English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Move review/Log/2019 January

< 2018 December	Move review archives	2019 February >

2019 January

2018–19 United States federal government shutdown – MRV withdrawn, decision endorsed. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 11:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Before I start, I really wanted to get the chance to discuss this with the closing admin before taking this here. I originally posted a week ago, and the admin has not logged in since they responded to me 5 days ago.

The following pages were moved as a result of closing:

On 11 January 2019, User:ProgrammingGeek proposed moving United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 to it's current spot. Following a recommendation made by User:Madrenergic, the proposal was reintroduced that same day to include all the relevant government shutdown pages. The moving of these pages was proposed to comply with a reported recent consensus which determined the year of political events should come first.

Four days later, I wrote a comment opposing the move. I made (at least what I feel are) some rather compelling arguments that still have gone unaddressed. On 18 January 2019 (about a week after the initial proposal was made), the discussion was closed.

I have read and re-read Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus. I understand that no minimum amount of participation is required for a move, but that does not change that this move was treated as a vote. I would like to some further discussion through a relisting. I don't mind being told I am wrong, but the RfC cited as saying something it wasn't. It was for elections and referendums and not all political events.

I mean no ill will, but this was done in what I feel was haste. Editors from the previous RfC could have at least been invited to participate, right? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 01:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Endorse (I supported the move request). I sympathize with MattLongCT's point that move discussions are not votes, but the close correctly reflected the clear overall consensus of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 01:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Dekimasu, I'll be honest (and I didn't think to address this point in the main body of the Move Review), but it still has not clear to me whether most people who said support were supporting a four digit year format or a two digit year format. Many were simply silent on the issue altogether. My thought would be that would mean they support the original four year format, no? (This is one of the other reasons I imagine a relisting could help to clarify things) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 01:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Invite all editors from the previous RfC to participate here. The nominator makes a hypothetical objection, the participants of the previous RfC can concretely substantiate the objection, or they may approve this as a developing consensus. Either way, hearing from them is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging users who participated in the RFC on changing the election naming format: Mr. Guye, Number 57, Ibadibam, Onetwothreeip, Reywas92, Howard the Duck, Impru20, Ralbegen, Kiwichris, Vanamonde93, DGG, Peter K Burian, Cabayi, Nevermore27, SshibumXZ, RGloucester, Awilley, Ralbegen, Renata, BD2412, Markvs88, Doremo, Juxlos, TheSandDoctor, Constantine, Jdcooper, Bastun, Ivanvector ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging users who participated in the RFC on changing the election naming format: The Earwig, Lyndaship, HopsonRoad, Scolaire, Bermicourt, Sionk, Amakuru, Gonnym, Wugapodes, Yair rand, Patar knight, Obi2canibe, ViperSnake151, Wnt, Tom (LT), Lugnuts, Pythoncoder, Tavix, PrussianOwl, Calliopejen1, Sandstein, Laurel Lodged, BrownHairedGirl, No such user, No such user, Dthomsen8, RobLa, The Cunctator, L3X1, Galobtter, Spleodrach, Pudeo, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Enos733, Jc86035, Hddty., SeoR, Frickeg, Twilson r, Neil P. Quinn, PointyOintment, PointyOintment, SMcCandlish ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse close. The request was open the required amount of times and consensus was clear. Calidum 15:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse - for better or for worse, we are clearly moving to a situation where years of events always go at the beginning. As such, there was clearly no policy based reason why this move should not go ahead. And the numbers in support showed a clear consensus. Looks like an uncontroversial close to me. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Note - I was the original nominator, and while I'm not thrilled about the new date format, the commenters seemed pretty clear as to their preference. Maybe there wasn't a policy reason to move, but there wasn't one against. I'm pretty sure this constitutes local consensus. programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 20:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
(Responding to ping) I sympathize with MattLongCT, and if I were commenting on the RFC, would have opposed this move; but the consensus was quite clear in that discussion, and no other close can be justified, so I have to endorse the closure. Sometimes different discussions generate conflicting consensus decision. It's in the nature of Wikipedia; not much to be done about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse – Not sure why I've been pinged, but I'll say that whilst I think the style that puts dates first in article titles is rubbish, and have said so numerous times, it is quite clear that Wikipedia editors prefer it. If Wikipedia editors prefer rubbish, then rubbish they will get. This is a clear case...there's absolutely nothing wrong with the relevant closure, and the consensus for this change was crystal clear. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse if that means the articles stay at "YEAR shutdown". Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn per WP:SNOW. I am withdrawing this before I get pelted with more feedback. It would seem I was mistaken in my assessment. My apologies for spending more time on this than it seems to have been worth. I probably misread Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus. Thank you all for your participation. Sorry, again. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I appreciate the ping MattLongCT. I commented neutrally as a 'technical advisor' of sorts due to my role as the bot op that submitted the task which resulted in the reopening of the RfC and shall be keeping that here as well due to my involvement with the BRFA. What I will say is that any overturn would result in over 30 thousand articles to be moved back. As an administrator, it is easy to move over redirects, but from a non-admin bot's perspective, that would necessitate the round-robin moving of 30,000+ articles and their associated talk pages (so, maybe double the number - but that is the high estimate). The only feasible route to do this without blowing the edit count sky high and avoiding circular redirects would simply be to have an adminbot do the moves. Whether that meant having an amended BRFA requesting the admin flag for TheSandBot or an existing adminbot taking it up would be the next logical question if we go down that path. As before, I am happy to help out whatever consensus is determined to be, but urge care in any decision given the number of articles potentially affected. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- TheSandDoctor, oh dear... that's a lot of articles. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  - @MattLongCT: I think that it was mentioned in the RfC the total number affected, but yes, it's a lot. I see that you withdrew, but that (total number) is why I urge caution with such discussions/decisions (either way, still neutral here). To clarify, the "double" comment was just referring to the number of pages needing moved, not the number of moves resulting from a round robin. Outside of fixing circular redirects, that would easily require probably triple the number of moves needed. That is what I meant by an adminbot probably being needed in such a scenario as to not blow the edit count stratospheric, which would also increase the complexity - though mostly on my end (:P) and require more community engagement. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse close with format Year Shutdown. The format Shutdown of Year is also syntactically legitimate, but less concise. Both are superior to the syntactically questionable format Shutdown Year (occasionally found for other articles). Doremo (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Just pointing out that the RfC is not really relevent to this disscussion, but the actual guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), which was the catalyst for that RfC, is - which says to use "when", "where" and "what" which the current title follows. --Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse close Huge majority in favour with decent arguments being made. Number 5 7 10:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

(486958) 2014 MU69 – Endorsed though there appears to be a consensus that a strict policy-based-weighing might not have lead to the same call. No prejudice against renomination at RM; pending clarification of NCASTRO or the elapse of 6 months, whichever is ~~later~~ earlier. ∯WBG^converse 15:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The relevant naming guideline, WP:NCASTRO, states plainly "Common names should be used where these are popular or otherwise the official names." There is no doubt that "Ultima Thule," the proposed name, is the common name given its usage in recent news coverage and usage by NASA following the New Horizons flyby. This point was not contested during the recent move request.

Additionally, our policy on article titles states "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." This is one of the five naming criteria, and the only one addressed during the move request. Several supporters of the move specifically raised this point, and it was unchallenged by those opposed. In fact, some of those opposed even admitted the proposed would be more recognizable (E.g. "the public and media tend to use Ultima Thule as it's more memorable than the official designation of 2014 MU69" and "Ultima Thule is more RECOGNIZABLE in the context of the current news cycles...").

Most of the opposition is based upon Ultima Thule being a nickname and not official name. This is true, however, WP:UCRN (part of the article title policy) says "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Not using the common name Ultima Thule solely because it is unofficial thus runs afoul of the policy. This is problematic, because "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (See WP:CONLEVEL).

In my discussion with the closer, he has alluded to unspecified past precedent, something not included in his closing statement. Some of the opposition did point to Eris (dwarf planet) as a similar example, but that dwarf planet's naming took place more than 12 years ago and consensus can change.

Finally, I do acknowledge this requested move generated significant opposition (by my count it was 36 opposed against 23 in support). But I'd like to remind everyone that discussions are not a vote (and of course the aforementioned CONLEVEL). Calidum 23:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I did not express an opinion in the discussion and in my reading the arguments on one side were stronger than those on the other, but I cannot picture a move review resulting in anything more than another long block of text without much resolution. Dekimasuよ! 23:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, overturn to move per the users who cited WP:COMMONNAME and since WP:OFFICIAL does not say that Wikipedia prefers official names, contrary to the position of the opposers. Also a WP:TROUT for whoever made WP:NCASTRO say on the one hand that "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used" and on the other hand that "Unofficial nicknames should not be used as article titles." Dekimasuよ! 23:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Overturn to moved Policy is absolutely clear on this matter. WP:COMMONNAME is what matters. The Oppose votes were almost all based on the often cited but incorrect assertion that we should use the WP:OFFICIALNAME for something. Consensus on Wikipedia is not assessed by vote counting, but by examining the arguments made through the lens of policy. I would have thought the closer would have taken that into account. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Overturn – the fact that Ultima Thule is its common name wasn't even contested in the discussion – oppose voters instead appealed to its official name. COMMONNAME is what we use to name articles, and that fact is made abundantly clear at the relevant naming convention guideline. Bradv🍁 23:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse the closure is certainly a summary of the arguments, which has no agreement. The issue of common vs official name was certainly argued, and so there is nothing new being added in this move review. We just seem to have some people that did not like the outcome. I argued for no move. Just because some use the nick name is not stopping other sources from using the official designation MU69. we have to consider reliable sources rather than just press releases and popular press. Any use of the common name argument by the closer would be a supervote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Common name vs official name is settled policy, so there is only one legitimate outcome when the two conflict; it's not open to argument as far as titling practice is concerned. Dekimasuよ! 00:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Endorse, with a caveat. I requested the move in the first place, but I can not fault the closer making the call that the discussion yielded an absence of consensus. I do disagree with one element of the close, which is the suggestion that discussion "should reopen when the official name has been announced". Wikipedia is not bound by the schedule of the entity making that call, which, as was pointed out in the discussion, might announce a name tomorrow, or might take ten years to get around to it. Part of the dispute prompting some oppose votes was the disagreement over whether this space object is an "asteroid" or a "minor planet" or a "trans-Neptunian object" or the like. Since coverage referencing the object as "Ultima Thule" continues to grow on a daily basis, I believe that it will soon be possible to demonstrate that the space object is the primary topic for that name. If that happens before the space object-naming people have gotten around to addressing the matter, then it will be appropriate to propose to move the space object to the primary topic title. bd2412 T 00:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Although I !voted for move, I must regretfully Endorse here, for the move discussion did not support any other close. It is unfortunate that the two sides were talking totally past each other. Worse yet, tomorrow (or in ten years) when an official name is announced, the discussion will be the same, with the same people passionately !voting for the common name and the same others passionately for the new official name. The inevitable No Consensus will leave the title "(486958) 2014 MU69" forever. —teb728 t c 10:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC) It's like being in Washington DC;-) —teb728 t c 11:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Closer note: I agree that the way I closed this requested move could have been better, but still stand with my original closing of no consensus. This is because, regardless of arguments I could not see consensus for moving or not moving amongst the editors (for example one of the more vocal opposers was threatening to open a requested move to move the page back if the page was moved), even though the oppose side had weaker arguments. I will strike the bit about when the discussion should restart, as per suggestions above. I hope I have not upset anyone with my closure. If the result here is to overturn, then I will support the decision. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
As an oppose member, if an official name is decided upon, then I will wholeheartedly support a move to it. I think this will be uncontested, even by those who recognized the Ultima Thule name. I don't think a No Consensus would break out. Can't speak on behalf of that side, though. Nonetheless, glad to see that the issue of whether to move or not is being settled. I endorse the current No Consensus viewpoint of our editors. The issue will be revisited when and if appropriate. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse revised closing per WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO, with no prejudice against a new move request within a few weeks. Calidum's reasoning is faultless, and matches the rationale of most move supporters (including myself). Nevertheless, putting my closer hat on, I need to acknowledge the broad opposition to a title change, especially because the opposing !votes increased even after the merits of WP:AT, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIAL, WP:NCASTRO and WP:CONLEVEL were analysed and explained by previous commenters. Clearly, titling policy and guidelines would mandate "Ultima Thule" followed by some disambiguator yet to be determined (opinions were mixed about the appropriate dab among move supporters), but just as clearly there is widespread resistance to switch to a nickname that opponents consider unlikely or "impossible" to be the final object name (despite WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UCRN). My view is that opposing voices simply arguing that we should "wait for an official name" are against policy and should be discounted, but moving the page would probably have created more drama at move review, therefore I would endorse the prudent "no consensus" close per WP:IAR. Note that we might just as well say "move it per IAR", except that would actually mean "move it because we must enforce rules no matter what the community says". Hence my endorsement is rather an application of WP:NOTBURO. I commend the closer Dreamy Jazz for striking their provision to wait for an official name, and I would be willing to entertain a renewed move request within a few weeks if no official name is adopted by then. — JFG ^talk 05:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Suggest rewording WP:NCASTRO to lift the ambiguity debated in this RM. ("Use common names over official names if popular" / "Do not use nicknames for asteroids") — JFG ^talk 05:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I made a first run at this earlier today. Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, looks helpful. Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)/Archive 1#Discussion at 2014 MU69, for anyone who'd like to weigh in. — JFG ^talk 19:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment I was (and am) one of the opponents of the move. I do not dispute that Ultima Thule is currently the common name. Maybe I did not explain my opposition fully during the earlier discussion. What causes me headaches is the precedence this move would set for moving asteroid pages to nicknames. I admit that the situation with 2014 MU₆₉ is unique, since it is the first "asteroid" visited by a spacecraft (and gaining widespread attention) that had not yet been named. I would support rewording WP:NCASTRO if the result was such that it kept nicknames as a no-go for most objects, but allows them in special, well defined cases. Once that is done, I will support a move request if brought forward again in a few weeks. Please let us take the time to reword WP:NCASTRO carefully before doing this, otherwise I fear too much headache from other articles. To quote Mike Brown again - things are moving slowly in the Kuiper belt. This rewording of WP:NCASTRO should include a clearer definition/extension of the word "asteroid" that applies to KBOs. When the page is moved, the disambiguator "asteroid" should either be avoided, or it should be set as policy to use this for KBOs, to keep things consistent. Renerpho (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I have to say I'm somewhat surprised by the !votes of two seasoned experts, JFG and BD2412 here. Both argue that by the letter of our policy the article should have been moved, but because of "potential drama" and "the discussion yielded an absence of consensus" we should not do the move. This seems to overturn years of convention that discussion are not votes, and that policy dictates what we do, not the opinions of participants at the debate. Taken at face value, the "drama" comment implies that whoever shouts the loudest gets their way, which is an incredibly worrying development, because we all know that there are some users who are prepared to pour vast amounts of time and text at a point of view, (read WP:BLUDGEON), and it just isn't fair that they get more voice than those who don't do that. Equally, if there is no consensus simply because the votes didn't add up to a clear majority, as BD2412 suggests, then we might as well do away with RM closers altogether and get a bot to do the closing based on vote counts. I obviously respect your votes here, BD2412 and JFG, but I am certainly surprised by them. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I surprised myself as well! As I stated in my RM !vote and in my MR comment, a strict application of policy would indeed mandate moving to Ultima Thule, but the glaring ambiguity in the WP:NCASTRO naming guideline made the opponents' position tenable. Combine this contradiction with the exceptional high rate of participation in this move request, and I believe the "no consensus" outcome is actually a fair representation of the community's sentiment. This state of affairs should inform a review of the relevant naming guideline, which is already under way. Surely we will reconvene in a few weeks or months regarding the ultimate fate of Ultima Thule. — JFG ^talk 10:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: yes, I'm sure we will. And thank you for the clarification... you're right of course that WP:NCASTRO gives some degree of legitimacy to the opposition, but I don't think it's enough to make me think this should have been a no consensus close. NCASTRO is a guideline, while WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. By their nature, policies are much more highly scrutinised and take precedence over guidelines, particularly specialist ones. The conventions given at NCASTRO need to be looked at, definitely - even if we stick with using 2014 MU69 as the title, it is clear that including that ugly six-figure number at the front isn't what reliable sources do - but either way that's not for me a prerequisite for overturning this close. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I read the prevailing sense of opposition to the move as asserting that there will be an "official" name soon, and that once this has been announced, everyone will forget "Ultima Thule" and move on to using the new name, so that the move as proposed will be short-lived and pointless. I have doubts about whether that announcement will in fact come soon, or will overcome public sentiment in favor of "Ultima Thule", but I credit those more involved in the relevant WikiProject with having more knowledge of the field than I have. bd2412 T 12:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha, that's a valid point of view too. Thank you both for your replies to my concerns. Re the "announcement of an official name", let's keep an eye on that one. I think if it isn't forthcoming in the next few months then we should try the move again, and discount that viewpoint. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Endorse a perfect close. There was clearly no consensus here with a number of valid arguments raised by both sides. Based on the reading of the discussion, I have no problem with launching another move request comes up once an official name is announced. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Weak endorse, but ...: The closer was arguably correct to determine no consensus. However, the opposers ignoring policy and guidelines should not have their !votes count for much of anything; being loud and in a bloc while being quite wrong isn't a form of being right, it's just noise and bad politics. That is, while consensus did not clearly emerge, it is actually clearly leaning one direction when policy- and sourcing-based arguments are given their due weight and WP:IDONTLIKEIT crap is thrown out. This needs to be re-discussed and soon, and it needs to be clear that anti-policy arguments will not be accepted as meaningful. That said, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only policy and guideline to consider. Most importantly, it is not even one of the WP:CRITERIA at all, but simply the default first choice to test against those criteria and against all other applicable WP:P&Gs – the most salient here being WP:RECOGNIZABLE and (after disambiguation when necessary) WP:PRECISE. Inasmuch as NCASTRO is confusing, it needs to be clarified.
In that regard, is should be noted that Ultima Thule is not a "nickname" but a proposed official name, and an already common vernacular one, whether fans of its formal, geeky designation (according to one particular organization) like that fact or not. An example of an astronomical nickname is "the Red Planet" for Mars. Yes, it is correct that the closer was mistaken in suggestion that we have to wait for some kind of "officialdom" decision by an external organization. And yes, it is also correct that WP:OFFICIALNAME says exactly the opposite of what some people seem to think it means; in reality, WP actually doesn't give much of a damn about officialness, and it's quite strange that people can read that page and come away with any other understanding.
In summary: the close's general decision was not faulty (though its approach to assessment seemed a bit weak, and a condition it would impose is wrong). The failure to come to consensus was faulty (a failure of many respondents to do RM properly), so this should be re-RMed soon, after NCASTRO is clarified. The new RM should state clearly that arguments that ignore policy will be discounted, since it's clear that many respondents in the last one were treating it like a vote, in a popularity contest, and controlled by astronomy academics, when none of those conditions is actually true. (It almost looks like WP:MEAT, frankly, and it would not be the first time that people in a professional circle have agitated off-site to votestack in on-WP discussions.) I would suggest {{Not a ballot}} at the top of the next RM (right after the closing }} of the RM template).
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of what you say here makes a lot of sense, SMcCandlish, although I don't share your reservations about WP:COMMONNAME. It sits on a policy page because it's part of our policy, and RMs through the ages have always considered it as a very powerful argument. In most cases it dovetails into the various CRITERIA as you say, but there is no need to specifically cross-reference them every time COMMONNAME is invoked... it can stand alone. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Endorse. Can see where COMMONNAME should carry weight; however, the qualifier may not have been the best choice, and that needs to be resolved. The no-consensus outcome means that editors can polish their args and try again in a few weeks to rename the article to its common name in reliable sources. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Zayn Malik – And, this's a snow endorse. We ain't a bureaucracy. ∯WBG^converse 18:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Discussions are generally closed after atleast 7 days. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Closer comment. In this case, consensus was clear without waiting for seven days. It is not necessary to wait for the full period when it is very clear that a proposal will not result in consensus to move the page. Dekimasuよ! 09:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse. Consensus was very clear, and per WP:SNOW it is perfectly legitimate to close it early if there is no prospect of any other result. — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse as snow. Even if an influx of comments could have theoretically come in from the hinterlands the comments already posted would have resulted in a no consensus close. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
endorse WP:SNOW discussion is unnecessary to run a full 7-day period or it will waste other editors time Hhkohh (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse. I do like to see RMs run a full seven days minimum, especially when an uninvolved editor brings it here to MRV in good faith. This appears to be a case where page moves were tried three years ago, didn't succeed, now let's try again; however, neither "Zayn" nor "ZAYN" seems to be source-backed quite yet. To pick up a lot of policy- and guideline-based opposition on the first day of the RM means that it will likely go nowhere if allowed to go full term. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Calidum 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse. What a funny MRV rationale! 😀 —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse While I empathize with the issue of such a quick closure, with no support for the move given, it was a clear assessment of consensus. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse Clear example of WP:SNOW close.LM2000 (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Lunar Roving Vehicle – Endorsed. ∯WBG^converse 18:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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

The close "appears" to be on the basis of a vote and inconsistent with a full (rather than cursory) analysis of the evidence. The closer has been asked to provide more detailed rationale for their assessment of the close to allay concerns that it was not closed IAW closing instructions. While they have responded, they have not addressed this specific request. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Does an arguement based on a faulty premise carry any significant weight? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Weak overturn just by looking at the votes, other than the nominator, the votes were: 2 supports vs 8 opposes, with the 8 opposes. Reading through the arguments, however, I can see how the discussion was split regarding the "ngram" evidence suggest that some of the contributors may have been basing their "oppose" !votes on faulty evidence. The discussion has been stale for a few days, so I suggest overturn to either no consensus or to reopen the debate and ping the contributors regarding the new evidence. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
~~Change to support request for full rational per this note about the purpose of this move review --DannyS712 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)~~
To editor DannyS712: please see my most recent response in the discussion on my talk page. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: thanks for the detailed explanation --DannyS712 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Change to endorse based on my disclaimer of "weak" in my first !vote and Paine's explanation of their close. Striking my second attempt at a !vote, hopefully the third time (this time) is the charm {{(;)) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse close as an entirely reasonable weighing of arguments. There appears to have been consensus, but even if there was not, the article would not have been moved. Jonathunder (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse. Allow any interested editor to try a better argument that covers all of the opposing arguments listed, no sooner than six months after the close of the MRV. Change the closer’s “NOT MOVED” to “CONSENSUS TO NOT MOVE”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to overturn. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

To be clear (and from my OP here), I have not asked for it to be overturned - though that is a possible remidy. What I have asked for is rationale that this has been closed IAW closing instructions, by weighing the arguements and how the arguements have been weighed so that it will dispel the "appearance" of this being closed by vote. If this is a sound close, then the basis should be able to be substantiated. What "I don't like" is the appearance that it cannot be substantiated. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Endorse – Solid close. ~~More detail could possibly have been provided by the closer, but that probably would have just enabled further wikilawyering.~~ Bradv🍁 00:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Overturn – or at least admit it's "no consensus" – The closer saw a "general agreement below to stay with the present title style", but didn't seem to weigh the arguments behind the numbers. Quite a few of the opposers clearly ignored and/or misinterpreted the evidence, claiming it was on their side – essentially just an "I don't like it" set of complaints about using lowercase, even though sources clearly mostly do, and even though our own consensus guidelines say to avoid unnecessary caps. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse, a reasonable and thoroughly explained close. Sources like this, from the External links of the page, back up the many editors who in good faith commented 'Strong Oppose' or 'Oppose' opinions. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse. Consensus was clear. Calidum 18:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse - this is a good close. Although WP:NOTAVOTE sometimes means that a close is made which doesn't match the numeric count of !votes, such a close requires a clear-cut policy/guideline/evidence advantage in the action taken. In other words, to overcome a strong numeric advantage in oppose !votes, the supporters would have had to make some sort of irrefutable slam-dunk argument, which would make an administrator reject the views of those in opposition. That did not happen here. There was an ngram presented, which although not conclusive (because ngrams often capture titles in their results which don't count towards capitalisation discussions) did show a lead for the capitalised version. There was also anecdotal evidence presented that LRV is a proper noun phrase, referring to the fact that this is a specialist entity developed for Apollo, not a general class of lunar vehicles for which a common noun would apply. Those in support refuted all of the above, but I don't think they did so with slam-dunk evidence or arguments which would overturn the majority in opposition. Therefore consensus to not move is the correct outcome. — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, a detailed and considered response to the issue here. The question to consider is whether it is legitimate to claim it a proper name (and capitaliase) and on what authoity? Or is it just unsubstantiated opinion? Does this then go against the guidelines (MOS:CAPS & WP:NCCAPS) and hence the closing instruction? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As "nom" I find closer's comments on his talk page obnoxious and revealing: I got the distinct impression that the nom was arguing that there were no other lunar rovers that were specifically called "lunar roving vehicles". Call me crazy, but that actually supports the "proper name" view for the subjects of this article. What's happened here is that he fell for the BS of the opposers who kept weaving and shifting in their arguments. First they claimed that "lunar roving vehicle" was ambiguous because there are other lunar rovers called that, but they had a hard time actually finding any. I thought they were wrong, since they couldn't find any, so that ambiguity seemed like not a problem. Finally, when one guy did identify a few earlier and later uses than the Apollo program per se, and I pointed out that those were really in the same line of LRVs, they switched the argument to say that if the term can only refer to one line of vehicles, it must be a proper name! This bait-and-switch argument is complete BS, and the closer swallowed it, as he appears to be admitting. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by OP subsequent to detailed rationale

I thank the closer for providing the rationale and engaging in discussion which has clarified their initial statement. I can make the following observations in consequence.

Because of how MOS:CAPS/WP:NCCAPS deals with the matter of what a proper name is, the primary question is not whether it is a proper name but whether it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. This is the guidance to be considered in making the close.

The "recent" n-gram evidence "alone" is inconclusive for either proposition in this case (as discussed at RfM)

The closer has sought to determine whether it is a "proper name". This is a subtle but significant distinction if other than the criteria of the relevant guideline is used - as it appears to be the case.

It appears that the case has been accepted by the closer that capitalising is necessary to distinguish a set of specific vehicles from the "generic" and that capitalisation makes the term a proper name. No authorities have been cited to support such a proposition. Such a proposition is unsubstantiate conjecture. Authorities have been presented that this is inconsistent with onomastic theory.

While there are examples of capitalisation for distinction there is insufficient evidence to extrapolate from the sample set to the n-gram corpus of books (as noted, only one of the samples was a "book".

Consequently, I now appears that the closer has closed against guidelines for which there is no "very good" reason and therefore in a way inconsistent with closing instructions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

From the External links on the page. There are many more like this in the page's References and External links. The close was correct. And please consider putting your final statements in posts like this to the right side of your long list of bullet points, it would make it easier to differentiate other people's comments from yours. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, it appears you are citing new evidence? The documents therein largely originate with NASA or contractors and like. They are not independent, per the guideline (as already raised at the RfC}. Also, they are largely from a time when the n-gram evidence was fairly conclusive against capitalisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Plus he has just linked a list of publication titles. How the term appears in title case is not relevant to the consideration, which is the point that so many of the voters ignored. The first one linked there, for example, distinguishes case between NASA's "lunar roving vehicle" and their "Lunar Roving Vehicle Program Office", though the latter contributes to the n-gram counts, as do title citations to those pubs in Randy's list, in a way that completely makes hash of all the arguments that the n-grams were in support of capitalization. Why did the closer ignore the analysis of the evidence that these cap voters ignored? Hard to see. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You've asked, so I'll answer: nothing has been ignored, no evidence has been overlooked, neither by me nor by the closure endorsers above. I'm sorry that some of your worthy efforts to improve MOS adherence do not find consensus; however, as you told me not long ago, "...there are other over-capitalizations to bang my head against in the mean time. Life goes on," and so it seems in this case that we should let "life go on"? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The list is further proof of common name, the n-grams give support to this but are not the total case. The references on the page, the External links on the page, search engine results, the very strong case for common sense, all go to show the close was unbiased and correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Note(from closing instrustions):

Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. [underline added for emphasis]

I observe that the converse is also implied as true - ie if there is conflict with policy or guideline or there is very good reason, it should be moved regardless of the number of participants opposing. The guideline gives the nature of the evidence which is to be assessed and the criteria. The close appears contrary to substantive comments - those which cite evidence and cite criteria provided by authoritied. An appeal to WP:commonsense is an appeal to ignore all rules - for which there must be (IAW the closing instructions) "very good reason". Which is it? Has the close been made IAW the guideline, or for "very good reason" to IAR? If it is the latter, the closer has not acknowledged this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I observe that the converse is also implied as true[...]

That might not necessarily be so. The clause in the guide is in regard to maintaining the status quo. Standards can be different and more complicated, convoluted, when it comes to changing the status quo. That is in fact what made the debate so interesting, and it may have been what made it that much more difficult to determine consensus. We should never try to read things into a guideline. It's a mistake to turn the words around to suit a particular agenda. If something should be done, or shouldn't be done, then it is expected that the guide will explicitly cover it. If the guide does not cover it, or it seems to cover it by extrapolating or by inverting its meaning, then either the agenda needs work or the guide should be improved. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 18:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In conjunction with the lead of the instructions and WP:!VOTE (and that guide more fully), all tend to support the converse. My post (immediately above) was a question WRT the appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE by the principle opposer. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion and close show that there was plenty of reason not to decap the title even without using WP:COMMONSENSE. The references, External links, n-grams, and the other credible discussion points back up the close. COMMONSENSE comes in on several levels, and there are understandable reasons that all policy and guideline templates ask for commonsense. That this page likely fits those reasons quite well is an overall plus for the existence and beneficial foresight created by the "common sense" pillar of the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So, why have you argued "common sense" in the same breath that you appear to acknowledge that the evidence does not meet the criteria of the guidelines? As to "credibility", there is a distinction between substantiated and unsubstantiated opinion. When asked to support your onomastic assertions with authorities, you declined to. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me, I misread your intention. Since your question, Has the close been made IAW the guideline[...]?, had already been answered in this discussion, I thought it was rhetorical. I do agree with the common sense arg. There are millions of users who may edit Wikipedia. We cannot expect them all to exercise it, and in fact many of them don't even though it is a thread that runs through all five of the pillars. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 02:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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

CCTV New Year's Gala – Range used by the filer has been checkuser blocked, apart from clearly another sock comments endorsed the closure. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Although I am not 123.113.78.173, who proposed move review of the article "CCTV New Year's Gala" on the closer StraussInTheHouse's talk page, I agree with 123.113.78.173's opinion. The requested move of the article "CCTV New Year's Gala" released on 29 December 2018 was closed too speedily (the requested move continued only 1 week), so there is no enough discussion to the requested move. In addition, many page-moved discussion released near 29 December 2018 are relisted in recent days, like "Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Requested move 29 December 2018", in order to attract more users to make enough comments there. Although it is reported there is convassing in Talk:CCTV New Year's Gala#Requested move 29 December 2018 by an opposer of this page-moved proposal, and the closer StraussInTheHouse thought the supporters don't give further reasons, I still think it is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to close Talk:CCTV New Year's Gala#Requested move 29 December 2018 so speedily (the requested move continued only 1 week) due to the reasons only. Even if it is the fact, the supporters' behaviours are their own only. Other users aren't likely to do it again and won't be affected. In conclusion, I still think we should reopen and relist Talk:CCTV New Year's Gala#Requested move 29 December 2018 in order to attract more users to make enough comments there. Otherwise, it is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to the users who never comment there, and it isn't good to make better consensus.
2409:8900:1811:64f9:a476:279a:604:cd92
11:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: the above comment was also edited by 117.136.38.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:8900:1810:d9c5:9d65:dfc3:e62e:95b4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). –– Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Endorse. (uninvolved) The nominator of the page move may have valid concerns; however, since the article is about the China Central Television broadcaster's production of the "gala" that takes place on the Chinese New Year, it is difficult for me to see any problem of confusion with the Gregorian calendar's New Year practiced outside China. A quick read of the lead, to include the boldface-type "Spring Festival Gala" (which is a redirect to the article), dispels any confusion, and I think opposers of the page move had the stronger arguments. So in my opinion this was a good call – a very good call. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth: Please clarify your opinion: support the RM proposal, support the move review to reopen and relist the RM discussion, or support the closure of the RM discussion.

124.127.203.116

09:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

To "endorse" here at Move review means that the closure of the RM is supported, which means that I agree with the result of the requested move. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 10:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You think the original title is so clear that it should be remained. In fact, the original title is so misleading. 1. New Year (usually refered to New Year in Gregorian calendar) is different from Chinese New Year (also known as "Spring Festival", used by traditional Chinese calendar). 2. CCTV also holds Galas to celebrate New Year in Gregorian calendar on December 31 (New Year's Eve) in recent years. You think readers can clarify the meaning of the original title after scaning the lead paragraphs. Why not use the better title "CCTV Spring Festival Gala", which can clarify the meaning by the title itself and make searching of this article more convenient?

124.127.203.116

10:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, 124+, let me refer you to the edit notice you see when you edit this page and to WP:MRV, both of which inform us that we are not to reargue the requested move here at Move review. We are only here to discuss whether or not the close was reasonable, and if it was consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. I do consider the closure of the requested move to be just that. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 13:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: May be this thread can be closed (if no one else commenting), if considering the ip's current SPI investigation, had linked to another SPI that made the same vote move in Emperor Xuanzong of Tang and many article. Matthew hk (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment To declare, i also comment on that RM. However, the move was full of legit SPA/sock that admin block some of the ip for block evasion. Also, the nominator fails to provide reliable source. Thus, i don't think there is anything wrong to close the discussion with not move. RM can be re-open once the nominator, listing secondary reliable source, not literally telling people to search themselves. Matthew hk (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And off-topic. Special:Diff/876949969 (old) certainly the same as Special:Diff/877205403 (new), which means 123.113.78.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is some sort of block evasion. Matthew hk (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And it is pretty much declaring you are block evasion by saying you are not someone. Compare 2409:8900:1811:9286:f76f:db8f:3fc3:dcab (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edit (Special:diff/877264276) to above diff, which hard to tell 2409:8900:1811 range are likely to be the same person or not. Matthew hk (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Support the move review to reopen and relist the RM discussion: I also comment on Talk:CCTV New Year's Gala#Requested move 29 December 2018, and I support the RM proposal. 1. The nominator gave an reliable source in the RM discussion, which can be proved by searching online. This is the fact which the opposer of the RM tries to ignore. 2. An opposer reported that there are some SPAs and sock puppet in the RM discussion. However, according to the so few and unconvincing examples listed by the opposer, I can only find two or three IPs made sole similar edit very coincidentally, which is so normal and no any problem. In addition, the RM discussion continued only 1 week, and the comments are so few, thus there is no adequate discussion. In conclusion, I support the move review to reopen and relist the RM discussion in order to let many uninvolved users to discuss the RM proposal adequately. Off-topic: If the opposer of the RM proposal insists his report is no problem (although it isn't sure that his report is no problem), please discuss with the administrators. Don't waste your time here. It is so biased that the opposer of the RM proposal claims and insists the supporters are SPAs or sock puppets with very few and unconvincing examples.

124.127.203.116

09:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Frances & Aiko – WP:SNOW Endorsed. There is clearly no prospect of this old RM being reopened or overturned. But per the suggestions in the MRV, if Lullabying wishes to present new evidence for this they should feel free to open a new request at WP:RM. — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

"Frances & Aiko" is the temporary name of the group and their official group name is "Big Small Sister." It is used all over Chinese articles, and they only promoted in Taiwan. The Japanese company that casted them had posted that their official name was 大小姐, and the translation used on their official BabyHome website lullabying (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Endorse close. Start a new normal move request if you'd like, but the close itself was proper. This is not a venue for rehashing evidence. I suggest withdrawing this move review. Dekimasuよ! 19:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dekimasu: To put into perspective, "Frances & Aiko" was a temporary name and was listed as フランシス&愛子 on Japanese sites and 兆鉉＆愛子 on Chinese sites. However, music was officially released under 大小姐, which "Big Small Sister" was used as a translation for. Article examples: 1 2 3. lullabying (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  - Same as previous: just start a new move request and attempt to gain consensus. The previous discussion did not reach consensus in favor of a move. Dekimasuよ! 03:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse. (uninvolved) No question, that was a good call. As with any no-consensus outcome, the nom may strengthen their arguments and try again to garner consensus in two or three months. If the name has changed, then somebody has written about them under the new name. Find "secondary" reliable sources, because Wikipedia cannot change the name based only on "primary" sources. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: "Frances & Aiko" is written as 兆鉉＆愛子. Music was officially released under 大小姐, which "Big Small Sister" was used as a translation for. Article examples: 1 2 lullabying (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  - To editor Lullabying: so sorry... what you need to find are reliable secondary sources that are in the English language and that clearly show the name of the music duo. Neither of the sources you gave above are in English, and when I use the Google Chrome translator, the names "Miss Da" and "Missy" are given. Neither "Frances & Aiko" nor "Big Small Sister" are mentioned in my translations of those two sources. Without reliable English secondary sources that clearly use the name you propose, your claim is called "original research" on Wikipedia, and the name of the article cannot be changed based on original research. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse with 1 supporter (nom), 1 opposer, and 2 weeks of no one commenting, there is clearly no "consensus" to move the article. But, there is not a consensus not to move the article. Accordingly, the close as "no consensus" was correct --DannyS712 (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse The close was clearly correct. However, you can start a new RM if you want it to be changed again. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Endorse the close was within the closing guidelines. No prejudice against speedy renomination to gain more input. SITH (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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