2017 Catalonia attacks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

There is a debate as to whether or not consensus was reached, or whether the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus or relist I just read the entire thing. I think I only saw one supporter mention a policy based argument (and that was addressing COMMONNAME objections, but not really offering a positive reason to move. The oppose !votes actually were rooted in naming policy and guidelines. No consensus would be appropriate here and have it restored to the stable title since virtually no discussion of policy took place. The other option is to relist: but I don't think that would be helpful. The flaw here was that it was so high profile that it was flooded with random !votes that were either just votes or had no policy basis. I doubt a relist would fix that, but I wouldn't object to one either. Ideally this would be no consensus and there would be a new RM in 3 months when it is a bit lower profile. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus or relist - As I said on the talkpage I wasn't seeing the consensus for Moving nor Not-moving - Both Supports and Opposes came up with good arguements and both sides used the COMMONNAME policy but anyway in short there was no consensus for one or the other and as such the discussion should've either been relisted or closed as No Consensus (Personally I would've preferred relisting it to save the time of another discussion being recreated). –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting is only ideal when we think a relist at this time will clarify consensus. I don't think it would, but it would also be an acceptable outcome. A new RM in a few months is probably more likely to achieve a result. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus: As per TonyBallioni's and Davey2010 arguments above. No Policy basis, no consensus. Strong policy based arguments against move. Gaditano23 (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Relist: The general consensus that I'm got from all those who supported the move was that the article should cover the attacks (plural) in Catalonia. Those advocating for attack (singular) went from arguing that the incident in Cambrils was not an attack to okay, it was an attack, but not a really successful one. It appears that "Barcelona attack" was determined as the COMMONNAME with a Google search, instead of considering how reliable sources refer to the events covered in the article. ^Falling_Gravity 05:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If I recall correctly among the many arguments provided by multiple editors against changing to Catalonia attacks included the following (although Im sure I missed a few): 1)WP:COMMONNAME the vast majority of international reliable English language sources refer to it as Barcelona attacks, followed by Spain attacks. 2)There are multiple precedents in wikipedia for attacks being named after the primary target despite secondary targets e.g. Attack on Pearl Harbour involved attacks on other locations in Hawaii 3)The attack was planned specifically for Barcelona, regardless of secondary events, only one of which (Cambrils) can be categorized and attack although foiled and unplanned. 3) The attack was on Spain, as claimed by ISIS for participating in the anti-ISIS coalition, not on Catalonia 4) Referring to it as Catalonia attacks would violate NPOV since it plays in the hands of nationalist discourse, where claiming it as an attack "on Catalonia but not Spain" has been central to their campaigning since the first day of the attacks 5) There was no consensus WP:CONSENSUS, a variety of editors expressed various of these concerns and continued to do so under a separate section which was not counted in the vote or considered by the closer. 5) No real policy grounded rationale was given for moving the article. 6)90% of the votes to move did not include a rationale. Its a no-brainer in my opinion. The move should be undone.Gaditano23 (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falling, I take it that the remark editors "went from arguing that the incident in Cambrils was not an attack to okay, it was an attack, but not a really successful one" is a reference to me. I suggest you re-read my remarks, I always argued that 'Cambrils' was an attack but it was a peripheral response to the main event. The explosion and other events never were attacks. You misunderstood my initial post, but now you are misrepresenting it. There never was any change from me. … … ps I would support, as I suspect would others, the use of plural 'attacks', but the option was not offered. Pincrete (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the fact that five suspects died in Cambrils make it pretty important? Apparently I had you mixed up with Matthiasb, who argued that Cambrils was not an attack. I personally think the discussion should've been between the titles "2017 Barcelona attack", "2017 Catalonia attacks", or "2017 Barcelona attacks", so I'll go with relist. ^Falling_Gravity 21:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer: The WP:COMMONNAME argument was barely touched upon in the debate, and the posters who did mention it (notably, Pincrete) only provided an assertion that "Barcelona attack" is the one, but did not provide much evidence. The title began as a descriptive one, WP:NCEVENTS being the relevant convention, and most posters pointed out that Barcelona is not a sufficiently WP:PRECISE descriptor for the "where" part, thus 2017 Catalonia attacks covers the entire scope. While I usually provide extended rationale for controversial RM closes, support for 2017 Catalonia attacks was so overwhelming that I didn't feel obliged to. For comparison, while I personally disagree with the opposing arguments at Talk:London Waterloo station#Requested move 31 July 2017, I don't think that a close contrary to ~90% of !votes could be interpreted as anything but a supervote. Closers are supposed to assess the consensus of editors, y'know.
  Now, this is a recent event, and things have been unfolding quickly; if a WP:COMMONNAME has emerged in sources during the last week, I think that the cleanest solution is to run a new RM with new evidence – relisting it with old !votes based on old evidence would leave the current consensus unclear. No such user (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(nb copied from talk)

No such user, Re: However, WP:COMMONNAME was barely touched upon in the debate, and the posters who did mention it (notably, Pincrete) only provided an assertion that "Barcelona attack" is the one, but did not provide much evidence. I suggest you revisit remarks by Davey2010, - de Facto, - Collect (The purpose of Wikipedia is to make information readily available to persons using the most common terms for the article .... The name should be that which a person using Wikipedia would be most likely to use ... One of the three also has Ghits for the two terms demonstrating that 'Catalonia' is much less frequent in Eng sources). There are others making similar, less explicit arguments about the greater familiarity of 'Barcelona' as a term.

I am happy to acknowledge that the discussion centres - or should have centred - on whether the second attack necessitates the more accurate 'Catalonia' or whether we go for the less accurate, but more used (and more likely to be remembered in X years) term. Many people in the discussion were new editors, they were often arguing that there were many, many attacks (there were not, neither blowing yourself up, nor being shot escaping is 'an attack'), they were arguing that Sp or Cat WP had changed name. Not one supporter even addressed the commonname issue.Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding proposal The problem with that proposal is that the initial move was flawed. A new RM means that a new consensus is required to move, which their arguably won't be, just as their wasn't one to move it in the first place. The move should be undone and future proposals to move "as events unfold" should be based on 1) Consensus-building and 2) Solid Policy-based grounds. Otherwise it is like convicting someone without evidence and, instead of annulling the conviction, requesting him to prove he is not guilty to be freed. Its contrary to policy and practice. I would also like to highlight that to date "Catalonia attacks have around 90,000 entries on Google and most of them are to news articles listed in the search refer to them as Barcelona or Spain attacks. Barcelona attacks have over a 1,500,000 and (together with Spain attacks - over one million) these entries and cover all major English language news source. Gaditano23 (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On No User's assertion of move being supported by 90% of votes: Just for the record, can you back that assertion? I count the following users who voted against the move AND provided policy grounds: Gaditano23 (myself), Pincrete, de Facto, XavierItzm (changed his vote after considering arguments), RichardWeiss, User:Davey2010, My-wiki-photos, Collect, Matthiasb. That is 9 in total. Was there anything like 90 votes in favour? Of the 32 votes in favor how many gave a valid rationale? By what I see less than 9. Again WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONNAME.Gaditano23 (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the headcount was indeed 32:9; that's 78%. I did not count them the first time either, so I mentioned 90% in passing. Of those, 9-10 supporters did not provide a policy-based argument, and a few opposers did not either (because non Spanish people don't know the name of the region wasn't one and Most UK sources I've seen use "Spain attacks" arguably was, but did not provide much guidance.) No such user (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus or relist: Good faith but mistaken close IMO. Pincrete (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't have a problem at all with reclosing as no consensus, with no prejudice towards a new RM when the dust settles. Both sides had valid arguments ("Barcelona" is more common and that's where the most notable attack occurred, while "Catalonia" is more accurate as to the scope of events). I hesitate towards doing that myself, as I became borderline involved (honestly, I wouldn't like another swath of "You got new messages" from the other side). I'm not interested in proving that I was right, (and there's arguably no "right" and "wrong" answer to the question), only that we have a title that is appropriate and based on consensus and policies. We have a longish MR backlog now, so I'll ask for a closer at WP:AN to clean it. No such user (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse move to 2017 Catalonia attacks. There was a clear majority consensus minus a small extremely motivated minority - which is valid in its own small way, but not enough to overturn a vast majority of editors and their articulate arguments. The current title also agrees with the Spanish wiki title. No such user has handled the situation perfectly. Reaper7 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reaper7 The point is that there were no arguments at all, let alone "articulate" arguments. Simply a flurry of random votes. :-) In any case, I agree with the Spanish version staying as Catalonia attacks, since that is likely to remain the most common name in Spanish sources as per WP:COMMONNAME. It is not and won't be in English. Whatever happens in Catalan or Spanish wiki is certainly not relevant here, you should know that. Gaditano23 (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is the event evolved and we got stuck with the early name. Spanish, French etc wiki changed with the times as have many recent articles including ours. I also don't think many of the minority arguments to keep the article the way it was made much sense. One editor - you I believe - who was against the current name - proposed 2017 Spain attacks in its place which made all your previous argumentation redundant in my view. The attacks did not take place all over Spain - or all over Barcelona. However they did take place across Catalonia and the entire operation was scattered across Catalonia. It is exceptionally easy concept to grasp and to be honest - I am not surprised many editors with 1000s of edits behind their names simply stated support to the move. Reaper7 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn on the simple basis that while specific policy-based arguments were given for not making the move, the "consensus" appears to have been found via "popularity contest" including brand-new posters and IPs. And I would note, what other Wikis do in popularity contests is not a strong policy-based argument here. Google News search, by the way, shows no major English language source which only uses "Catalonia" and a huge majority using "Barcelona" in articles on this attack. (5.8 million News hits for "Barcelona attack" v. 148K for "Catalonia attack" or "Catalan attack", the vast majority of which also use "Barcelona") "Commonname" and likelihood of search seem clear here. By the way, of the 32 votes - I counted 2 from people having few or no other edits, 5 from IPs, and another 6 from people with well under 100 edits. I suggest that this also may bear on the "overwhelming consensus" asserted before even the six day mark for any RfC. Collect (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google News search for "Catalonia attack" (singular, no quotes) is problematic, because that's not even what the discussion was about. Additionally, the search for "Barcelona attack" includes hundreds of pages that predate this terror attack. Searching for "Catalonia attacks" or "Catalonia terror attacks" reveals that quite a few prominent English language sources use this title. ^Falling_Gravity 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation marks were not used in my search, and I did a "date limited" search, so your cavils fail. I also found uses of "Catalan" and "Catalunya" as well. None of which come close to the use of "Barcelona" as primary descriptor. And the Wikipedia counts of "how people search for an article" is clear evidence that the name change is not beneficial to English Wikipedia users. Thank you in advance for correcting your post, which I am sure you will do lest anyone misinterpret your objective therein. Collect (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you post links to your Google News searches? WP:COMMONNAME says the title should be "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources," not in a significant majority of Google News hits, which includes a lot of non-reliable sources. ^Falling_Gravity 20:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "link" to searches other than to give sufficient reason to believe that the Common Name argument appears sound in this review discussion. Nor do I consider a factor of about 300 to 1 to be at all likely to fail further testing of number of sources. The issue here is whether the closing at 6 days of a "vote" of possibly 19 to 7 (excluding the 13 votes by "new editors"), where the policy and guideline based positions were disregarded, was a proper closing. or whether the discussion should be settled as "no consensus" or relisted. Collect (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse move to 2017 Catalonia attacks. 1. Most users supported to move the article (32 in favor - 9 against). 2. If the article includes the attacks in both cities, which were committed by different terrorists in different days, the name should be representative: "2017 Barcelona and Cambrils attacks" or "2017 Catalonia attacks". To compare it with the Second World War, it would be like including the Sheffield Blitz in the Manchester Blitz article just because Manchester is bigger and it had bigger news impact (things that I don't really know). In addition to this, not only 2 different cities were attacked but the whole operation was also prepared in different cities (Alcanar and Ripoll) and the driver of Barcelona was shot dead in Subirats. All these important locations are covered by the name "2017 Catalonia attacks" in contrast with "2017 Barcelona attack" which oversimplifies the content of the article. 3. Some of the news only talk about the attack on Barcelona, because it was the first one to happen, so to prove that "Catalonia attacks" is less popular than "Barcelona attacks" we should remove all the news that don't mention Cambrils when comparing the popularity of both names using a search engine and even then we should take a closer look to see if they actually cover enough the attack on Cambrils. 4. Finally, the Wikipedia articles in Spanish, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Norwegian, Dutch, Danish, Euskera, Galician, Czech, Asturiano... include Catalonia in the title, and most of those articles changed the original name to include the attack on Cambrils. So we can see that "2017 Catalonia attacks" is quite popular.--Auledas (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of which are reasons to move a page under the English Wikipedia's current naming policy: the ultimate question is what is the common name as used in English-language sourcing?, not what is the most correct name?. Those supporting the move never addressed that, so under WP:RMCI a move should never have been executed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, assuming there were a couple of attacks more in different places, would the name still be "2017 Barcelona attack"? Not even "2017 Barcelona attacks"? --Auledas (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly, it depends on what the English sourcing is. English will sometimes combine different events like that into a singular noun. Regardless, that is a point to be discussed at an RM, not a move review, and the arguments in favour of moving did not substantially address the English Wikipedia's naming policy and conventions, which focus on what the average Anglophone reader would likely call the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. It seems a little bit strict but I understand the point.--Auledas (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=2017_Catalonia_attacks%7C2017_Barcelona_attack shows the relative numbers of views based on searched-for name on Wikipedia - on 8/18 "Catalonia" was searched for 8 times, "Barcelona" over 103,000 times on Wikipedia. On 8/24 - 1,675 times compared to over 11,000 for "Barcelona. The Wikipedia user base speaks clearly. Collect (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse move to 2017 Catalonia attacks.88.8.135.58 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC) — 88.8.135.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: in an effort to tackle the increasing backlog I was considering closing the debate as WP:TOOSOON myself but decided against it because of the high levels of ongoing participation and how emotive the topic is. Therefore I !vote to overturn the close and relist. DrStrauss talk 16:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus: No, there was no consesus, and no reason for moving the article.

Clearly the term "barcelona attack" has been much more widely accepted as Barcelona was the focus of the attack. There was one planned attack executed in Barcelona. Other events were clearly unplanned and unorganized accidents/incidents loosely related to the attack.
Google search: "barcelona attack" produces about 53,300,000 results
Google search: "catalonia attacks" produces about 621,000 results --172.97.237.164 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus or relist The arguments have been expressed here, eg lack of consensus, though to my mind the most worrying feature is the POV of the new title concerning an issue (Catalonia's independence) which is highly controversial, this POV is completely unnecessary and makes out wikipedia supports Catalonia's independence. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardWeiss: I'm confused by the geopolitical situation here. So if we're neutral on Catalonia's independence, then we should act like Barcelona and/or Cambrils isn't in Catalonia? ^Falling_Gravity 07:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are in Spain, Spain is the country not Catalonia. When Manchester suffered a similar attack nobody mentioned Lancashire, they mentioned Manchester and England, see 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. In the original I said I preferred Spain to Catalonia while recognising that there was a lesser POV issue there as we shouldn't take sides in terms of whether Catalonia becomes independent. If we act like Barcelona and Cambrils are in Catalonia we should even more act like they are in Spain. We have just taken sides, lamentable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just treat Catalonia like any other geographical location, though I would support considering variations of the title "August 2017 Spain attacks" if this becomes a problem. ^Falling_Gravity 20:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse move to 2017 Catalonia attacks. "Barcelona attack" is used by most media to refer to the most mediatically-relevant event, then they comment on the other events. However, Wikipedia is not a media outlet but an online encyclopedia. Under WP:PRECISION (which is as much of a policy as COMMONNAME), if the article is meant to cover the whole history and not just the main attack at Barcelona which most media focuse at, then "Catalonia attacks" would be more precise, with "Barcelona attack" not precise enough to identify unambiguously the topic (with two of the events – including one of the attacks – even taking place on a whole different province than Barcelona, Tarragona. Some sources, such as the BBC, even use the "Barcelona AND Cambrils attacks" label to refer to the events). Impru20 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This board is a place for discussion about the close, and is not the place to "re-vote" for or against a change. The only issue here is whether the discussion properly weighed the arguments made in the original discussion in determining a consensus in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (relist). WP:SLAP closer for the undeclared NAC, for closing early, for closing a controversial discussion, and for a woefully inadequate closing summary for a strongly contested discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - We must adhere to WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Still no consensus to relist, It also seems that the word 'Catalonia' is annoying a few editors as more than 2 have now suggested 2017 Spain Attacks over 2017 Catalonia Attacks. Catalonia is in Spain - and if one clicks on the Catalonia article it says the same. No one is taking sides here. The Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, Polish, Swedish, Hungarian and French etc wiki articles are correct to title the article '2017 Catalonia Attacks' in their respective languages. They are not taking sides. Reaper7 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We don't need a consensus to relist. We are not currently discussing which is the best title for the article. The question is whether the move should have been executed according to WP:RMCI. The general agreement here is that it should not, for a range of reasons, so IMO there is no question that it should be Overturned.Gaditano23 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is general agreement to overturn? There was more than general agreement to move the article in the first place. Reaper7 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Read my sentence again: There is a general agreement that the move did not follow WP:RMCI. IMO it should be overturned.Gaditano23 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have listed this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia:Move_review.2FLog.2F2017_August. I cannot close this due to WP:INVOLVED. I have closed just about all of the simple discussions which I am able to disposition. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chengguan District, Lhasa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Poorly-attended discussion, closed hastily without consideration of oppose arguments, and without a rationale for the close. A subsequent RM at Talk:Lhasa (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 August 2017 was open two days later and shows overwhelming opposition to this change. Seeking overturn so that "Lhasa" reverts to being the title of the primary topic. No prejudice against splitting the Chengguan District, Lhasa article into a page about the historical city center and another one about the larger district. — JFG ^talk 07:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support overturn. An earlier and well-attended move discussion (28 February - 11 March 2015) concluded as follows:
  • Move User:Aymatth2/Lhasa (prefecture-level city) to Lhasa (prefecture-level city)
  • Merge detailed Lhasa content about the wider geographical area beyond Chengguan, and infobox content about the prefecture-level city, to the new Lhasa (prefecture-level city) article
  • Merge Chengguan District, Lhasa into Lhasa – changing the geographical scope of Lhasa to the Chengguan District

A later move discussion (10-29 July 2015), which included among other things a request for Lhasa → Chengguan District, Lhasa, resulted in no consensus.

Overturning would restore the decision reached in March 2015 after 38 screensful of discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist which of course means return to the status quo ante as well. I don't really fault the close: it was a fair reading of the discussion, but anything involving geographic names that could be construed as controversial (per a previous RM), should have more than just four total participants. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the main issue was insufficient participation in the move debate, I would have normally suggested a relist, but that would duplicate the new ongoing move request at Talk:Lhasa (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 August 2017 so I chose to request overturn. Nevertheless, just as you wrote, I can't fault the closer for anything else than haste; he apologized for "a careless move", and this move review should not be construed as personal criticism in the least. — JFG ^talk 20:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd also be fine with speedy overturn to no consensus because of those considerations. I didn't think about the other ongoing move. Returning this to the status quo ante makes sense. Since Alex Shih seems to be fine with the close being revisited, we might be able to have a speedy close here and just see the results of the other RM. Move reviews take way too long to be closed, and its possible that the RM could conclude before this is done. Like you said, not a criticism of Alex in the least. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Proper close of a poorly coordinated RM, clearly in need of more discussion covering the several related pages. The close was a correct step forward. My impression is that Lhasa_(prefecture-level_city) is the primary topic, with possible article-rescoping on the cards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Narky Blert. I can't fault the closer much, but in English "Lhasa" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the city (roughly corresponding with the Chengguan District, Lhasa borders), not for the province, which is in Chinese confusingly named Lhasa (prefecture-level city), and which article is littered with photos of mountain peaks and wild animals. Consensus forged from several previous, well-attended RMs, ought to take precedence over a under-attended debate short on policy-based arguments. No such user (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist With only three participants and no clear consensus, this should be discussed further. GoldenRing (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Narky Blert, to restore previous solid consensus, which certainly didn't change on the basis of three individuals' comments in this later RM. No need to relist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damn (Kendrick Lamar album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

• Overturn to no consensus. Opposition not strong enough for the discussion to result in a consensus explicitly against a move. feminist 12:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer comment : For more explicit reasoning see my explanation at my talk page: there was no clear consensus for a move. What pushed me at the time from no consensus to move to not moved was how weak the support rationales were: the majority were OTHERSTUFFEXISTS orthats just the way it is, while those opposed actually gave policy-based reasons. When approached about this my first response was that the RM was three months ago: either relisting or executing a move at this time based on that conversation would be inappropriate given there wasn't a clear consensus and that so much time had lapsed. I also didn't feel it really appropriate to go back and change the close from not moved to no consensud to move three months after the fact since the result would be the same. Pinging Feminist above with this explanation. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, since everyone involved has been notified via AWB, I would like to ask that this conversation stay on the topic of the closure and not a rearguing of the RM. I don't mind my close being scrutinized one bit: I stand behind it, but I don't want this MR to be a rehashing of things that should be covered in a fresh RMr rather than in a review of the old one. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing the result to "no consensus" would only affect the wording of the closure, as the page would stay at the current title. I think that's appropriate. feminist 13:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think either not moved or no consensus to move would have both been valid readings of this discussion. After reading again, I still think the support !votes were so weak as to push it to not moved, but that's a judgement call. Ultimately, there was not a consensus to move it at that time, and what the OP wants needs to be discussed in a new RM, which is why I don't really see the point in going back 3 months later and revisiting that close. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Those sources listed hereinabove, chose to follow the album's producers' stylization; but in my experience Wikipedia's custom is to ignore advertisory stylization, and to all-uppercase a name only if that name is an acronym. As regards the fullstop, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules (paragraph starting "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced ..."). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the general rule on trademarks also goes on to say "unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name." We also have Damn! (Jimmy Smith album), so it may be splitting hairs to claim that a fullstop is not pronounced, while an exclamation is. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The example of Damn! (Jimmy Smith album) is just WP:OTHERSTUFF, and it wasn't brought up in the discussion of the RM we're talking about, and it is not the outcome of an RM discussion. It is merely something that exists and has not been challenged. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, this is a bit of a tangent, but while we're looking at other stuff, I noticed that while the official album cover argues for Mad Love., full stop, when she took it on tour, it became the Mad Love Tour. Mad Love. Tour would have been an awkward construction. This implies that the stop is not part of the name, but rather it's post-name punctuation, if not flat-out stylization. wbm1058 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are in a gray area here with regard to the MOS on trademarks. There is no specific mention of periods or stops in the guideline. On one end of the character spectrum we have Unicode such as ♥, ★, and Я specifically mentioned in the guideline, which are not included in the ASCII set nor on standard keyboards. Also using a number such as 7 to replace a normal character (v) is specifically indicated to be stylization, and characters such as < and * are probably also stylization characters by consensus, when they are not properly used for punctuation. On the other end of the spectrum we have the letters a–z which are virtually always considered valid, including intentional misspellings. Mid-spectrum we have punctuation characters such as exclamation and stop where their valid use for punctuation rather than stylization purposes is debatable, and there was indeed some discussion comparing use of the stop versus the exclamation in the RM. The case for stop may not be as strong as the case for exclamation.

• Support original closure as-is: The provided rationale for supporting the proposed move was weak and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and the outcome of many similar RMs (which I extensively surveyed in the discussion). If the question is whether it should have been "not moved" or "no consensus", I don't see a meaningful difference – the resulting name is the same. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, though as others have pointed out, the distinction is moot. There is not a clear policy based consensus against the full-stop; the guideline is fuzzy on the matter, as I've outlined above. There is no clear consensus either that the period is a legitimate part of the name per the trademarks guideline, comparing that modification with a name change from Jackson to Washington is ridiculous. I concur that WP:OTHERSTUFF (an essay that flies in the face of establishing naming conventions by precedent) arguments are weak. So, as I argued in the RM, the guideline on trademarks defers to the policy on common names. Problem is, this review request overlooks the many sources TelegraphGuardian WSJ The Atlantic Complex that do treat the stop as stylization. It has not been indisputably established that the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) includes a period. Sales outlets such as Amazon and iTunes should not be considered independent sources. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those 5 sources aren't considered majority compared to the 17 I listed above. COMMONNAME says the majority of sources should decide the title, if that's not possible then editors should. In the RM, majority of editors did support the move so I don't really understand how is this closure relevant to the consensus since both the policy and consensus support moving the page to include the fullstop, which is part of the title. — TheMagnificentist 09:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with requests for adminship, we're not just looking for a majority, but a significant majority. The ratio is much closer after weeding out lower-quality, less independent sources. wbm1058 (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, AjaxSmack I missed skate. Good catch. So the MOS does specifically address this. Which is what we fall back on when COMMONNAME doesn't give clear guidance. I can endorse the original close. wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the original closure per User:Wbm1058. The close mentioned a "clear policy based consensus" (my emphasis) and WP:MOSTMRULES gives "Skate, not skate." as an example. In the discussion, User:BarrelProof provided an extensive list of previous RMs of other articles that matched this case, where consensus was against a decorative period/fullstop. Decorative embellishments do not fall under WP:COMMONNAME, especially when sources are mixed. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and exclamation marks, ellipses and heavy-metal umlauts have survived similar RMs but there seems to be something more disruptive about a decorative period/fullstop mid-sentence. —  AjaxSmack  17:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original closure per User:Wbm1058 and all others. The period is a stylism. There wasn't support either in sources or editors for the stylism, hence the stable title remained. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This is deadmaus / ~!InTo DaRkNess*~ all over again. Yes, there's a Wikipedia policy that says to omit weird punctuation. There's also COMMONNAME, a Wikipedia policy. They conflict in this case. Closer was incorrect to claim it was a policy-based close, anymore than COMMONNAME radicals using that to make "policy-based" moves in the other direction against a consensus of voters. *Both* sides made policy-based arguments, so both sides votes should be respected, and an impartial weighing of them (17-11!) shows a clear majority in favor of the move. (And, if new accounts / IPs are thrown out, then 15-11 from a quick glance?) If closer doesn't like COMMONNAME, they're free to vote oppose, but closing as no move is close to a supervote with such a huge turnout. SnowFire (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Overturn. As I said in my original vote, I supported the title Damn to be move to Damn., if it's is supported by reliable sources. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote from Endorse to Overturn because I was confused. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The close was in line with the relevant policies on stylization and was correct to point out that few of the support !votes countered the policy points made by opposers. The close was in the spirit of WP:RMCI.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per SnowFire. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus – Closer made an appropriate reading of the debate under the lens of policy. Nevertheless the nosecount of 16/12 including good-faith arguments from both sides should have resulted in an evaluation of "no consensus" rather than "not moved". The closer admitted that much in his longer explanations when challenged. As several reviewers said, the practical result is the same (keep earlier, non-stylized title). Moreover, the article was moved in the meantime to include the artist's name as disambiguator from another "Damn!" album, therefore the whole discussion is moot anyway. — JFG ^talk 20:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if I should put overturn or endorse here, but I support a move to Damn. —mountainhead / ? 18:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse--Excellent judging of consensus.Godric on Leave (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Menorca (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I'm requesting a relisting. The discussion was closed following minimal input despite two previous RMs, one very contentious. It would have been nice to have had the move relisted to allow more input. There was a subsequent aborted follow-up RM with input from other interested editors and more heated discussion. The closer has no objection to this review. Notifying previous participants here. —  AjaxSmack  15:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy relist a low participation RM that wasn't unanimous after several RMs in the past. A courtesy relist upon request should be granted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Even as someone who supported the move, there was no way this should have actually gone through with so little discussion.  ONR  (talk)  08:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. This was an entirely appropriate close based on the discussion and previous ones. The evidence presented showed that the shift toward the "Menorca" spelling has taken place in 21st century sources. As such, things appear to have changed much since the 2013 RM (the 2016 RM included no evidence, so it's not surprising that it failed). The only evidence countering the notion that "Menorca" is more common was from Google Ngram Viewer, which is 9 years out of date at this point. Participation was not high, but the arguments were solid. That said, if closer DrStrauss would not object to relisting to allow for more input, that would be fine (I'm sure they'd have been open to it if they'd been asked), but there is nothing wrong with the close that they made.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain, that's fine by me.  :) DrStrauss talk 17:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - as was noted the ngram is defunct, having stopped working in 2008. All participants in subsequent discussion accept that "Menorca" is the WP:COMMONNAME is current GNews and GBooks by a substantial margin. And this has been demonstrated in search of last 5 years results even by the editor Impru20 in a challenge RM brought on the Talk page. The 2016 RM did include 2016 evidence in the section above which was ignored in favour of a 2008 ngram. Given that American sources appear to have followed UK usage in the period 2010-2015. If anything it is the close of the previous RM which would be the problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as per AjaxSmack, TonyBallioni and ONR; such a move was done on the basis of very little input, when there were previous RMs rejections and one of them in 2013 was much more thoroughly discussed (this being the reason of me moving for a follow-up RM, which while aborted seems to have been successful in attracting attention to the issue). Also to note that I don't support the move, despite editor In ictu oculi's comments on me, and that I'll keep opposing the move in an hypothetically relisted RM. Impru20 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20, come on I clearly said above that you oppose the move. I only said that your own search results ("For GNews, it's 3,900 for Minorca AND island and 11,900 for Menorca AND island." - unquote) support that Menorca is now more current by a substantial margin. Anyway, you will have to demonstrate that it is current now 2017, or at least 2015-2017. Demonstrating what was used 17 years ago in 2000 is not relevant. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, In ictu oculi, this is not the place for such a discussion, so stay on topic. I only mentioned the issue because you mentioned me here (without any need, btw), but I'm not going to reply to you here on this topic. Impru20 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy relist per TonyBallioni – while the close was reasonable, this is a rather important article with a long-contested title, so a wider consensus would be preferred. No such user (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. This is kind of an anti-pattern of Wikipedia, where you have to keep voting the same way over & over. I'd voted oppose in the past RMs, and a scanty turnout RM when the previous RMs had failed should not have caused a move. As per pervious RMs, it is not under dispute that many sources do use the Spanish term, so sprinkling a few of them in the move proposal isn't really strong evidence usage has changed, just as sprinkling random modern uses of Minorca isn't convincing evidence that terminology hasn't changed. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @AjaxSmack: not sure why things have stalled. If you do go for a relist please do not present that 2008 ngram. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (relist). With the benefit of hindsight, the subsequent development demonstrates that the close was an inappropriate NAC. Reviewing, with hindsight, the close was a premature and faulty calling of a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus: No, there was no consesus, and no reason for moving the article.

Clearly the term "barcelona attack" has been much more widely accepted as Barcelona was the focus of the attack. There was one planned attack executed in Barcelona. Other events were clearly unplanned and unorganized accidents/incidents loosely related to the attack.
Google search: "barcelona attack" produces about 53,300,000 results
Google search: "catalonia attacks" produces about 621,000 results --172.97.237.164 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]