Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.

While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is not[edit]

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.


Initiating move reviews

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review request


Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond.


Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example:

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

((subst:move review list
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
))  ~~~~

If either the |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When

  • |closer= < closer's username > and
  • |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >

are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion.

If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.


If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

((subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME)) ~~~~

Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: ((move review talk|date=13 July 2024)). Do not tag the article.


If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.

((Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July))

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.


Commenting in a move review

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

Use ((subst:move review top)) and ((subst:move review bottom)) to close such discussions.

Also, add a result to the ((move review talk)) template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. ((move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed)).

Typical move review decision options

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV closer's decision RM closer's decision Move review closed as Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse Moved / Not moved No action required Closed
2. Overturn Not moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM Open
Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM Closed
Moved Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate Open
3. Relist Moved / Not moved Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title Open



  1. ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
  2. ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussions[edit]

2024 July

Project 2025

Project 2025 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

review result to not move project 2025 to Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project. The discussion took place in the section Requested move 13 June 2024 in Talk:Project 2025. (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Côte d'Ivoire

Côte d'Ivoire (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer) and also (additional Discussion with closer)

This was either a close for Ivory Coast or perhaps no-consensus. Red Slash based everything on ngrams as opposed to other argument content. ngrams were shown to be inefficient compared with so many major sources still using Ivory Coast. Google trends has Ivory Coast way ahead, and even that source is limiting. I've never seen ngrams used exclusively as a reason to close an RM. Past discussion have had the same ngram arguments and been quashed. Why this one RM and it's moved? I edit a lot of tennis articles and if we used ngrams to this extent all our foreign players and locations would be at different titles (titles Wikipedia forces us to use often get 0% ngrams vs 100% something else). Plus this was closed the day three more people placed their opinions... it was very active the day it closed. I'm sure the closer was sincere here, but it was just a bad close. Even the person who opened the RM thinks it was a bad close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of indigenous peoples

Genocide of indigenous peoples (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This was a protacted, verbose, contentious discussion with both sides deeply entrenched, and yet Red Slash moved the article and stated, " Arguably, there was a consensus to move to the lower-case title; many people agreed that, when dealing with all peoples who are indigenous to a given area, the 'i' should be lowercase." There was absolutely not a consensus. Nonetheless, Red Slash moved the article diff] The article had previously been at Genocide of Indigenous peoples, and a previous discussion to move to Genocide of indigenous peoples had failed.[1]. On their talk page, Red Slash wrote, "The consensus was broad-ish, though not overly strong. Because of this, I concede that a reasonable person might view it as if there were no consensus." Yes, WP consensuses don't need to be unaminous, but this was not a consensus. Being a highly controversial discussion, this should have had an administrator close the discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish hunger strike

Irish hunger strike (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

On the basis of page views, 1981 Irish hunger strike is a clear primary topic by usage. The pages "1920 Cork hunger strike" and "1923 Irish hunger strikes" were both created in 2021 and have 37 and 42 incoming links respectively, while "1981 Irish hunger strike" was created in 2004 and has 1,162. Until recent changes, "Irish hunger strike" had been a stable redirect to "1981 Irish hunger strike" since 2007.

While the two opposing editors cited "recentism" as a reason to disregard that evidence, WP:RECENTISM is an essay without the status of guideline or policy, and little attempt was made to justify the assertion. The most recent of these events took place over 40 years ago. The Irish media describe the 1920 and 1923 hunger strikes as "forgotten", and "among the least well remembered" of their kind.

The move request was initially closed as "not moved" without further comment. When I asked the mover to consider reopening the discussion, the comment, "Consensus there is no primary topic for 'Irish hunger strike'. The events in 1920 and 1923 in particular have a long-term significance similar to that of the events in 1981" was added. My feeling is that, given the lack of evidence for that long-term significance, the evidence of page views should have been given more weight, per WP:RMCIDC. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News (United States)

ABC News (United States) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Ignoring the "per nom" and "as above" arguments, I do not see a clear consensus. It looks like a 50-50 to me. So, as other users pointed at BillMammal's user talk page, I believe that that this discussion should be reopened and relisted. GTrang (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I believe that the arguments in favor of moving the page that I brought up are stronger than the arguments in opposition to moving the page that were brought up. It is true that more individuals supported moving the page than opposed moving the page (it was over a 2-1 margin in favor of moving). A bean count, of course, is not enough; consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. But since the quality of the arguments made by those involved in supporting the move (including myself) were higher than those of those who opposed the move, I see a consensus attained, and I believe that the close faithfully reflects the consensus attained in the move discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified those who participated in the requested move and also those who participated in the ensuing discussion on closer's talk about this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). Clearly not a solid consensus for a move of this nature. For reasons, see here. There have been many RMs in the past. One as poorly attended and poorly argued as this one, open for only one week, does not create a consensus for a massive change. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The move request was opened on 18 June 2024 and closed on 3 July 2024. That is to say, the discussion was not open for only one week, but was instead open for over two weeks. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I was looking at something dated 24 June, but evidently not the close... Srnec (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation, and even those not by much - and generally, seven participants is a good number for an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on poorly argued. For example: The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts. I must be missing something because this clearly establishes the US broadcaster as the more watched. The support comment that oppose arguments have a very US-centric worldview bears no relationship to the actual preceding oppose comments. To this we can add per nom and as above. The whole discussion is so short it is very easy to read in full. Which I did after I saw the link corrections in my watchlist. I was flabbergasted that this counted as consensus. In a very different case, it might. But these are highly visible articles with a history of RMs. (And just for the record, I am neither Australian nor American.) Srnec (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To explain my consideration of that as closer, I saw that as evidence backing the supporters claims that there was no primary topic; they don't establish which is more popular - more significant - because they aren't directly comparable they do establish that both have very large audiences that are comparable in size.
Importantly, this wasn't disputed by the editors opposing the move, one of whom even interpreted the figures as meaning that the Australian source is more popular. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to chime in here, using views to determine an article merger/move makes no sense in this case. There needs to be a better argument developed. This move discussion was a lame duck one (no offense) based on the number of views a network / program received. Soafy234 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (uninvolved). I originally outlined my thoughts on the closer's talk page after the various moves started to popup in my watchlist. I don't think there was a clear consensus and it should have been closed as "no consensus" or relisted. The non-admin closer (BilledMammal) gave equal weight to the two "per nom"/"as above" comments as the other 2 support comments & the nominator (they stated: "If someone writes an effective argument, it would be a waste of editor time to require those who agree with that argument to rewrite it rather than saying "per x""). But this shouldn't come down to a WP:VOTE & should instead be judged based on the quality of the discussion. Remove those two "per nom" comments and it becomes 2 support and 2 oppose with BilledMammal as a tie breaker determining the discussion should be closed as "support"; there also wasn't really a discussion between the editors who stated their thoughts. There really only seemed to be two higher quality comments (one oppose, one support) arguing about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so I think further discussion to determine what the primary topic is would be useful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, when closing RM's the nominator is also considered to support the proposed move. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) the discussion was active for more than 7 days, the minimum required. A RM banner was placed on the article for the duration of the discussion. Given the high amount of visitors, one would think more would participate in the discussion. No further notifications are required in the RM process. The last substantial discussion was years ago and consensus can change over time. This nom was backed by figures rather than 'it should be this way' nom like we saw in the previous discussions. After determining the quality of arguments, the close is reasonable and I would have closed the discussion in the same direction. (although I would utilise the aid of other editors to help update the links via dabsort tool. In my experience when dealing with similar moves that had thousands of links, there would be a minority portion of them wrongly linked in the first place and this would be an opportunity to correct the links). – robertsky (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). I don't think this move was appropriate considering by far, the American station is the primary topic, and gets much more page views than the Australian one. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Overdue move. Supporting arguments were sound per WP:WORLDVIEW/WP:GLOBALIZE and brings the title into line with Consistency principle per WP:CRITERIA. This is EN.WP, not US.WP. If it were only a tie between US/Aus then I'd be more reticent but as the disambig page now lists many news orgs and channels/outlets using "ABC" (Philippines, Albania, Spain), it's beneficial (or at the very least does no harm) for the US article to be explicitly labelled. PRIMARYTOPIC may have applied 5 years ago but I think that is now eroded far enough to no longer apply. The fact that the American article grabbed the "ABC News" title in 2003 when the overwhelming majority of contributors and visitors were US-based (and there was no Consistency principle) does not mean it is appropriate to retain that today ("first-come-first-served"), given global internet penetration and global users/contributions. Hemmers (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn / re list (not involved). I was not involved whatsoever in the discussion. However, based on the discussion that did happen, there was not consensus whatsoever. Whenever there are moving page discussions, there is more than "per nom" / "per above" on why a page move is needed and not just a few words. I do think that if the discussion were to be reopen, the editors that did edit the page should be pinged (even if it not required) to see if they changed their mind or not. In addition, we should also consider the previous discussions that happen years ago on this same subject which can be found here: Talk:ABC News (United States)/Archive 2.
Soafy234 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi 17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "only one person who opposed the move" is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion. Cavarrone 07:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion. This has been claimed over and over again, however I don't see that this is a correct statement. The oppose voter who cited primary topic used their subjective experience of search engine results as evidence for their claim. That is not in line with policy. TarnishedPathtalk 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP questioned the assumption that (current) TV audience counts towards being a primary topic, referred to WP:PT1, and also directly linked a previous discussion about that point. Is this a irrefutable argument? Probably no, because the IP should had linked some evidence corraborating their point. But is it a policy-based argument? Certainly yes, up to the point that the policy is actually linked. But if you want make the point the whole discussion at that stage was extremely poor, I second that, and that's the reason the closure was premature. Cavarrone 09:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RM being open for two weeks and having 7 editors involved does not speak to a premature close. TarnishedPathtalk 10:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If almost all the comments are flimsy to the extreme, anecdotical and non-policy based, it actually is (WP:NOTAVOTE). At best at that stage there was a NC because of the general inconsistency of the comments, but I am not advocating that, as the most reasonable option was to relist the discussion. Cavarrone 10:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per above comment by Necrothesp above, "per nom" is a perfectly valid argument and always has been. Editors shouldn't be forced to rewrite what someone else argued, when they entirely agree with it. TarnishedPathtalk 11:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is not based on any Wikipedia policy as far as I can see. StAnselm (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion did not convince the broader community that the action is right (WP:CONLEVEL). It convinced (also debatable given that consensus is not determined by a simple counted majority) a limited group of editors in which the quality of arguments have now been called into question and resulted in this massive pushback. In determining consensus, we must consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines (WP:CONSENSUS). In a discussion with virtually no back-and-forth or scrutiny and with arguments from both sides having already been demonstrated above to be flawed or even innaccurate, I'm not sure how you can conclude that consensus was reached. The discussion is patently waiting to take place. But instead we waste our time listening to desperate attempts to frame the discussion as being fully developed with ample quality arguments that have been broadly accepted by the community. The magnitude of this move review is becoming preposterous. It is fine to be in agreement with the move result, but let us not suppress community discussion and consensus building. There will never be a convincing argument to that end. Οἶδα (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question - per Wikipedia:Move review - is whether the close was "within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion". The fact that there is pushback from people who feel like they missed out in having their say is irrelevant. You are making WP:CONLEVEL mean something it was never meant to mean: there was nothing in the discussion or the close that "overrode community consensus on a wider scale". StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And BilledMammal did not reasonably interpret consensus in the discussion, as outlined repeatedly above by Srnec and SilkTork. Refer to these posts and perhaps respond to them (you have not). Οἶδα (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the issue. But you won't receive any interesting responses, just editors obfuscating the fact that they wish to stifle discussion. Unfortunately, several editors here are unwavering on the topic. They are adamant to suppress community consensus on a wider scale. Because apparently what constitutes consensus to them is a discussion from a limited group of editors that resulted in virtually no substantive discussion (only two arguments were put forth that included mention of Wikipedia policies and guidelines). And when you demonstrate that it has not been broadly accepted by the community nor is it sufficient to cause the revision of over 10,000 articles they will just tell you that plenty of other paltry discussions have been accepted as consensus in the past so we needn't go into the matter further. Οἶδα (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not the way move reviews are supposed to work, is it? StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely think it's the purpose of move review to assess if the correct consensus was determined as determined by appropriate weighting of policies, of which Consensus and its subsection about Local Consensus being one that is relevant here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I find the closer’s arguments reasonable and I do not believe there is one clear primary topic here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The closer accurately evaluated the consensus. The mere fact prior discussions did not come to the same conclusion does not mean that consensus here was not different. The discussion was listed appropriately at all applicable areas, and others had their chance over 2+ weeks to comment in favor of or against the move proposal(s). I believe BD2412 puts it very well above. If the community wants to discuss different requirements for how long move requests must be open, or for a required notification of all past editors if a new move request is opened on a page they had previously commented on a move request, then that's fine. But this closure was made in line with current policies and procedure, and people feeling bad/regretting that they didn't go to comment before it was closed does not change that fact. This MR here is not the place to re-hash the arguments in favor of or opposed, and even the "new" information that was presented does not actually support overturning (weekly viewers cannot be extrapolated from daily viewers, for example). Thus the close should stand, and normal procedures for beginning a new move review followed if editors feel it is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 June

Chair (officer) (closed)

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

The closer moved the Chairperson to Chair (officer) after an RM discussion to move the page to Chairman. There were 9 !votes supporting Chairman as a first option, and 1 as a second option, while 8 !votes supported a move to Chair (officer) as a first option and 1 as a second option. The consensus is 9-8 in favour of "chairman". PadFoot (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I read the discussion too quickly and have struck my mistake above. My point holds that 'Chairman' seems to have been the choice, per the nomination and the focus of the participants on the nominated choices, even after 'Chair' was introduced. This one still seems too close to say the consensus favored 'Chair' over the nommed 'Chairman', and a relisting may be the best option. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. < uninvolved > Should be noted that there was obvious consensus to move away from the then current title, so I might have invoked WP:OTHEROPTIONS to allow for a new formal RM discussion of Chair (officer)Chairman (or whatever) and reduce the need for a move review. The result of this RM would have been the same, though, so this was a good closure, reasonable and in line with closing instructions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can the be? The closer tells us "Chair (officer) receives by far the most support among potential move targets" and that is either an error or a fabrication. It's not reasonable at all. Some RfC's and RMs simply need more time and this was one of them. It's not like it was 9-8 in favor of chairman and people wanted it to close in favor of chairmen. There is no consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A trusted admin closer's assessment of consensus is far more compelling than most others. Consensus is not a vote, the arguments and their strength are what determine consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He used the term "Chair (officer) receives by far the most support among potential move targets".... that is totaling and also dead wrong. Strength of argument is not mentioned at all. Something is not kosher with this closing and while I always respect your opinions, I'm at a loss as to why you don't see the error in this particular case. I think most times, with this brought up on the closer's talk page, the closer would have re-opened the discussion in seeing their error. Since that didn't happen it was brought here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) He struck out that bit and replaced it. On the talk page you wrote, "unless it's reversed I will take it to move review on that fabrication." It was reversed, it was struck and replaced, and yet you are so blind to the truth that here we are anyway. You not only don't have a leg to stand on, there is no excuse for even bringing this to move review. I realize that another editor actually brought it here, but I sense from your responses here that you would have brought it here if editor PadFoot hadn't. Thank you for your "while I always respect your opinions" statement, but there is no error in this RM closure. Wouldn't it be better if a new, fresh RM were to be opened, just as long as the closer is amenable to it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what he based it on was struck and changed to "Chair (officer) receives by far the most support least opposition among potential move targets." That is also a totaling. Yes, I absolutely would have brought it here but another editor beat me to it. I have no issue if another RM was re-opened. Usually that is pretty mush forbidden so soon after a close. You always hear "lets wait a year" and "that's disruptive for being so soon after another closing." Frankly, if it winds up being at "Chair (officer) or Chair (office)" I'm not going to be upset since at least it's a common term, just not as common as chairman and the fact that if possible we would rather shy away from an unnatural title with parentheses. What I object to is that a 9-8 tally in favor of chairman with what looks like equal strengths of arguments was suddenly closed in favor of chair (officer) with an explanation of chair (officer) receiving either "'by far the most support or by far the least opposition." That is flat-out wrong! Errors happen to everyone (I make more than my share to be sure) but this had a chance to be corrected and re-opened and it was not. There is one big problem with opening a new RM. Where does the title go in the meantime? Back to Chairperson? If not, Chair (officer) should get no preferential status if a new RM shows "no consensus." Something like 9-8 either way does not mean it stays at Chair (officer) as "no consensus to change." That would really be unfair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A new RM would hopefully build a consensus for either the now current title or the proposed title. If however the outcome of the fresh RM turns out to be "no consensus", then the title must revert to a stable title that has actually held a consensus for a distinct period of time. Since there was a clear consensus in this RM against "Chairperson" as the title, then it won't be an easy decision. There is always a fair chance, though, that a consensus will develop. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that unlikely. We had two RMs where "chairperson" was the only compromise and now this one that ended 9-8 in favor of chairman but was moved to "chair (officer)" for some unknown reason. Fair chance seems somewhat remote to me. I do think there is a fair chance this closing will be overturned as improper, and I'm worried a new RM closer will say no consensus and simply keep it at chair (officer) on that basis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. (uninvolved) WP:RfCs are not a vote. The first comment in support of Chair (officer) occurred about 4 hours after the RfC's listing, showing the option was a part of the RfC discussion from nearly the beginning, with two additional supports of it happening in the first six hours of discussion and additional comments in support continued to be added until the close. Editors supporting Chair (officer) were more numerous and their comments had stronger ties to Wikipedia policy, as they were additionally supported by WP's Manual of Style, other English language style guides, and scholarly reliable sources. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC) (to clarify, my comment is best understood as in line with WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    I concur Buffs (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not unsympathetic to this sort of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS closure, but I think it's relevant that when Chair (officer) was considered on its own in the previous RM, there was a "clear consensus" against it (which I remember because I was the closer). Consensus can of course change, but the closure seems to stretch NOGOODOPTIONS beyond what it can bear. I will have to think harder about what the right (or least wrong) answer is here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's always going to be a tough call on this issue. The last best choice, Chairperson, is gender neutral, but a rarely used term. Wikipedia is likely the only place that gives it any merit. Chairman is used the most but some look at it as sexually biased, some do not, and some don't care. "Chair" is at least fairly common and neutral but has that dreaded unnatural (officer) or (office) attached and why it was rejected last RM. Perhaps all should redirect to "Chairship" another fairly uncommon term but I hear it more than Chairperson these days. You see it used at quite varied places such as IDEA, and OED, and RSA, and the ESA, and UK's Third Sector. It's neutral and natural, but it is not common. But if we used it as our title, in the lead we could say the individual who holds the chairship, is usually called the chairman, chair, or chairperson, and each of those terms would redirect to "chairship." So no choices are great, but that was not the basis for the closure and the complaints here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BD2412, did you consider the immediately prior thread RM that found consensus against? If you didn’t, you should now. I think you should mention that RM in your closing explanation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: I did glance over it, but (a) the initiator of the new discussion appears to have pinged still-active users from the previous discussion, and (b) consensus in the new discussion was too overwhelming in favor of moving away from -person, and included some editors who had opposed in the previous discussion (User:Springee changing from oppose to support from one discussion to the next caught my eye). BD2412 T 14:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks. Endorse (involved). SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny to see you here in this discussion. I'm here as well, the closer from the first time this went to Move Review and I got severe PTSD just seeing this listed here! Red Slash 06:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - closed wrong as per above. What's trendy in some circles is not supposed to be decisive. Frequency in relevant sources is. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) consensus is not just a clear vote count. There's clear consensus for a move, so we have to pick one or the other. The MOS prefers gender neutral language. Participants disagree strongly on whether chairman is gender neutral or not, but it's obvious chair (officer) is gender neutral, so I think the "least opposition" close is about as correct as anyone is going to get here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I personally support the move. However, by the numbers this was a no consensus. If we are going to say strength of argument I would like to see a stronger case why we should pick an option that wasn't offered over the one that was. The discussion may have enough to establish the final move but the close doesn't. Springee (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps if we agreed to change the question a bit. I think we have a clear consensus to move away from chairperson. After that we can debate if chair vs chairman has consensus and if those who prefer chairman would be content with chair. Springee (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the correct decision would be to allow for a new RM from the current title to the proposed title, but I can't see that gaining a consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'correct' decision would then be what WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE says, which is to move from the then-current title to one that's picked, but note in the close that there was only consensus to move away but no consensus for the newly-established title. If someone wanted to call a new RfC for further discussion, it should happen from the newly-picked title. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this was in line with my suggestion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, I think I didn't understand at first. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But if this move was an error it should move back and THEN another RFC could be started. Why would we begin with an improper close title? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As per Pinchme123's link, I don't think it was an error. Consensus clearly existed for a move, but not for a new title, and the closer clearly picked the least worst title. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However, if that was the case, the closer MUST be very specific as WP:NOGOODOPTIONS tells us. It tell us the closer must "make clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen" and the closer is "strongly encouraged to provide an explicit closing statement in such closures." That was not what happened here and the closer was very precise in choosing the new title based on something different than what you suggest. That is why we are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fyunck(click), since involved users are allowed to vote, you should vote too, to determine the consensus. PadFoot (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - this looks like a clear case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, there was little support for retaining the status quo and the closer correctly notes that while support for the two main options chairman and chair (officer) was roughly 50-50, the opposition to the former option was more clearcut, and with reasons from those such as myself who preferred chair as to why going back to the prior title with its somewhat gendered connotations was not optimal.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Fyunck's analysis of available options:
  • Chairperson - gender neutral, so fits wikipedia's stated aims, but not widely used
  • Chairman - widely used, some are offended by its usage
  • Chair - not as widely used, but is gender neutral
    point of order, as demonstrated, Chair is more common than Chairperson
  • Chairship - obscure, rarely used
While the WMF may have "gender neutral" goals, but that's not what reliable sources primarily use, therefore reliable sources should rule the day. WP:RS >> WP:MoS. Wikipedia is neither a place to right great wrongs, nor a place for censorship, nor a place to push political viewpoints. I firmly understand that this may be offensive to some, but we have tons of subjectively "offensive" material. As such, "chairman" is the correct choice with "chair" a close second. Buffs (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs, Excuse me if I am wrong here, but you say that "chairman" is the correct choice yet you support this unconsensus move? PadFoot (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I stated my preferences in the RfC. My analysis was in reference to what another user stated. I still think "chairman" would have been most appropriate, but if that isn't a good selection, "chair" would be the next most appropriate in my estimation. While I stand by my logical assertions, I'm not naive enough to think that everyone is going to agree with me (for whatever reason), so I put both options I find acceptable in ranked order. While I think the choice is wrong based on the evidence, I cannot fault the closer for selecting the closest option to a consensus. Let's say you have an article named "C". In a renaming discussion, 80% agree it shouldn't be C, but are nearly evenly split between "A" and "B". Leaving it as-is makes no sense, but a "minority" opinion can be chosen as the consensus is that "C" is wrong. I think the choice was a rational one, even if I don't agree with the outcome. Buffs (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse <involved> A reasonable NOGOODOPTIONS close. The way to verify consensus is not an MR but by proposing another RM: Chair (officer)Chairman. —В²C 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh my stars B2C...
    first off, how are you? Been too long! I hope you're doing well.
    Second off... do you remember when I closed the request for Chairman -> ?, leading to the first time this went to Move Review? We went back and forth a lot, as you clearly put a lot of thought into your arguments in the move request and you felt like I hadn't analyzed it thoroughly enough (and you let me know on my talk page!).
    Good times, man, good times. It was especially fun watching people use WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, which I wrote, against me in that move review. (Not really fun, especially when I had to acknowledge that y'all kinda had a point.) One of the most stressful times in my Wikipedia career.
    It's hilarious that this very article has somehow now made it to MRV three times, and although back in 2019 you wanted to move it away from Chairman, now you're suggesting (though yes, obviously, you're not necessarily SUPPORTING, but please ignore that tiny detail, since it's funnier this way) a move request back from Chair (officer) to Chairman.
    Man, five years and a few months, but if you close your eyes... sigh. Anyway, hope you're doing well. I actually can't even analyze the move request myself--my stomach literally started hurting as my cursor hovered over the link to the request. I want nothing to do at all at all with this! But you? You?
    You're cool. It's good to see you're still kicking. Red Slash 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! Yeah, I most certainly would not support a move to Chairman. Just saying proposing it is the way to test for (current) consensus about that. This article is finally where it should have been years ago. —В²C 13:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improper close, relist/reopen (involved) - This was closed as "most support" for chair (officer) which was wrong. After complaints it was changed to "least opposition" which was also wrong. If this was supposed to be WP:NOGOODOPTIONS the closer must specifically and explicitly tell us there is no consensus for either title and that he threw up his hands and picked one. That was not done here. I would go back to chairperson and reopen/relist. Yeah chairperson is a crummy choice but chair (officer) has been rejected in the past as non-natural. We should always try and find a way out of using parentheses for our readers searching. And for all we know if editors put a list of choice preferences, it might go back to "chairperson" or even "chairship." We don't know. It's what happened at the last RM... people felt strongly about chairman and chair (officer) and it fell on rarely used chairperson. That could easily happen again if we were asked to rank in order of preference chairman, chair (officer), chairperson, chairship. If left at chair (officer) with a relist, it must plainly be understood that it is a placeholder and holds no status in case another discussion comes up as no consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). I think the closure was reasonable. It's disappointing to see how many involved parties have shown up here just to reargue the move request. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). To restate, Chair (officer) is the best etymological fit to accept redirects and state lede bolds for the variations. It's a concept that transcends time but changed its clothes, so what. "~person" can be one of those redirects but this just isn't a good title. It's the iteration that nobody looks up. And "~person" is redundant isn't it, if followed by "officer"? JFHJr () 02:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) - per MOS:GNL and based on many organizations moving similarly to such gender neutral language for chair positions. Raladic (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) Clear consensus for move away from "chairperson". Leaving aside people who said that "chairMAN" was exactly as gender-neutral as "chairPERSON", there was a fairly clear consensus for the move as determined by the closer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). A clear case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS/WP:BARTENDER: the closer's rationale was an accurate summary of the discussion, where most wanted to move away from Chairperson; Chair (officer) and Chairman had equal support; and Chair (officer) had the least opposition. Given that the nomination itself only had Chairperson and Chairman, the level of support (or lack of opposition) for Chair (officer) probably would have been even greater. 123957a (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Doctor of Philosophy (closed)

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

In the discussion it was shown that "PhD" is more common than the full "Doctor of Philosophy", which is very rarely used. "PhD" was shown to be more than 60 times more common in google ngrams and more than twice as common in google scholar, with the caveat that most of the results for the full name were actual PhD dissertations, so the actual results are probably higher in favour of the abbreviation. WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:ACROTITLE were the main arguments supporting the move. The opposing arguments were quite weak and easily refuted:

  • Appeals to WP:ACRONYMTITLE, which simply delegates to COMMONNAME and actually supports the move.
  • Appeals to WP:CONSISTENT, which ignore all other WP:CRITERIA and the article PhD-MBA.
  • Non-reasoned opposes based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
  • Claiming that getting fewer results for the full name is proof that it meets the COMMONNAME because of some mysterious logic.

Discounting the arguments that ignore policies and guidelines results in a clear consensus to move the article . Vpab15 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment unconceivable that anyone can look at that discussion and conclude there is a consensus to move. Note one of the support !votes comes from an WP:SPA. I stand by my close as an accurate summary of the prevailing opinion Consensus to keep the full name for consistency with similar articles and that PhD is not a universal abbreviation of the term. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by universal? I am not claiming the abbreviation is used 100% of the time, but neither is the full name, which is used even less. There is no policy that says an abbreviation can only be used in the title if it is used 100% of the time. Vpab15 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my opinion, it is a summary of the consensus. You bludgeoned the WP:RM and appear intent on doing the same here. Polyamorph (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There is an absolute consensus in that discussion to not move the page, and those opposing were cited in policy. Please don't bludgeon my !vote here, either. This one is very simple. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clear consensus to not move. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Terrible nomination. Once you say ... 18k results since 2010 ..., compared to less than 17k for "Ph.D." ... and less than 8k for "Doctor of Philosophy". You can't cite WP:COMMONNAME anymore. Weak argument, strong opposition, burden to move not met.—Alalch E. 22:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). There is no other way that this discussion could have been closed. BD2412 T 13:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). While closing isn't a vote count, there were more than twice as many editors opposing the move than supporting it, and the hefty badgering of opposers did not convince anyone to change their mind. It does not help that Vpab15 seems intent on ignoring or disregarding my opinion, which I find both well-reasoned and relevant, thank you very much. Toadspike [Talk] 14:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Terence Trent D'Arby (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Terence Trent D'Arby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

I participated in this move request which was regarding a musician's name change some 30 years ago, essentially attempting to get Wikipedia to align with all reliable independent sources. Although a consensus was reached and the RM closed on that basis, the discussion did not touch upon the WP:CHANGEDNAME guidelines at all which are highly pertinent in this case, so it is my view that the RM was closed prematurely and an incorrect conclusion reached.

A further attempt to engage in discussion focusing purely on Wikipedia article naming guidelines was shut down. It is proving very challenging to improve the quality of Wikipedia in good faith when faced with editors who refuse to thoroughly discuss the topic at hand in relation to Wikipedia guidance around name changes, or worse still decide to impose their own standards which do not necessarily align to Wikipedia's guidance. There are several examples of untruths peppered through the brief discussion, the editors involved are a little under-informed both on the Wikipedia guidance on this topic and also the fact that all reliable independent sources available refer routinely to the artist under his newer name.

As I pointed out in a subsequent RM a few weeks later, according to WP:CHANGEDNAME we must give extra weight to reliable sources which routinely use the subjects newer name (post name-change). It is my observation that ALL reliable sources available adhere to that requirement, and I have provided many examples of this. Therefore, Wikipedia editors have unfortunately failed to reach a correct conclusion in this instance and it merits further discussion specifically around naming guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CHANGEDNAME.

Of course, despite best efforts sometimes rapid consensus and groupthink can at times produce erroneous results which are not well-aligned with Wikipedia guidelines; the question is how we should repond to such failures to adhere to our own standards. It seems a great shame to shut down further discussion on this, I would propose a rethink. The page should be renamed, it is anachronistic in the extreme that we have refused to engage properly with this issue. MzK11 (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not really sure what to recommend here, to be honest. The initial move rationale did not refer to any of our policies, everyone opposing missed WP:CHANGEDNAME in favour of WP:COMMONNAME which is an easy mistake to make, and the person supporting sort of got it right. It does appear WP:CHANGEDNAME is the correct policy here, but there was little to no discussion of that in the move request. My own searches show that the new name is predominant in media, with only a couple instances where the old name predominates, for instance a caption of a photo from the 1980s. Most sources reference the old name, some do not at all. But that is not really a discussion for a move review - it's a discussion for another move request. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you meant WP:NAMECHANGES, which is part of the policy on article titles. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. Apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, apply moratorium of two months. Shows data 1980-2010 support a trend towards the new name, so the proposal is not absurd. The discussions are both clumsy, by Wikipedia norms. MzK11 (talk · contribs) is a new WP:SPA. I suspect broad aversion based on this. I advise MzK11 to disclose any connection they have to the subject.
    I suspect a title change may be successfully made, but there is no great urgency. To MzK11, I also advise, it is not good enough to be right, you need to persuade others. You failed the first time. Take more time to craft a better nomination next time. See related advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - I accept that I failed to persuade others on my first attempt, didn't expect it to be closed down so soon and I didn't expect my second (better-prepared) attempt to be closed down without any discussion. As you point out I am new and lacked familiarity with the processes. I have zero connection to the subject, just a music fan who wanted to improve the quality of these pages (particularly errors on discography page etc) in a variety of ways but was immediately struck by the title of the page being somewhat anachronistic / out of sync compared to all other major sources. MzK11 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry I misunderstood the meaning of "endorse" (confusing!). Well, that's disappointing but I appreciate your response. The lesson I have been taught today is that it isn't worth anyone's time to try and improve or edit info on Wikipedia. The velocity of edits is so slow, and there is so much resistance to a new contributor who is motivated, knowledgeable, and trying to steer us towards the right outcome. Remember, every new editor account on here once started with one edit or one proposal, and how that plays out shapes their future involvement to the site. Two month moratorium is a weak non-decision imho. MzK11 (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP is a social endeavor and therefore has rules, for better and for worse. Jumping in with proposals like this before one has sufficient experience to know and appreciate the applicable rules is destined to disappoint. --В²C В²C 05:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

7 October attacks (closed)

  • 7 October attacksRelisted. There is a fairly clear consensus, through either "Relist" or "Overturn" !votes that the close as it stands is not an accurate representation of the discussion. Particularly so given that there seems to have been a misunderstanding by the closer over the !vote of IJA at the discussion. As an aside, given that this has been discussed in several RMs before, with prior consensuses being against a move, I'd also have thought a very clear mandate / reasoned consensus for moving would be needed and it doesn't seem like a suitable page for invoking WP:NOGOODOPTIONS.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
7 October attacks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The recent request move was to change the article title from 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, not to 7 October attacks. The article has been unilaterally moved to a different title all together. There has been other notable attacks on the date 7 October in the region such as the 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid and the 2004 Sinai bombings, both of which occurred on the 7 October. That's why I supported a move to the title 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel as it was specific about which attack on the 7 October, and to differentiate it from other attacks in the region on the same date. This controversial move lacked consensus in the RM discussion. Another user (User:Makeandtoss) has also stated "I agree, this should be taken to move review, as in addition to lacking widespread consensus, this was closed by a non-admin, in contravention of WP:BADNAC. Most worryingly, the closer is involved in the topic area [3].... The close very clearly violates 3 out of 4 points outlined in WP:BADNAC: 1- involved editor 2- controversial move 3- little WP experience at 6,000 edits.". The mover stated "there was clear consensus to move away from the current title as the date was found to be an important part of the WP:COMMONNAME" but they have not proved that this shorter title is the common name in contrast with the more prevalently used longer version of the title. IJA (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist In all honesty, I don't think that was a bad close, and I might have made a similar close. However, if I had closed the same way, my close would have been based on the assumption that IJA's vote supported the shorter title, which is now clearly not the case. Given that there's not a crystal clear support to move, the move title isn't agreed upon, and relisting the discussion is likely to lead to a better consensus, I think a discretionary relist would be proper here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To reply to the others downstream, I do not think this was a WP:SUPERVOTE at all. I may have reached a similar conclusion based on that move discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @IJA: Can you explain why you believe the closer was involved here? I don't think a single edit six+ months ago is enough, and your points about BADNAC are irrelevant as WP:RMNAC is much more open to non admin closes. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RMNAC clearly leaves this for experienced editors. I wouldn't call having 6,000 edits experienced, certainly not in this topic area. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "6000 edits is not experienced" is a wild take Red Slash 06:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (involved) I didn't want a date at all and !voted that way but now that we are where we are, I think it cannot be right that a title which described what the article was about has now been changed to a date, without even a year, which nobody (apart from Israelis) will recognize a year from now. At the very least the move should have been to that requested and I think that needs to be properly debated.Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (uninvolved in the discussion) As mentioned earlier, the close goes against BADNAC in three ways. Also, there was not a strong enough consensus for this controversial change. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (uninvolved) The page wasn't moved to the target listed in the RM. It's not listed under BADNAC, as should be obvious that when closing an RM, it should be moved to the correct target when there is consensus. Support for the move was therefore for the target, not necessarily a move to another different target. This therefore comes across as a WP:SUPERVOTE. CNC (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (meaning either reclose or relist). And given that there seems to be consensus that this a WP:SUPERVOTE, I hope Extorc refrains from closing other discussions in this topic area. Given how controversial I-P topics are right now, we need truly uninvolved people to close these discussions.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and revert move (involved). Heh? Why would one close a move request as "moved" but then move it to a different title? I (vaguely) supported this move in the discussion, but clearly opposed the new title assigned unilaterally by the closer (Especially when "Hamas-led attack on Israel" remains in the title). Toadspike [Talk] 14:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (uninvolved) "Moved to ___" is a normal type of closure. It's mentioned at WP:THREEOUTCOMES. Here are some examples I have done: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. SilverLocust 💬 08:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I take no issue with the "moved to" phrasing, I was simply surprised, because I never realized "Hamas-led attack on Israel" was part of this debate. Upon re-reading the discussion, there may have been consensus for the current title of "7 October attacks", but I believe there should be/should have been a separate discussion about whether "Hamas-led" and "on Israel" are necessary as disambiguators. Toadspike [Talk] 20:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Picking an alternative that doesn't clearly have consensus support is okay under WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, as long as closer has a reasonable explanation for their choice. We have that here. No way to know whether the closer's choice actually has consensus support without doing another RM, which is the appropriate response here, not MR and relisting. --В²C 04:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. < uninvolved > Although WP:OTHEROPTIONS was not explicitly invoked, the closer did include "No prejudice against another discussion between the original proposed title and 7 October attacks." That implicitly invokes WP:OTHEROPTIONS, so a new RM would be the better way to go. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just file a new move request - I'm salty that this was brought to the humungous time sink that is WP:MRV. (I deliberately don't say "waste of time", but it certainly is a time sink!) You should have just proposed a new request like the closer said. You deserve a trout for making us all go through this.
That out of the way, the MRV is indeed filed, so it's too late for the best choice. Given that we're here, yes, relist seems logical. Maybe let's change no good options to explicitly bar no good option closes without relisting first. Red Slash 07:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
let's change no good options to explicitly bar no good option closes without relisting first
Actually sounds like a very good idea; however, in this case and because of the "You should have just proposed a new request like the closer said," I still think this close was reasonable and in line with the closing instructions, iow, it should be endorsed along with the opening of a fresh RM. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse is fine as well, well said. I changed NOGOODOPTIONS, and you can go make further edits if you like or revert me! Red Slash 00:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another editor reverted it, oh well, I don't know how much relisting helps as I've been brought to move review several times after I've very explicitly made such closes of relisted RMs. Mine were always endorsed just as this one should be. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: This suggestion was live for the minimum duration possible, and poorly attended. The previous RMs were, as I recall, longer and better attended. There was no rush to close, least of all to rush to close with a "no good options" result – if there were no good options after just 7 days, throw another log on. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not believe this was necessarily a bad non-admin closure. But my opinion has always been that controversial and potentially contentious discussions should always be closed by admins (see WP:NACPIT). NACPIT also says non-admins should avoiding discussions that are not clearly unambigous. This discussion, no matter how you look at it, was not a clear, unambiguous consensus. There was no reason this discussion couldn't have been left for an admin to close, especially considering the closer didn't have the technical ability to complete the move (which is actually a point listed at WP:BADNAC). In the future, I recommend the closer stays away from non-unambiguous requests like this one. C F A 💬 03:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Welsh Language Society (closed)

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

This move request was closed as "no consensus" where the lack of consensus is based on a faulty reading of WP:UE.

According to BilledMammal who closed as no consensus:

"Reviewing it again, I stand by my previous close. Editors in opposition argued that even sources that do use the Welsh name commonly translate it into English, and I found no basis in policy to give those !votes less weight. "

This statement is incorrect as roughly half of the reliable sources used "Cymdeithas yr Iaith" without providing any translation and none used "Welsh Language Society" except as a translation the first time "Cymdeithas yr Iaith" was presented.

WP:UE does not apply here as the WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable English language sources (and in most pages that link to this one) is Cymdeithas yr Iaith.Morwennol (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (uninvolved). Reading the discussion, it appears that oppose voters have a mistaken belief that WP:UE is a blanket ban on all foreign language titles. Sionk, the one opposer who appears to engage with the evidence laid out in any way, claims that an article that uses the Welsh name in its headline, and adds the translated name once, is evidence that the Welsh name is not in common usage. Mach61 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved). WP:ENGLISHTITLE states "If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase (example: coup d'état)." Nothing in there suggests we should not use a foreign term as a title if some sources provide a translation for that term along with the term itself. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I've notified BilledMammal (the closer) about this request and put the required notice on the article's talk page. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISHTITLE apply here as page moves are often balancing acts. While those supporting the move were slightly more numerous in number, those opposing were not incorrect in terms of their policy analysis, and their concerns could not be discounted, especially the concern, confirmed by those supporting, that the English name is listed next to the Welsh name in these articles. I would have closed this as a no consensus and would have moved only with a couple additional support !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: there are numerous RSs referenced in the move request which use Cymdeithas yr Iaith without providing any English translation. There are several which use Cymdeithas yr Iaith alongside alongside an English translation the first time the name is used. There are none which use Welsh Language Society on its own. Morwennol (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was only reviewing the close of the discussion and not the content, but you've got me curious about whether the name was ever used on its own: I was able to find lots of instances, including [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] SportingFlyer T·C 23:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that’s new evidence that heavily supports the Oppose position. Thank you for taking the time to find that. —В²C 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I really have no preference for the outcome here. My reading of the discussion was simply that based on my reading of the discussion, both those supporting and those opposing made valid arguments, and consensus was not such that a move was clear. I don't think it needs to be re-opened - these "English or native language" discussions can be really difficult! SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for digging those out. I think it's mentioned in this MR or the previous one that Welsh Language Society was commonly used in the past to refer to the organisation, and is more commonly used to refer to the organisation in a historical context. Whereas Cymdeithas yr Iaith is strongly preferred for the contemporary organisation.
    When I was looking for stuff using WLS I applied a self-imposed criteria:
    - Less than a decade old
    - UK based rather than internationakl]
    - Referring to the contemporary organisation rather than the org in a historical context
    I think four of the ten sources meet that criteria - one is a letter, one is an English local paper and the other two are from the BBC but are 8 and 9 years old respectively, so at the upper range of my search. I'm not sure they tip the scales (though they are interesting data that ought to be included). Morwennol (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me as if - well, if this closes as no consensus or endorse, then the page is likely to be requested to be moved again in the future. And it seems to me that the problem for those like yourself supporting the move is that the org is notable enough to be continually referenced in media, but not so notable that everyone in a target English language audience would recognise the name, because the vast majority of articles include "the Welsh Language Society" pretty much next to the Welsh language name as a proper noun. From a closer's perspective, if I closed this, that would make it difficult to down-weight those opposing the change. Urdd Gobaith Cymru, for instance, isn't described with a proper noun next to its name in the media. If there has been a shift towards just the Welsh name, and if there's another move request, you may have a better chance of being successful if you can show how the shift is occurring. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "...but not so notable that everyone in a target English language audience would recognise the name, ..." Why is that a problem? To meet the recognizability criteria there is no need to be "so notable that everyone in a target English language audience would recognise the name". The threshold is: "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." --В²C 04:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I was not talking about the Wikipedia rules there, but rather about how the articles I've reviewed on this topic have been generally written. SportingFlyer T·C 05:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to moved (uninvolved). Not only were opposers outnumbered, but none really addressed the nom’s main point: the Welsh name is the COMMONNAME based on usage in reliable English sources, You know, like the BBC. Closer apparently gave too much weight to opposer’s stating the undisputed fact that many translate the name. But that’s so those seeing the name for the first time understand what it means; that doesn’t make it the subject’s name. Though not explicitly mentioned in the RM, underlying the Support argument, and countering closer’s finding, is the Recognizability WP:CRITERIA standard: the name must be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject area. Until a short time ago I was not familiar with this subject area. But now that I am familiar, I recognize Cymdeithas yr Iaith as the name of this organization. There is no requirement to make any title recognizable to anyone unfamiliar with the topic, but that seems to be the goal the opposers (and closer) are trying to achieve. —В²C 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relist based on significant new information presented by SportingFlyer above showing that Welsh Language Society is commonly used solely, not merely as a translation of the Welsh name, in RS to refer to this organization. Those ten references clearly establish COMMONNAME per UE. It’s unfortunate that this was not raised in the original RM to counter the nom’s argument, but here we are. The emphasis on the English used only as a translation of the Welsh in that discussion, even by Opposers, was very misleading. The RM needs to be reopened, the new information presented, and all previous participants notified. —-В²C 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to moved IMO the arguments in favour of the move were better grounded in policy and one of the oppose !votes was a misunderstanding of policy (WP:UE) and should have been disregarded. Number 57 21:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved): as pointed out in the previous move discussions and here, WP:UE is not a blanket prohibition on non-English titles if their use is well-established. I think that bar was met, and I don't think the use of courtesy translations lowers them below the bar (for comparison, mention of the Taoiseach in English-language sources will often carry a courtesy translation of "Irish prime minister", but will thereon continue with "Taoiseach"; same applies for Cymdeithas). Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. < uninvolved > This type of closure, no consensus, always takes a bit of boldness. There is no firm basis for overturning this closure. Based upon good arguments all around, there is no solid ground for any other than the no-consensus outcome. Relisted once already with plenty of participation and time to reach consensus if that had been possible, there is also no viable reason to reopen and relist. This was definitely a correct outcome, which I, too, would have used to conclude this RM. Good gutsy close! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Per SportingFlyer above, and per the closer's assessment when asked about this - "editors in opposition argued that even sources that do use the Welsh name commonly translate it into English, and I found no basis in policy to give those !votes less weight. Further, given the recent consensus not to move the article, there is a slightly higher bar to be met to produce a different consensus - that result has to be taken into account." There seems no reason to discount the opposing arguments here, particularly for a fresh RM so soon after a previous one, and the bar for a consensus to move was not met. Based on the fresh evidence of other sources not using the Welsh, this is even more relevant. If anything, that leans the conversation even further towards not moving.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (very uninvolved). If new information was brought here, =/ that should be brought up in the next move request, not anachronistically applied to the close here.
Red Slash 00:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

((subst:mrv bottom))

X (social network) (closed)[edit]

  • X (social network)No consensus, defaulting to relist. There is unanimous consensus among uninvolved editors that the closer's rationale was not sufficient, although two uninvolved here felt that the result should be upheld anyway. Some in the discussion felt that the discussion should be immediately re-closed with a "no consensus" result, but those voices were not strong enough in argument or number to create a consensus. By default, then, we relist pending another close. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
X (social network) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The page was moved prematurely when there was no consensus from the discussion; there were 29 comments supporting the move and 20 opposing it. In the mover's talk page discussion, they said quote "In my opinion, WP:Commonname is generally acceptable, but sometimes it does not align with common sense.", and also "From my observation, more people supported the move. Considering this, and acknowledging the series of previous failed attempts with Twitter, I found it acceptable". These two statements, in my view, show a lack of understanding of how move discussions are supposed to work (they made a choice that aligned with their own common sense rather than consensus, and they counted comments as votes). When asked for clarification, the closer stated "If you believe microblogging is the same as X, no answer from me is going to convince you", which shows an unwillingness to discuss their decision to move the page. In short, this page was moved way before consensus had been reached based on the personal "common sense" that a non-admin found "acceptable". Di (they-them) (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My decision is based on an independent, impartial analysis of the discussion, and that analysis supported the page move. I am not an attorney to give bulletproof answers; I respond with my reasoning, but I didn't know that whatever is told in good faith will be used against me. The rest is up to the review board to decide.Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) The closer was correct, and most of the opposition to the move was WP:VAGUEWAVES and/or lacking any clear policy explanation as why not to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Thus those votes were justifiably reduced in weight to form rough consensus. The passionate opinions about this article are exemplified by Di (they-them) (talk · contribs) first reverting the move before even reading that there had been a move discussion, then coming here seeking an overturn of the move after the move revert was restored. Next, indeed the position of The Education Auditor (talk · contribs) is also potentially correct. We have two issues to deal with here, one is the different corporate strategy post acquisition (generally the controversy relating to X's elimination of the content censorship team) as well as a change in name. The main issue we have on the article that is now resolved is the BLP issue of having the owner's name in the title, which attributes every bit of trivia to the company owner. WP:BLPRESTORE applies to adding Musk's name back to the article title. I am not opposed to other suggested names, but for now, the close and move was correct and we can examine improvements from here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: Please WP:AGF. I do not have “passionate opinions” about this subject, I redirected the page because I thought that a mistake had been made. I saw that we had two page about the same website and, naturally, assumed that someone had duplicated the original page. It has nothing to do with my opinions on the page, the website, or anything else, and you insinuating that I’m making passionate or opinionated edits is quite insulting. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please check article talk pages for relevant discussions before do reverts like this Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). Two main arguments were used by a majority of those opposing the move. This included the fact that there may be continuity issues from having two articles about one company and the software itself being the same. I believe that the first issue can be easily resolved by moving Twitter to Twitter (2006-2023) similar to the aforementioned Viacom articles. The second argument is somewhat narrow as the company is more than just the software. It would be ideal to take opposing arguments into account and not treat Twitter as a separate entity. I have written this essay on why this is the most ideal compromise. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 10:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to overturn (involved). I find the arguments below convincing. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 18:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). The close was reasonable. A lot of the oppose comments take issue with the existence of the article without really getting into why the proposed name wouldn't work. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Edit: While I think closing the discussion as "moved" was reasonable, I don't necessarily agree with the stated explanation for the move. The consensus for the move seems pretty clear. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Relist (involved). It's worth noting this discussion was not about the common name of Twitter/X—the last RM on that closed weeks ago—it's about turning what was essentially a size split on recent Twitter/X history into an article that treats Twitter and X as logically distinct. I'm concerned by the closer refusing to clarify how they arrived at their conclusion. The discussion on their talk page indicates that they personally strongly believe X and Twitter to be independent entities, but they have been unwilling to indicate what evidence or comments in the original discussion brought them to that conclusion. I personally believe a policy-based close here would take heed of the fact that no one has provided sources indicating any evidence that there's a common logical distinction between X and Twitter besides the latter just being the new name under new ownership of the former; indeed, there is a plethora of sources indicating the two terms continue to be used interchangeably to refer to the same product both pre- and post-acquisition (e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). I tried to request specific clarity on how the discussion was interpreted by the closer ([20]), and received a dismissive reply that implied the result was somehow obvious and the closer had no interest in explaining it to the ~20 editors who don't see it as obvious ([21]). I'm concerned enough that the closer is using supervote rationales instead of referring to any other commenter's arguments to call this a bad close and request relisting. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A few comments here argue that this RM was exclusively about the common name of Twitter/X as separate platforms and that the articles were already distinct in their content. While I agree that an RM is an awkward (and perhaps wrong) venue to discuss the content scope of a separate but related article, I think it's incorrect to claim the RM wasn't about that when the closer, as part of their close, explicitly went and made changes to Twitter to convert it into being only about pre-acquisition Twitter ([22], [23]). The revision prior to the RM closure clearly shows that the Twitter article covered both pre- and post-acquisition ([24]). It seems inappropriate to dismiss oppose votes that discussed content forking issues or the lack of evidence that sources treat Twitter and X as distinct entities as out-of-scope when the RM is now being used to support a consensus for this. (Also, WP:CONTENTFORK is PAG, as is basing content on what reliable sources say, and I very much hope that "based in policy" is not being used as a shorthand for "uses lots of all caps project shortcut links"). Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 15:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a summary, Twitter under Elon Musk has always been about Twitter/X since the acquisition. It predominantly focused on Musk's involvement, but given he was CEO and dominant in his role, for a long time it covered all that X was developing into. Since he stepped down as CEO, the content continued to be added to that article, regardless of him no longer being CEO. More relevantly, very limited amount of content was ever added to the decaying (outdated to be polite) Twitter article, apart from to the lead which was merely a summary of the (grand)child article now known as X. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). It seems to me the support !votes were more numerous and had generally better arguments, including a BLP issue, and that there is no technical reason to not have two articles on the same organisation (though doing so is editorial, so I did not discount these when reviewing the close - but it is not a reason not to.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't actually read the closing statement but instead read the argument and closed based on how I would have closed and I got to the same result as the closer, but I have no problem if this is overturned because of the way the close was worded. I'm surprised people think this didn't reach a consensus, though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (uninvolved). Wait, what? WP:Commonname is generally acceptable, but sometimes it does not align with common sense. This being the WP:Commonname that is the core of WP:AT? The solution is not perfect. The correct approach would be to rename Twitter to X. However, that isn't happening, and keeping the name as Twitter is meaningless since the product is now called X, what? If you believe microblogging is the same as X, no answer from me is going to convince you.? This is not an acceptable close, the explanation given is contrary to the relevant policy and is not compelling why it should be ignored. The discussion should be reopened and the closers opinion should be left as a !vote. Alpha3031 (tc) 05:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (uninvolved), per Alpha3031 - additionally, based on the comments quoted by Alpha3031, the closer appears to have strong opinions regarding what these articles should be titled, and probably shouldn’t have closed this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus). (Uninvolved). The discussion did not reach consensus, and it was closed with a WP:Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). Reasonable close after carefully considered both support and oppose arguments, even if the closing statement was poorly written. Under a microscope, the oppose arguments were generally quite weak, and lacked policy or guidelines to back up the votes, whereas support relied predominantly upon common name arguments. For example referencing a false previous consensus that the article X (social media) shouldn't exist, concerns over confusion to readers, that Twitter/X are the same thing (although there has been more than one article about Twitter for a long time already), or otherwise that Twitter should have been moved to X (social media) - which is another moot point given there was no consensus to do so in previous RM. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to this RM being closed, Twitter was an article about the platform known as both Twitter and X ([25]) and Twitter under Elon Musk was an article about Musk's acquisition ([26]); both of these revisions represent relatively stable versions of the respective articles. This has since been changed for both, initiated by the RM closer as an apparent implementation of the determined consensus. Either the RM isn't a valid source of consensus to make these changes or the arguments against them are in the right place; it can't be neither.
    Many of the arguments you list are based in policy and guidelines, by the way. The concerns over confusion to readers are explicitly recognized in the article title criteria (specifically, oppose voters raised concerns with recognizability, naturalness, and consistency). The concerns with whether sources definitively indicate that Twitter/X are the same thing or not is fundamental enough I don't think I need to cite the various policies that get invoked (just in case: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:5P2). And while I'd generally agree that an RM is an awkward place to be arguing about content scoping policies, and this one in particular had murkiness in what was actually being discussed, the outcome can't involve changes to the content scope of both articles if the discussion precludes them. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 17:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter under Elon Musk (TUEM) was never an article about Musk's acquisition, maybe you're confusing the article with Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk? TUEM effectively developed into an article about Twitter since his acquisition, that was naturally inclusive of X. For example policy changes and development rarely featured in the Twitter article after the acquisition (partially based on article size). Thanks for referencing policy that other's failed to though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't an article about a separate software platform before (I think you're correct in identifying it as a size split) and I'm not sure how else you'd describe the post-closure changes ([27]). The changes to Twitter are even more blatant ([28]). I'm not saying these changes shouldn't be made (I mean, I was saying that in the RM, but that's besides the point of this review), and I don't even particularly care what venue is used to get consensus on them as long as people are clearly informed of the discussion and its intent, but making an end-run around legitimate concerns by claiming the venue being used to justify the changes shouldn't be used to discuss them (or that comments aren't seasoned to your taste with project links) is frankly missing the forest for the trees. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Initially Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk was split from twitter, and Twitter under Elon Musk was split from there. So yes it was a size split. I'm not interested in descriptions of post-closure changes, because this move review isn't about changes made to articles after the page was moved, that's completely irrelevant per MR. My issue was lack of citing policy (Wikipedia reasoning) for opposing such a move, as per the basic hierarchy of vote quality (reasoning backed by policy being higher than reasoning alone). A more experienced user wouldn't necessarily require policy citing for reasoning, but this is exactly why the vote quality increases when policy is cited, because you can't rely on an experienced editor to close an RM (case and point). I'm not arguing my vote was that good either, only that others were even worse. "Per user X, don't ping me again" was my favourite RfV based oppose for reference sake though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. < uninvolved > Above arguments for reopening and letting discussion continue are compelling. I don't think there was a firm consensus, and perhaps there was enough participation to warrant a close of "no consensus", but it wouldn't hurt to let editors continue what appears to be a talk that was still in progress – as yet unfinished. I think the RM should be given more time. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. (involved) This close is patently ridiculous. There was a slim numerical majority in favour of the move, but not enough to establish a firm consensus. And it was not demonstrated at all that X and Twitter are different entities worthy of separate treatment. Indeed, the evidence presented would firmly establish that they're the same thing just under a new name, for which WP:NAMECHANGES would apply. There also appears to have been no critical analysis or explanation of the policy issues by the closer at all, and that close should be vacated and redone by an experienced closer.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Involved by virtue of previous discussion. Although I had supported the proposal in the previous RM on Talk:Twitter, this close lacks the necessary rationale that demonstrates an in depth analysis of the points raised in the discussion. The follow up discussion on the closer's talk page reinforced the perception of supervoting. Given that this is a contentious topic, a close from a more experienced editor will benefit the discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) – Per Dylnuge, the close doesn't reflect that the issue was not merely whether the title was the common name but rather that the new title changes the article's scope and implies Twitter and X are separate entities. Graham (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (very much involved). In the originating move request to move Twitter to X, I urged that we keep Twitter pre-2023 at one page, and post-2023 (upon Musk's acquisition) to a separate page about X, using the existing "Twitter under Elon Musk" page as a starting point for that. That move request (Twitter->X) can be seen at Talk:Twitter#Requested move 17 May 2024, and while there there was no support for that move, there was reasonable support for my proposed idea. That said, when that move closed, I was going to take time to develop a somewhat involved mix of page moves and content splits across multiple pages related to Twitter to make that step clean (In this move request, you can see that discussion with Horse's Eye Back in some depth related to this). However, Elijahpepe jumped the gun and made this move request, in absence of the other steps I felt were needed. That said, given that this has been moved, it becomes clear that there was support for it across two different move requests, even if the consensus wasn't well in the move's favor. I can reargue why this distinction between Twitter and X makes logical sense across all WP content P&G, but this isn't the place to reargue those. I do wish there was a bit of breathing room before this move request, but it could also be seen as ripping the bandaid off as it was likely to be necessary some point in the future. --Masem (t) 05:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Updated discussion with closer link to point to archive. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, or at the very least do not endorse (involved). The closer's explanation (or lack thereof) in the discussion, combined with their refusal to elaborate for the approximately 40% of voters who did not agree with the fundamental issue that led to this RM happening (whether Twitter and X are different entities), lead me to see this as a WP:BADNAC. Whether to relist (there was a decent amount of opinions cast, but also some active discussions), overturn to no consensus, or reclose with a better rationale as to why the move should happen, I'll leave that to the closer of this discussion; I chose relist just to do something. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist Involved by virtue of previous discussion.. I previously supported such a move but did not participate directly in this discussion. There might be a consensus to move but it's not a strong consensus and an obviously controversial move like this one deserves a clear closing rational from a user in good standing with the project which was not achieved here. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or overturn (uninvolved). The RM discussion saw various arguments discussed in detail by participants on both sides of the debate, and – reviewing the close and the subsequent discussion on the closer's talk page – I'm not convinced that the closer has sufficiently analyzed those arguments. On their talk page, the closer expresses their personal belief that X and Twitter are meaningfully distinct platforms; this question was a major locus of debate in the RM, but the closer has refused to provide any analysis of that debate, of whether either side was more convincing than the other, etc. We are left with only their assertion that the difference between X and Twitter is too obvious to discuss. The closer also noted that supporters of the move hold the numerical majority, which is not a particularly compelling claim in a 29–20 discussion; clearly both sides had significant numerical strength, making it inappropriate to place much weight on raw numbers. On the whole, the close feels to me like a supervote hinged upon vote-counting.
    I note as well that several participants in the RM discussed the fact that the proposed change would involve a rescoping of the article, away from its previous focus on a period of the site's history and to a focus on the social media platform itself. The closer's only engagement with this question of scope was to state that I request fellow editors to make the necessary adjustments to restructure the document, including moving content from Twitter, to satisfy its new title. Instead of making any effort to analyze the discussion around article scope, or performing WP:POSTMOVE cleanup to reflect their change, the closer simply added an infobox to the article and did not make any other relevant changes I could identify. This further suggests to me that they were likely not fully engaging with the discussion as a whole. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 19:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I suggest an RfC (uninvolved) - This move is complicated. It involves more than a title change for one article: it involves a signficant scope change for two articles. I think more consideration is needed on the parent page.

    From 17 May to 24 May, an RM that the article Twitter be renamed to X (social network) was held. It ended as "not moved" after a lot of discussion. Less than an hour after that RM was closed, the RM to move the spinoff Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) was opened.

    However, this RM is more than a retitling. In effect, the move rescopes the main page Twitter from (A social media service named X, formerly named Twitter) into (A defunct social media service named Twitter, the distinct "predecessor" of X).

    It turns the page Twitter under Elon Musk from (A WP:SIZESPLIT article covering the service over the last two years under its new ownership, at more length than the main page) into X (social network), (A new social media service created in 2023, the distinct "successor" of Twitter).

    This is a major content fork. I believe it requires a clear consensus on the parent page (Twitter), rather than a shaky consensus (as others have discussed) on a spinoff page. I think holding an RfC would be wise. HenryMP02 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) I still believe that moving Twitter would've been the much better option than what transpired. Unfortunately there's been no consensus for that, time and time again. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 04:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (uninvolved) per HenryMP02 above. I find the closer’s response on their talk page to be quite poor as well. Mach61 07:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (uninvolved). No disrespect to User:Anoopspeaks, but this one should probably not be a non-admin close. As User:HenryMP02 mentions above, this move essentially forces a split of the Twitter/X articles, and that should have been discussed better prior to this being nominated. 162 etc. (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) Close was clearly right and based on consensus Isla🏳️‍⚧ 10:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isla May you elaborate as to how the close was justified, seeing as many people disagree with it? Mach61 11:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the number of votes being about 60 percent Isla🏳️‍⚧ 11:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAVOTE? Alpha3031 (tc) 07:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) There is no evidence that the closer has followed the normal expected process in evaluating the consensus. I can find no evidence that the arguments were evaluated, and it is difficult for me to accept that such highly contested move could be closed as anything other than 'No consensus' unless the Oppose arguments were utter and incomprehensible waffle, which they were not. Melmann 11:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (involved). The closer clearly has a strong opinion on the result and has been unable to explain their vote besides asserting that it's obviously the correct one, despite it going directly against a better attended RM on the parent article mere days before this RM was opened that was unable to find consensus on a common name. These articles should be handled in parallel and after a well-planned RFC instead of haphazard RMs. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (which means move it back and re-open for someone else to close). While I agree with the closer's decision, the lack of explanation in the RM itself, and especially afterward, is simply unacceptable. Pro tip: if you can't coherently summarize the policy-based reasons for the move based on the discussion for posterity, don't close. Some of the reasons provided in the post-close discussion on the closer's talk page, and here, are concerning. I fully agree with Amakuru here: "There also appears to have been no critical analysis or explanation of the policy issues by the closer at all, and that close should be vacated and redone by an experienced closer." --В²C 01:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or remand to further discussion: when I closed the Twitter RM last month, I did so with the expectation we would not be rushing into another RM, but instead we'd have a cycle of informal discussion leading to an RfC and then maybe an RM. I'm slightly miffed that didn't happen, but I understand it. The RM itself clearly didn't have a consensus anyway. Sceptre (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have previously !voted above to endorse (please dont double count me here), however as my primary concern is the BLP issues so I thought I would expand on that. I would note that we do have an article that cover's Musk's primary involvement in Twitter, which is Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. This article could be expanded a bit to include the first time period when Musk was CEO. I think it does already cover some of his early actions as CEO and certainly the events leading up to the acquisition. So we have essentially three eras:
My thought is that probably only Era #2 should contain Musk's name in the article title, or we run the risk of BLP issues. We should not be attributing the name of a social media network to be Musk going into infinity just since he owns it. We do have billionaires owning things like Washington Post (Bezos) and many billionaires own a sports franchise or some other bobble it seems, and we dont name those on wikipedia after the billionaire who owns it. We dont call those articles Ballmer's Clippers and Walton's Broncos. I think per WP:BLPRESTORE whatever action the closer of this chooses (it seems there is decent opposition to the current name) we should not be adding Musk's name back to the article title as part of this review unless we have a full referendum on that first. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would be the BLP issue, though? It's not like the article is so inherently defamatory of Musk that his name should be removed from the title. As for other stuff, Twitter under Elon Musk was previously treated as a subpage of sorts of History of Twitter, so I don't think these comparisons apply. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second Brainulator9's comment; I don't see how BLPRESTORE would apply here. Claims about Musk will exist in the article regardless of its title due to the degree that he was the public face of the acquisition of and changes to Twitter/X (and remains even after the CEO change, e.g.: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], this is just from last week). Musk was not mentioned in the title because he is a billionaire owner; he is mentioned in the title because his name is the common name associated with the acquisition in reliable sources. This is not the case for your other examples. There is no basis in policy for avoiding mention of living persons in titles where otherwise appropriate. We do not call our articles on US presidential administrations things like "46th Executive Administration of the United States", we call them Presidency of Joe Biden, even though of course not all events in a presidency are exclusively about the president.
This is a place to reassess the consensus closure of the RM, not relitigate the support comments. Part of the problem with this close is that while it is true that there were numerically more supports than opposes, when actually reading the comments we see vast and sometimes contradictory gulfs in rationales offered both by supporters and opposes. Only one other editor concurred with your BLP concerns, while another expressly disagreed, and the vast majority of comments in a discussion of nearly 50 editors made no mention of BLP issues. Frankly, I see no consensus in the original discussion that the original title presents any BLP concerns. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 17:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or overturn the discussion was too close. Without having participated I can not say which way I would have stated my opinion but in my opinion the discussion had not run its course. With less than 60% in support there was not yet a consensus yet. Jorahm (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Engineer's Building airstrike (closed)[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Engineer's Building airstrike (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This is a straightforward supervote, with the closer deciding several things. The first being that "massacre" is non-neutral, and that the other pages within the same category of pages with the title "massacre" are not relevant. The close explicitly endorses maintaining systemic bias by refusing to engage with the fact that events that are titled "massacre" related to the ongong war in Gaza are not relevant to whether or not this event should so titled. A substantial majority of editors disagreed with the proposal and further disagreed with the claim that "massacre" is POV or that the other articles in the same category of pages are not relevant. That was ignored by a straightforward supervote. If the closer felt that their view was that this should be moved they should have voted instead of imposing their view over the consensus of editors opposed to the move. nableezy - 21:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (involved). WP:NCENPOV is clear that "massacre" is a POV term that should only be used if it is part of the common name or part of the generally accepted descriptor. Those supporting didn’t even attempt to argue that either was the case, just that this was the "right" descriptor based on their personal opinions. As such, the closer acted appropriately, assessing consensus not by counting votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). I would primarily reference the closing statement itself, which was well put and echoes the comment above by BilledMammal. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). The vote tally was roughly equal, but this was a fairly straightforward discussion in terms of what the rule is regarding WP:COMMONNAME, and none of the oppose !votes could make the argument that their preferred article name was part of the WP:COMMONNAME and in one instance actually agreed with those supporting the move that the old title was not the WP:COMMONNAME. Good close, well within policy, clearly not a supervote. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) per BilledMammal and WP:COMMONNAME. The oppose votes were entirely POV opinions as to what the incident should be called rather than what it is called in reliable sources. These were rightly given much less weight than those votes which cited Wikipedia naming conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) The opposing !votes didnt cite any policy for the most part and some made arguments such as "30 times more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in this conflict" that are not relevant and the vote should be excluded from counting. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved): in discussions about page titles, ad hoc conformity to what sources use generally triumphs over attempts at applying logic to titling, as was the case here. Mach61 18:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) per BilledMammal and Necrothesp. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 18:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ill just say here that there is a severe NPOV issue in the way these things are handled. At Talk:Nir_Oz_massacre#Requested_move_1_June_2024 currently underway, you see users making arguments that were rejected in this move request. Anybody care to wager my dollars to your donuts on how that move request is going to be closed? Anyway, consider this move review withdrawn, despite its incredibly inconsistent closure with respect to the other articles in this topic area. nableezy - 18:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

See also[edit]