Misplaced Pages

:Move review/Log/2015 February: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Move review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:36, 23 February 2015 editMartijn Hoekstra (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,333 edits →War in Afghanistan (2001–14): +relist← Previous edit Revision as of 15:37, 23 February 2015 edit undoMartijn Hoekstra (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,333 edits →War in Afghanistan (2001–14): fix linkNext edit →
Line 9: Line 9:
:{{MRV links|War in Afghanistan (2001–14)|rm_page={{#if:||{{TALKPAGENAME:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)}}}}|rm_section=}} :{{MRV links|War in Afghanistan (2001–14)|rm_page={{#if:||{{TALKPAGENAME:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)}}}}|rm_section=}}
This move review only recieved the input of six editors, three of whom were canvassed. You can see this on the talk page. Supossedly this RM was discussed by 23 people in total but the RM recived only three editor's input. The reasoning for the RM's decision to move was that there was editor consensus but this is totally false as, a subsequent discussion showed that there is no such consensus. You can see here that editors support a merger so how can it be possible that there was consensus that it should be moved originally. Also the discussion before this here was closed by an involved editor who himself/herself was against the merger. Due to the canvassing and the input of only three editors, this RM should be rendered null and void and the subsequent propse merger closure by an involved admin should be discounted. A new RM should be started so that we can build consensus on what is the most appropriate direction in which to take the page.] (]) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC) This move review only recieved the input of six editors, three of whom were canvassed. You can see this on the talk page. Supossedly this RM was discussed by 23 people in total but the RM recived only three editor's input. The reasoning for the RM's decision to move was that there was editor consensus but this is totally false as, a subsequent discussion showed that there is no such consensus. You can see here that editors support a merger so how can it be possible that there was consensus that it should be moved originally. Also the discussion before this here was closed by an involved editor who himself/herself was against the merger. Due to the canvassing and the input of only three editors, this RM should be rendered null and void and the subsequent propse merger closure by an involved admin should be discounted. A new RM should be started so that we can build consensus on what is the most appropriate direction in which to take the page.] (]) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''relist'''. We're in a bit of a mess at the moment. The original discussion seemed to indicate consensus for a move, but there was sufficient contention that it was rejected as an uncontroversial move. Then a dedicated move discussion was set up, for which input was ], and closed after five days as seemingly unanimous consensus on the issue. I believe this to have been a false consensus.<br>When after the discussion a wider merge discussion of the new ] was started and more outside opinions came in, consensus became far less clear. This is compounded by some opposition to merging that referred back to the RM as indicating consensus that this is indeed the way forward. I'm in a bind on what is best at the moment, my own strong opinion that this is not the way to treat the subject makes it hard for me to look at the discussion from a neutral perspective, but I feel there have been sufficient irregularities to step on the break before overhauling our article structure on the conflict. ] (]) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC) *'''relist'''. We're in a bit of a mess at the moment. The original discussion seemed to indicate consensus for a move, but there was sufficient contention that it was rejected as an uncontroversial move. Then a dedicated move discussion was set up, for which input was ], and closed after five days as seemingly unanimous consensus on the issue. I believe this to have been a false consensus.<br>When after the discussion a wider merge discussion of the new ] was started and more outside opinions came in, consensus became far less clear. This is compounded by some opposition to merging that referred back to the RM as indicating consensus that this is indeed the way forward. I'm in a bind on what is best at the moment, my own strong opinion that this is not the way to treat the subject makes it hard for me to look at the discussion from a neutral perspective, but I feel there have been sufficient irregularities to step on the break before overhauling our article structure on the conflict. ] (]) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

====]==== ====]====
:{{MRV links|Talk:Saint Ignatius' College, Adelaide|rm_page={{#if:||{{TALKPAGENAME:Talk:Saint Ignatius' College, Adelaide}}}}|rm_section=}} :{{MRV links|Talk:Saint Ignatius' College, Adelaide|rm_page={{#if:||{{TALKPAGENAME:Talk:Saint Ignatius' College, Adelaide}}}}|rm_section=}}

Revision as of 15:37, 23 February 2015

< 2015 January Move review archives 2015 March >

2015 February

War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

War in Afghanistan (2001–14) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

This move review only recieved the input of six editors, three of whom were canvassed. You can see this on the talk page. Supossedly this RM was discussed by 23 people in total but the RM recived only three editor's input. The reasoning for the RM's decision to move was that there was editor consensus but this is totally false as, a subsequent discussion showed that there is no such consensus. You can see here that editors support a merger so how can it be possible that there was consensus that it should be moved originally. Also the discussion before this here was closed by an involved editor who himself/herself was against the merger. Due to the canvassing and the input of only three editors, this RM should be rendered null and void and the subsequent propse merger closure by an involved admin should be discounted. A new RM should be started so that we can build consensus on what is the most appropriate direction in which to take the page.Mbcap (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • relist. We're in a bit of a mess at the moment. The original discussion seemed to indicate consensus for a move, but there was sufficient contention that it was rejected as an uncontroversial move. Then a dedicated move discussion was set up, for which input was canvassed, and closed after five days as seemingly unanimous consensus on the issue. I believe this to have been a false consensus.
    When after the discussion a wider merge discussion of the new War in Afghanistan (2015–present) was started and more outside opinions came in, consensus became far less clear. This is compounded by some opposition to merging that referred back to the RM as indicating consensus that this is indeed the way forward. I'm in a bind on what is best at the moment, my own strong opinion that this is not the way to treat the subject makes it hard for me to look at the discussion from a neutral perspective, but I feel there have been sufficient irregularities to step on the break before overhauling our article structure on the conflict. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Saint Ignatius' College, Adelaide

Talk:Saint Ignatius' College, Adelaide (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I manually, boldly, merged a talk page that wasn't moved to the new article's name, where there was discussion at both pages. I think what I've done is OK, but I wanted to report it somewhere to ensure it is reviewed. :-) Mark Hurd (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

While reviewing a number of "bad/missing" Talk page moves, I determined the real problem with this page was that it was "manually" moved back to its original name (just by editing existing redirects) by Wjs13 (talk · contribs) on 20:07, 22 October 2008‎ and 20:07, 22 October 2008‎. The talk pages were not so simply swapped at the time. Mark Hurd (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Markhurd: - I think the correct procedure in this instance is to perform a WP:HISTMERGE - it will require an administrator to carry that out, and there are instructions at that page on how to request one. This page is for assessing closures of formal move requests rather than assessing moves per se. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I will request the HistMerge. I knew this wasn't the most correct forum, but where should I have put this other than just on the talk page in question? Mark Hurd (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Walter White (Breaking Bad)

Walter White (Breaking Bad) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Closed prematurely, the consensus to move was nearly reached; I tried reasoning with the closing editor here, but was met with a firm refusal. Chunk5Darth (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented that draws no comment from any other person can't be interpreted as persuasive. The evidence you mention appears to be page view stats. Page view stats do not per se demonstrate a primary topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Weird, I always assumed the idea of having a primary topic was to make it easier for readers to find the page they want. I guess we can ignore what people are looking for then, because fuck them, right? -- Calidum 22:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
A common view that I still find mystifying. Removing disambiguation makes it *harder* to find the page you want, and *harder* to be confident you have the link to the page you want. It also confuses titling with search engines, whether the Misplaced Pages internal search engine, or external, like google. Whichever you use when looking for something, you get a list of titles of likely candidates, and the disambiguation helps. Assuming 100% want what 80% want may help the 80% from having to click again or to learn to search unambiguously, but is very unhelpful for the minority. The idea of having a primary topic to make it easier for readers, at the expense of meaningful titles, or logical consistent titling, is plain wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Number 57 has done an excellent job closing RMs everywhere I've seen, but I definitely would suggest that in cases like this where there is no consensus either way, a better closing summary would be

No consensus to move.

rather than

not moved. No consensus to ...

because it makes it much clearer whether or not a consensus was found in opposition to the move. (Of course, the page is not moved in any case. I disagree with the assessment of the !voters but I agree with the close.) Red Slash 19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - the oppose arguments, that the Breaking Bad character does not yet meet long term significance are clearly valid, and they clearly counteract the equally valid support arguments that the character is primary by common usage. I agree with Red Slash's comment about clarity - when I'm closing an RM as not moved, I always differentiate in the bold text between Not moved and No consensus to move. They are subtly different, but have the same result.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Daniel (closed)

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

A move was requested to move Daniel to Daniel (biblical figure). I opposed the move, but I acknowledge there was consensus to move it. The issue now is which page should be called Daniel. The closer determined that the move was to be from Daniel (name) to Daniel. The thing is, only two editors were in favour of this, while two other editors explicitly argued for Daniel (disambiguation) to be the "main" (Daniel) page. So I am posting it here because (a) there doesn't seem to be consensus for this particular move, and (b) in such situations, where there is no clear primary topic (between the name, the biblical person, and the biblical book) the normal practice is to make the disambiguation page the main page. Thus, the closer's rationale to move Daniel (name) to Daniel rather than Daniel (disambiguation) to Daniel seems very weak. See also the John page, where the disambiguation page is the "main" one.StAnselm (talk)

Various articles about popular names refer to the article about the name, whereas others refer to a disambiguation page. Though StAnselm has alluded to a trichotomy "between the name, the biblical person, and the biblical book", articles such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John don't give any precedence to the biblical character or the associated book. Though there are some exceptions, there isn't a particularly compelling reason for very common names to default to articles about biblical characters. There is some variation about whether to use the name-based article or a disambiguation page, however there doesn't seem to be any indication that the disambiguation page is the "normal practice".--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So with three of names you mention, the main page is the disambiguation page. I'm not saying here that the biblical character article should take precedence; I'm saying that Daniel would be in the same category as the ones you mention. (Unlike Andrew, for example, where there is no biblical book.) StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have started a move request, Luke (disambiguation) → Luke. StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Further note: A discussion is now underway to split the name page into Daniel (given name) and Daniel (surname). StAnselm (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a tendency for names that also have other meanings (e.g. mark, john, bob) to have the disambiguation page as the main page, but generally the name is the primary article for words that are only used as a proper noun (e.g. Michael, Chris, Joseph).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I also think the move should have left Daniel as disambig page, and discussed it with the closer, getting him to at least add to his close statement, but before I noticed this review I started a new RM discussion about that, at Talk:Daniel#Requested move 7 February 2015. That discussion will probably converge more quickly than the typical move review. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Pottawatomie Massacre (closed)

  • Pottawatomie Massacre – overturned by closer. Given Ajax's clarification of what they intended in their comment, my rationale now agrees with the nominator's. As such, I'm overturning my close and reclosing as move. I'm closing this section as well, but please feel free to reopen if anyone thinks there is more to discuss. Sunrise (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pottawatomie Massacre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

A somewhat ridiculuous non-admin close reversing a unaminous Requested Move discussion, converting one support to an oppose, in direct opposition to the responder's opinion that the previous closer erred.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Closer note: I'm happy to discuss on my user talk page (which I believe you should have done first). I think my closure rationale is clear, although I welcome a review and any questions that may arise.
In addition to the closure rationale, just including a set of points to add context to the above:
  • The RM in question was identical to a previous one that had closed only two weeks earlier.
  • No new arguments were presented in the new RM.
  • Only two new editors commented in the new RM.
  • The previous RM was closed with no consensus, and I think it is reasonable to say that editors in that RM assumed their comments would be taken into account (in fact, one of the opposers posted in the second RM without explicitly supporting or opposing). Not all supporters posted in the second RM either.
  • The support (out of two) that I "converted" to an oppose came from an editor who indeed opposed the move but thought the first discussion should have been closed as move. I think it was reasonable for me to consider this.
  • If I had closed the original RM I might indeed have called it consensus to move. However, given that it closed as no consensus, closing the second RM as move would involve in part overriding the previous closer (again, especially because no new arguments were presented). I could see this move review resulting in overturn of the previous close on the merits (pinging Cuchullain), but even then I couldn't have closed differently myself.
All that said, I really don't see why the capitalization is such a big deal, and I'm happy to go along with anything that avoids unnecessary drama. :-) Sunrise (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Sunrise, I guess for want of a nail, the horse-shoe was lost; for want of a horse-shoe ... We've managed to get a pretty good house style on the English Misplaced Pages—one that avoids the over-formatting you see rife in some technical docs, advertising, etc. It's ideal for our international non-expert readership. And we seem to be at one in this with large proportions of publishing houses out there. That's one thing. More relevant here is the procedural issue. So ... I agree with Dicklyon's points above. Tony (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I could probably have written a rationale for consensus as well, and I guess it would probably have been less likely to be challenged. :-) I actually started with that, but on further analysis I felt that "no consensus" would be the best alternative as long as I was taking the previous close as a starting point. (And after that - like I said, the deciding issue for me was how I treated the comment "procedural support" from an editor who said they nonetheless opposed the outcome. WP:BURO came to mind even though I didn't cite it explicitly.) But in any case, if the first couple of uninvolved editors who comment here have the same opinion, that would be more than enough for me to overturn my close. Sunrise (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
Have you looked at Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure? It says non-admins can close when the outcome is fairly obvious. By your own words, that's certainly not the case here. If you had closed with unanimous expressed opinion, you might get away with it, but to close against a unanimous opinion? Certainly not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a grey area - it says that potentially controversial closes can be made if extra care is taken, which of course I do. I've actually done quite a few, especially when there are long backlogs (like now), and this is the first time I've been challenged. I'd like to take that as implying that my closes are generally acceptable. In the case of RfCs, there is a consensus that non-admin status is not in itself a reason to overturn a closure - I'm not currently aware of a similar consensus explicitly for RMs, but I would assume the same concept applies. But in any case, this isn't really relevant to the move review, so can we take this to user talk if we continue this line of conversation? Sunrise (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn NAC close as a contested NAC, but close instead as too soon after the previous close. Starting a new RM so soon is disrespectful to the previous discussion, tenditious, exhausting to other Wiipedians. Attempting to find a consensus through exhausting previous opponents on unimportant questions is offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn ( or reopen for new close -- but given the 9 days without comment between the last vote and the NAC close I don't think a full relist is necessary ) While the time between the previous RM and this one was on the short side, a no consensus close does not normally prevent a future RM. The arguments for the move were strong and the only real comments against was a procedural request that the previous RM should have come here and an support that mentioned a personal preference in the opposite direction. However, in most cases when a no-consensus close that is over 1 month that is brought here the result is a recommendation to just open a new RM. For Ajax's comment to be taken as an oppose it would be similar to taking my !vote here as an endorse because I wish the Misplaced Pages used title-case for page names and section headers assuming the software changes were made to allow lower case links from the bodies to work without redirects. PaleAqua (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn (or reopen) per User:PaleAqua. I supported the move but muddied the waters by mentioning that I personally oppose such moves. In this case, my personal opinion had no basis in policy, precedent, expediency, consistency, or any other relevant principle. It was WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I shouldn't have mentioned it. I sincerely support the move as the nominator and supporters in the first and the second RM had a preponderance of support and sounder arguments. User:SmokeyJoe has a point about following and RM with another but, in this case, it happened and the result was additional support for a move. The nominator has followed correct procedure to a T and his/her arguments were resoundingly affirmed by other users and yet somehow s/he can't catch a break. —  AjaxSmack  01:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That's fair. I interpreted your comment as carrying some of the weight from the opposing rationales in the previous RM, so thanks for the clarification. Given this, I am more than happy to overturn my close as consensus to move. Sunrise (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category: