. Springee (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse. RM1, clear consensus, 4 users unanimous and the closer who I am sure would agree with the rationale. Categories should follow the parent article, this simple rule is why CfD renames are not controversial. RM2, although better participated, was probably so because someone created excitement, and that discussion was a mess, and did not invalidate the previous textbook rename to follow the parent article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The category rename is consequential from the following RM: Talk:Car/Naming#RM_(September_2014). The category follows the parent article. If there is a problem with ambiguity, take it up on the parent article talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• But that argument relates to the closing vs the issue I've raised here. The issue here is that the first closing lacked wider community input. The second one did and reached a different conclusion. As you said, the question is should a limited consensus take president over a larger discussion that reached a different conclusion once wider input was sought. Springee (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• The quality of arguments in RM2 to move back we’re unimpressive. Arguments that speak to the title of the article “Car” should be discounted. Multiple participants pointed out how categories take their title from the parent article. You massively badgered in the discussion, but ignored the most compelling arguments. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Are we discussing the process or the previous discussion? It was also noted that categories do not have to be tied to an article and that the category "Automobile" per @Dennis Brown:'s comment. That seemed to be the only argument for the change. Remember, the MR2 specifically asked about restoration and in context of the closer from 4 days earlier. Would it have been better to just request the old one be reopened? My concern is that currently we have no consensus so we default to previous stable. If we don't then the new title becomes "stable" even though it didn't have a true consensus. It's a weaselly way to make a change that caused concern that will result in some topics being dropped out of what used to be category: automobile. For instance, SUVs aren't cars but they are automobiles. A simple rename shouldn't result in such issues. Springee (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Take it to Talk:Car. Category space is not for second tier titling disputes. Category titles are subservient to article titles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Completely agree with SmokeyJoe on taking this to Talk:Car. Categories may not have to be tied to an article, but doing so is standard practice. This was the single issue in both discussion (in which I participated, for that matter) and no good arguments were given to counter this. The point that SUVs are not cars is moot, because that same argument applies to both article title and category title.

In order to proceed in a constructive way, there are three good alternatives:

1. Article at Car; category at Category:Cars
2. Article at Automobile; category at Category:Automobiles
3. Two separate articles on Car and Automobile; two categories Category:Cars and Category:Automobiles

Having said that, it is obvious that I endorse the first closure and accept the second closure (although that might also have been 'keep'). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• It seems this is where it will have to go. However this also illustrates the problem with the original move request. Look who has replied here, the editors involved with this board, not the larger audience that participated in RM2. This is why it was so problematic that none of the impacted articles/projects were notified. That is a problem. Again the claims of weak "for" arguments made by those opposed didn't mean much. About half the editors were not convinced. The closing said no consensus but nothing about either side having a lesser case so those claims shouldn't have any weight here. Furthermore, per the rules here the quality of those arguments don't come into play since that would, only if the greater participation of RM2 is sufficient up overturn the 4 editors who agreed to make the change. Consider this, we are saying the opinion of just 4 editors should supercede that of 20. Anyway, even though article Car and category Cars don't have to be tied together (certainly they aren't based on how category:automobile was used in practice) perhaps the best solution is to deal with the screwy article hierarchy. Springee (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe didn't participate in either CFD and agreed that it is the article, not category that needs debating. Its unlikely that the category will go elsewhere now, since the article has been stable for over 4 years. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• NB. I did not say *needs* debating. But if someone wants to debate, they should go to the article talk page, and talk page subpages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse closure of RM2 as "no consensus"; Neutral on the closure of RM1. Had RM1 been publicized to involved editors, it would likely also have been closed as no consensus - thereby leaving the names unchanged - so one could make a case for overturning it.

But there are two primary issues at hand underpinning this debate:

1. The title of the automobile/car article, which should be discussed at Talk:Car
2. The content of Category:Cars and related categories which were until recently named with the word "automobiles", which should be discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles

I don't believe this is a suitable venue to discuss these issues at this time, as the category naming is secondary to the above (despite the fact that, based on some comments that were previously made elsewhere, that the category renaming may have been a back-door means of changing the status quo of point #2 without discussion). --Sable232 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Don’t forget the default issue at hand. “Did User:Jc37 correctly close the discussion?”

I think he did, although as always I wish closers would use more words when closing contentious discussions, summarise the discussion and explain why that is the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I suppose I could've worded that differently. In that case, yes, he did, and I agree on your second point. --Sable232 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't believe CFD#1 was invalid, while I understand and accept that the project should have been notified (though it was on the Article Alerts and I was not the nom). Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#All authors must be notified of deletion doesn't suggest that its required. Not only was the CFD open for nearly 12 days but it was also listed at CFDS for a further 5. That suggests we gave more than enough time. If this was over the main article Car that might be a bit different, but the article is highly visible anyway so manual notification would probably be unnecessary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• While I can see your side on this remember that the objective should be to make sure impacted editors/articles are notified. The fact that people who watch or are members of Project: automobile weren't aware certainly suggests the notification want adequate. Heck, with a category name like "automobile" I had assumed the category and project were the linked entities. Anyway, I would hope that even those who are happy with the final outcome can agree that had RM1 had wider notification we wouldn't be here. Springee (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Springee, as has been said before, projects have no special control over pages within their scope. There is no requirement to notify projects. Notification was by definition 'adequate', as the letter and spirit of the instructions for filing a CfD were followed in this case. The category renaming did appear in the WP Automobiles article alerts, and was listed in all the usual places where CfDs are listed. Your continued portrayal of my nomination as being somehow 'covert', lacking 'adequate' notification is a canard that I wish you'd stop repeating. Again, no notification was required, per WP:CFD. RGloucester — ☎ 02:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

But notifying a project would be an obvious thing to do. You can claim you followed the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit. If you had the editors such as myself who watch project: automobile but not car wouldn't have been caught if guard. I didn't say it was covert. I have no idea what discussion you had with whom. What I showered was that with more notification, just project automobile and project transportation, the outcome of a move discussion would have been much different. It was only "covert" if your lack of notification was intentional to avoid scrutiny. Perhaps the CfD guidelines should be changed to ensure better notification and avoid situations like this in the future. Springee (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not an 'obvious thing to do'. Projects are basically groups of editors with the same interests...they have no special control over article content, categories, or anything else. There is no reason to specially notify such groups, as the members of such projects have no more authority than any other editor, and do not have WP:OWNERSHIP over specific tracts of articles, which is why there is no requirement to notify them. Notification is provided to the broader Misplaced Pages editorial base at the category page, at the CfD page, and in the article alerts of projects that have tagged the relevant category or article. This is what is called for by our policy & guidelines, and this is what was done. The outcome of the discussion in both cases was the same. Consensus to move away from 'automobiles', and no consensus to move away from 'cars'. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about this. It's impossible to argue that there was anything wrong with either the nomination or closures. If you are concerned about the 'merits' of such a move, then the correct path forward is to propose a new move. RGloucester — ☎ 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There are 24 subcategories under what was category:automobiles. How many articles are in those 24 categories? What are the chances that quite a number of impacted articles/editors had no idea that you had proposed changing the category name? CfD specifically offers notification suggestions and says that you should consider notifying related projects etc.]. If I understand you correctly you notified NONE of them. Not one but you say your notification was within the spirit of the rules. Springee (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

As it says at WP:CFD: 'In addition to the steps listed above, you may choose to invite participation by editors...' I notified none, because none needed notification. I deemed the standard notification sufficient, and it was. There is no requirement for a special notification for WikiProjects. Such a requirement has been rejected by community consensus many times, as Crouch, Swale noted above. I've said my bit...enough is enough. Let the uninvolved editors determine whether my actions were inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 03:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said, 24 subcategories. How many tagged articles? You chose to inform none of them. You were obviously wrong about "sufficient" since almost immediately after your closing people were upset with the lack of notification. You followed the rules but not the spirit regardless of your protests to the contrary. Springee (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Everyone was informed via the listing at CfD, and by article alerts. In any case, no one was 'upset', other than maybe you, and such 'upset-ness' is not rooted in policy and guidelines, and therefore irrelevant to our discussion. No one can claim to be surprised by this change; the article has been stable at 'car' since the 2014 RM. This was a routine WP:C2D move, nothing else. I will not quicken your fire any longer. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously not "everyone" ]. It doesn't even appear that there were article alerts. You can be dismissive of the views of other editors but that doesn't mean your notification was sufficient. Any reasonable editor can see that you failed to notify editors who per the spirit of the rules should have been. Certainly the editors at project:Automobile can reasonable claim to be surprised. No mater how many times you claim otherwise, all one has to do is read the replies to the MR2 to realize that your outcome would have been different had you notified obvious groups like the projects that link to the article Car. Springee (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the listing at article alerts. There is NO need to specially notify ANYONE. The rules are clear. I cannot have 'failed' to do something that isn't necessary. Why don't you ever read what anyone is writing to you? Why? Move review is meant to be a review by uninvolved parties of the relevant closing. Involved parties should not be bickering in this absurd and useless way. Please stop! RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And here is a problem. Many editors, myself included are not project members. Instead we watch the page. Those alerts don't notify watchers assuming that your CfD notification appeared there. None of your claims of keeping with the spirit of the rules mean much when a whole thread that seemed to be you vs the rest was started here ]. How about this... why did my notification to the same three places (the article and the two project pages) result in 20 replies while yours got just 4? You claim to have notified the projects. I did notify the projects. The difference in participation numbers makes the difference clear. Springee (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't 'claim to have notified the projects', because, as I have pointed out tens of times, the projects do not need notification. No more replies from me. If you reply to this, I will request an interaction ban. I really cannot take this any longer. RGloucester — ☎ 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Threats aren't needed here and no one is forcing you to reply. We don't agree but this can be a civil discussion. I've pointed out a big gap in the notification process. You can say it's not a problem but wouldn't it be better if we didn't have this issue in the first place? Springee (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no 'discussion'. The point of move reviews is for uninvolved editors to discuss the close. It is not a forum for involved parties to 'discuss'. I am obliged to respond to any falsehoods, canards, or personal attacks you issue forth, but otherwise, neither of us should really be saying anything here at all. And so it should be. Enough is enough. Follow the MR process, sit back, and let uninvolved editors decide whether the relevant procedure was followed. RGloucester — ☎ 06:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

As already noted the category rename should have happened in 2014 as a result of the article rename. That didn't happen because a user disagreed with the RM outcome. The only thing that has changed since 2014 is that ambiguous categories can't be moved under C2D. If the category had have been moved in 2014 then we wouldn't have had this anyway. I do still accept that a manual notification was not issued to the project was not ideal, but as noted 1 this is not required and 2 the rename should never have been controversial anyway, never mind the CFD being invalid consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Was there a previous move request that failed? If so it would be very questionable not to notify the previous involved editors. Springee (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes there are several at Talk:Car/Naming. Questionable, yes but that did not make the 1st CFD invalid. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've seen those. They appear to be tied to the name of the article vs the category. It looks like even the article renaming was questioned due to the short period of time allowed for comments (one week vs one month for a typical RfC). I was thinking about a previous CfD regarding the same name change. Springee (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The 2014 RM was open for over 8 days. The 1st CFD was open for over 11 days (with an additional 5 days at CFDS). The 2nd CFD was open for around 3 weeks. The standard time for a RM, just like CFD, AFD etc is 7 days. Controversial or complicated cases tend to be open longer (unless consensus is clear, which I think it was reasonably). If the article was at Automobile and we got the category moved to Category:Cars from Category:Automobiles while the article was still at "Automobile" then I could see the point about lack of notification making (by common sense) such a CFD invalid but when the article is at Car and the category should have been renamed procedurally years ago, it seems a bit excessive to argue that. I'd suggest the way forward here is either to start a RM for Car to go back to Automobile or to propose splitting the article or category. I can't see either of those likely though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy close – the 2nd one should have been raised at WP:DRV. I suppose the nominator is keeping DRV for the 23rd effort to overturn this perfectly valid and procedurally scrupulous matching of the article name and the category name. Oculi (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse close There's several issues flying around in this. In summary
  1 This is an entirely appropriate venue to review a CFD naming discussion, as determined before the opening.
  2 The speedy naming proposal really should have been processed - the argument that it had been objected to four years earlier is a poor one as there was spillover from the main article RM and the simple fact of years past objections should not prevent a speedy alignment years later when things are more distant.
  3 The original discussion was open for longer than usual - I can't recall why I didn't close it myself after 7 days - but is straightforward and all in order. There is no requirement for a proposer to notify categories or the main article talkpage.
  4 The category talkpage already has the WikiProject Automobiles banner and the project was notified via Article Alerts, which is a standard automatic system for projects to receive neutral notification of discussions. If people are not following or looking at Article Alerts that is not the fault of either the proposer or the closer.
  5 WikiProject Transport does not have a banner on the category talkpage. WikiProjects do not own articles or categories but can express an interest. If they're not doing so then they can't claim any notification at all.
  6 The original discussion close is fully in order. The only objection was raised at Speedy and was a procedural one; the objections from 2014 did not reappear and all contributions on the main page were in support.
  7 There are always problems when a user who disagrees with a discussion outcome simply opens a new one instead of first discussing things with the original closer and then seeking a review. Other users assume a never-ending discussion until people get their way and don't always contribute as much. If the discussion ends in no consensus the opening user assumes that this will overturn the prior move but in fact it's upholding it. This is why we have processes to review discussions that might have gone wrong rather than just simply restarting them.
  8 The convention that categories should conform to the naming of their main article and not instead become a second battleground for contentious names is strongly set set down in criteria and numerous precedents. The second discussion simply didn't carry a clear rationale to set aside that in this case.
  9 The underlying problem is with the article title and redirects. For all the assertions in the discussion that "car" and "automobile" have different meanings, there's a single article on the subject that treats them as synonymous under one name with the other redirecting there. That's why a lot of the arguments in the second discussion cut little muster - they're really about the article title.
  10 The best thing to do for now is endorse the close, keep the article & category at the same name and recommend that anyone who things it should be automobiles should start with the article location. Timrollpickering 15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  With 7, I didn't think that it was common to re-open a discussion closed correctly, however this is being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus#Enacted discussions. The problem with re-opening a closed discussion is things get messy and it can be forum shopping, since those wanting the move have to get consensus again (or at least overall for the later discussion). Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  It's rare to reopen/relist but it's certainly been done, both by (initial) closers and MRV. Certainly an admin extending the initial discussion is a more effective approach than someone just starting new discussions with uncertainty and disputes over what a no consensus outcome means. Timrollpickering 20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• 7 isn't quite correct. As another editor also noted, based on the RM2 it was clear this wasn't a discussion about "should we change the status quo", it was a referendum on the RM1. I can see how people would say, "we have to stick with our process". However, a unbiased read of RM2 shows that when the question is presented as "A or B" we got a no-consensus. Anyway, even though the category and article had different names for 4 years it appears that the ultimate ruling here is that the two should be the same (they still aren't but the difference is just the Car vs Cars). Springee (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  I don't see where they made that assertion with that phrase or that everyone agreed, which is one of the reasons why initiating a new discussion in quick succession isn't the best approach - is it a review of the previous one or is it a new move to change the title or what? (And the difference between articles at the singular form and categories at the plural is extremely minor in the scheme of things.) Timrollpickering 20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Move to close per SNOW: Contrary to @Oculi: questionable accusation, no I'm not going to re-litigate this category change. Since the path forward was never clear I had always planned to simply show that RM1 didn't reflect community consensus (that was done with RM2) and then use the results to request a reversal. That has been done. Consensus, as I read it, is the rules for RM1 were followed (though several agree that notification was the minimum required) and that even though RM2 had better participation, only a consensus to reverse would be sufficient to overturn RM1. I think it's wrong but I will respect the views of the uninvolved editors. Springee (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• It was not "reasonable" because it was closed by a ban evading sock who never understood what is a consensus. Not only that, the sock has nowhere clarified that quality of argument matters in page move discussion. That is not "consistent with the spirit and intent of Misplaced Pages common practice, policies, or guidelines", but in fact opposite to all of them.
• Closures made by ban evading socks are disregarded because we discourage block evasion. It is pretty common to see non-policy based supervote from ban evading socks, such as this closure. Lorstaking (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well, okay, against my better judgement I will comment that I was very surprised by CheckUser and by the closer's, Frayae's subsequent block, because that editor has made a lot of good decisions toward improvement of Misplaced Pages. So I still support the close as "reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of Misplaced Pages common practice, policies, or guidelines". And lest we forget, the nominator who requested the page move has also been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, and it's not the first time. That's a path we all should be careful not to trod. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    04:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure about "a lot of good decisions" because we are discussing closure made by the person who don't understand what is a consensus. Nominator was not evading his block and I was the editor who suggested him the proposed page move. He simply followed the correct WP:COMMONNAME, which happens to be more common than the current name by a long shot. That is something that our closing editor was not actually able to understand. I hope I was more clear this time. Lorstaking (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As during the original discussion, you continue to ignore the main argument there, which is that the two terms are not-sufficiently synonymous. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Who wouldn't when you are engaging in deceptive POV pushing? Rzvas (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Personal attacks are not acceptable behavior here on Misplaced Pages, even if the person who is attacked is blocked. For your own good, I suggest you contain your comments to the subject at hand, which is the close of the requested move. You may be coming agonizingly close to being blocked yourself. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    08:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see a personal attack here. You may want to retract your false accusations which is itself a personal attack. You really need to focus on the subject at hand in place of derailing it, given your endorsement is based on your personal view that closing "editor has made a lot of good decisions toward improvement of Misplaced Pages. So I still support the close". Lorstaking (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• One of several personal attacks on your part in this discussion is your link above to WP:CIR. In that context you accuse the closer of incompetency, which is a blatant personal attack, and I will be more than happy to take action if your disruptive behavior continues. This is the last time I will ask you to please stay on track and discuss only the close of this requested move, not the closer or any other person involved. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    08:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Several? This the only one you can find. As usual, that is not a personal attack and these "accusations" have been normal when it concerns the history of this editor. For making that easier for you, I should link to the siteban discussion regarding this editor, where people saw "massive WP:CIR issues here", "indef block for WP:CIR issues", and you can find more since entire thread was about it. Lorstaking (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I must concede that point; however, it still does not mean that this is an acceptable subject for discussion here at Move review, where we should focus only on the requested move's close as "no consensus". Anything else is extended content and off-topic. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    16:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)