Misplaced Pages

:Move review/Log/2019 March: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Move review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:35, 26 March 2019 editStraussInTheHouse (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,921 edits →Hearts (disambiguation): e← Previous edit Revision as of 01:17, 27 March 2019 edit undoAndrewa (talk | contribs)Administrators61,996 edits Patrick Moore (consultant)Tag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:move review list|page=<PAGE NAME>|rm_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|rm_section=<SECTION>|reason=<REASON>}}~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~ --> Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:move review list|page=<PAGE NAME>|rm_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|rm_section=<SECTION>|reason=<REASON>}}~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~ -->



====]====
:{{move review links|Patrick Moore (consultant)|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Patrick Moore (consultant)}}|rm_section=Requested move 3 March 2019}} (])
Closure was by an involved user with no previous experience in closing RMs, and the assessment of consensus was complex. Consensus had not been reached but was perhaps achievable with further discussion. Many of the !votes counted by closer were arguably discardable under the closing instructions, reflecting only the !voter's personal opinion of what ''environmentalist'' should mean. Disclosed meatpuppetry on one side. A real doozey! I am also involved, on the ''oppose'' side (but was considering raising an alternative proposal); Closer is as I said involved on the ''support'' side. ] (]) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 01:17, 27 March 2019

< 2019 February Move review archives 2019 April >

2019 March

Patrick Moore (consultant)

Patrick Moore (consultant) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closure was by an involved user with no previous experience in closing RMs, and the assessment of consensus was complex. Consensus had not been reached but was perhaps achievable with further discussion. Many of the !votes counted by closer were arguably discardable under the closing instructions, reflecting only the !voter's personal opinion of what environmentalist should mean. Disclosed meatpuppetry on one side. A real doozey! I am also involved, on the oppose side (but was considering raising an alternative proposal); Closer is as I said involved on the support side. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hearts (disambiguation)

Hearts (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

JHunterJ closed this RM stating accurately that there was no clear consensus whether to move the hearts disambiguation page to the base name. Contrary to this, he still closed by moving the DAB to base. He then opened a 2nd RM proposing several alternatives, including moving the DAB back where it came from. This close seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE expressing his preference that the DAB be at the base name, despite no consensus shown for that. This move has now created a new "status quo" in relation to the 2nd RM where, if no consensus develops, the DAB will remain at base (defaulting to JHunterJ's preference). The proper handling of this close, per WP:THREEOUTCOMES was to leave the DAB where it was at Hearts (disambiguation) since no consensus developed. This would have allowed other processes, like WP:Redirects for discussion to determine the final fate of the leftover, postmove redirect at Hearts or a 2nd RM to move Hearts (disambiguation) to base (with the proper status quo not being an issue). -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I guess it would have been too much to expect Netoholic to present this neutrally after hearing my answers when they asked on my page, but: I partially settled and partially relisted the RM based on the discussion there and Misplaced Pages policies (which include WP:PRECISION) and guidelines (which include WP:MALPLACED). The other option to the partial relisting was just to move the dab to the base name since there was no consensus on a primary topic (after the previous RM determined that the card game wasn't primary). Which would have resulted in the same arrangement only without my opening the new RM. There was no WP:SUPERVOTE, and actually reading my preference will show that it is for not merging the dabs, and has no preference for whether the primary topic for "hearts" is Heart or nothing (landing on the disambiguation page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:RMCI does not require a closer to resolve all leftover concerns like WP:PRECISION or WP:MALPLACED, for good reason. You as the closer have attempted to resolve PRECISION/MALPLACED problems as you see them and initiated a solution based on your preference. These issues, if they exist and need handling, can be done by other processes and other editors. Your job as closer is only to apply the instructions of WP:RMCI and WP:THREEOUTCOMES specifically to the page moves. If that makes something weird for a little while, that's fine. Calling this a "partial relisting" to try to justify implementing your preference is disingenuous and misleading. -- Netoholic @ 19:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Calling this disingenuous and misleading because it doesn't fit your preference is contrary to WP:AGF. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS explicitly counters individual discussions (such as that RM) from contravening policy (such as WP:PRECISION), so I opted to follow policy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
      • WP:PRECISION or WP:MALPLACED are just procedural, the lack of a primary topic meant the DAB goes at the base name, if you still think the organ is primary you should argue that at the RM, not here. And JHJ clearly didn't implement his preference but rather the setup in accordance with established practices. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Please link to any part of WP:RMCI or any other "established practices" that says a RM closer must resolve any of this immediately themselves. I am not here to debate relative merits of any handling, just asking the closer to be consistent and not move a page when he states there was no consensus to move it, which goes against WP:THREEOUTCOMES. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse There was clearly no consensus for either the organ, card game or suit to the primary so per WP:THREEOUTCOMES this was the best outcome, redirecting "Hearts" to Hearts (disambiguation) or Hearts (card game) would have violated WP:DABNAME/WP:MALPLACED and WP:PRECISION. And as pointed out at the new RM, RM is a better venue than RFD. Where there is no consensus for multiple topics to be primary the obvious outcome is no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> Unusual outcome; however, not the oddest I've seen. See where the nom is coming from and must empathize. Yet, the "partial relisting" new RM seems to help address those concerns. So let's put this to sleep and see what dreams the next REM stage induces. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    20:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse: I made the exact same call but edit conflicted. I don't see evidence of a supervote, and post-move cleanup should be discussed within the RMs e.g. support move and convert X to disambiguation. The consensus for the moves was correctly determined, so move review isn't the place. SITH (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sinhalese language (closed)

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

User:Xain36 did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because all evidence in favour of the move was ignored and the decision was based solely on a single disputed piece of information in closing this requested move discussion. Danielklein (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Overturn - it was split, with a !vote count of 2-2, with not enough discussion of the language used in sources. This should either be reopened to allow broader discussion (it wasn't relisted a single time) or, less preferable, changed to no consensus, since a 2-2 split is just as far from consensus in favor as consensus against. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist – this could use more discussion. At best that should have been a "no consensus" close. Bradv🍁 14:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist. Won't hurt to let this discussion go a bit longer to see what other evidence may unfold. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    07:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn/relist. Per the above but also per the discussion with the closer which strongly suggests this was a super vote. There was no kind of consensus in this discussion and it’s disturbing to seea closer claim otherwise. —В²C ☎ 07:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn. WP:BADNAC. The closer is woefully too inexperienced to be closing contested discussions for the community to trust the depth of the skill and judgement. Probably, the discussion was headed for "no consensus", but it couldnot have been called a "consensus to move" and I don't think it can get there now, with this interruption. I think it should be left closed for a couple months after the close of this MRV discussion, before allowing a fresh nomination. The "previous consensus" referenced in the RM nomination was Talk:Sinhalese_language#Requested_move, dated June 2009 was a very weak "consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Resist. Linguistics expert here. This could use some more discussion of course. But regardless of whether the closer was new or not, I agree that Sinhala is a better name, while Sinhalese is somewhat more archaic. Glottolog uses Sinhala, and so does Ethnologue. I've been dealt with language article renaming for years. This article should best be renamed as Sinhala language. However, this needs further discussion on the article talk page in order to prevent edit wars and disagreements. We need mutual community agreement first before moving. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Stevey7788, reminder: your input is appreciated, but MR is not the place to continue the RM discussion - it's to evaluate the closer's reading of the RM discussion. --В²C ☎ 22:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I am aware that MR is not the place to go into in-depth discussions about such issues, which is why I've kept it sweet and short. RM has been closed. Will start a new section on the article talk page. I am simply letting Danielklein know my position about this issue and have discussed this further with him on user talk pages. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Module:Adjacent stations/sandbox

Module:Adjacent stations/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

StraussInTheHouse did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move discussion. There were more users who supported the move than those who opposed, and based on WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, what matters is the strength of arguments. Only one argument was given by the opposition which was not elaborated even when asked. Arguments for the move were not addressed either. Ythlev (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. Higher up on the talk page a rename of the basepagename was discussed briefly, and the nom stated that they would request a rename to Module:Rail; however, evidently that never happened. Were I to initiate a requested move of just a /doc and a /sandbox page and not the basepagename, I would expect the request to fail. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    12:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It was already stated earlier on the talk page that the new code was going be at Module:Rail, then for each template that was tested to be OK, invoke Module:Rail. If this approach was somehow inappropriate, it should have been brought up. This is a move review, where we review the contents of the closed discussion, not bring up new points. Ythlev (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's true, which makes me wonder why in the three weeks (3 times normal) your RM lasted, no one brought it up. So again I ask, whether it is or isn't allowed, why did you not include the basepagename, Module:Adjacent stations → Module:Rail, in your formal RM??? Paine Ellsworth, ed.    17:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Allow me to explain why I am confused by all this. I don't understand why you would just request to rename the subpages. The main controversy when renaming a module lies in the fact that a redirect cannot be left behind after the move, so every page that is implemented by that module must be changed to reflect the new module name. That's quite a big job with a module that's transcluded to nearly 39,000 pages! Putting that aside for the moment, the fact remains that if a module is renamed, then the subpages are renamed along with it, so there really is no need to request the renaming of the subpages – the important move is of the module itself, isn't it? Paine Ellsworth, ed.    18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I should mention that it is clear to me that you wanted to restructure Module:Adjacent stations and place the redone code under the Module:Rail pagename, then leave Module:Adjacent stations in place while the new code's implementations are tested. And I suppose you thought that before you do all that, you should do a formal RM on the subpages to "test the editorial waters" so to speak? If that's the case, then I applaud what you did, and I think you have your answer. At this point in time, the status quo should remain in place just as it is. So further informal discussion seems to be needed, and there should be better ways to test the new code than on live transclusions. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    18:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

First of all, the RM just lasted for 8 hours, obviously not enough for others to express their opinion. Next, the closer also vote on this RM, possibly violate WP:RMNAC, and (s)he doesn't marked as {{RMnac}} as well. --219.79.126.220 (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Remind the closer of the proper way to do NACs, but it is very hard to get excited about a close running at 7-0 that could have been a bold move at the start. Is there any objection of substance? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC). I.e why not treat this as an uncontested uncontroversial bold move? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Would you endorse it had all the participants opposed the move and it had been closed as "not moved" after only eight hours? When RMs are opened, they need to stay open for 7 days for a reason, and this close also raises the question of potential COI concerns. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    19:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Unanimous agreement means everyone, including the nominator. —SmokeyJoe (talk)
That's a small peripheral concern compared with the fact that the closer was one of those unanimous !votes, which raises COI concerns. There is no way this close should be endorsed, because there is no way of telling if the unanimity would have continued had the RM stayed open for at least the minimum time period. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    20:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Endorse as a de facto non-controversial bold move. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
If it's so "non-controversial", then why are there three editors here at MRV who do not endorse? That's not to construe that they would oppose the page move; however, so far we're pretty split as to whether or not endorsation of the close is appropriate. You have a crystal ball that makes you certain that opposition would not have developed given more time? Paine Ellsworth, ed.    03:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It bemuses me. There remains not a single substantive objection to the move.
Actually, looking closer, this was a 8-0 unanimous agreement to revert the undiscussed move.

23:46, 24 February 2019 Levalbert (talk | contribs) moved page 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit to 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit Viet Nam (move to official name of the summit)

Levalbert (talk · contribs) should be expect to make a post in support of is bold move, but he hasn't.
No, it was not a techincally correct NAC close, but the page should stay at 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit, and there should be no new RM mandated from MRV given the complete lack of argument for a move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
That editor doesn't comment on talkpages, they just move them:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. The result was obvious and a reasonable application of WP:SNOW; we don't overturn RMs for minor procedural issues. Iffy★Chat -- 14:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No endorsing, though not recommending overturning the close either. There are some anomalies in the close and they should, at the very least, be acknowledged. The closer was clearly involved user, closing the discussion they participated/supported and even more, doing so just after 8 hours for a process that normally runs for 7 days. I don't agree the initial influx of supporters justify the premature close, that it might well dramatically shift the other way round had the discussion been left open longer is not uncommon. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist. I agree that this is not a proper closing, and some more inputs should be there if the RM lasted for longer time. 8 hours is really short, and unacceptable for me. --B dash (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. It seems like a reasonable application of WP:SNOW given the circumstances. The nomination also looks non-controversial to me, so it probably didn't need to go through the formal process anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and allow at least the customary 7 days. 8 hours is unacceptable, no discussion with closer is unacceptable, involved editor as closer is unacceptable, whole thing is... you guessed it... unacceptable. Even relisting is not really an option, and endorsement of such a closure that strains the belief system is unconscionable to me. So speedy reopen and give it more time, like 21 times more time, at least! Paine Ellsworth, ed.    22:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    Endorsers are correct, so I guess I'm outvoted and outwisdomed. Paine Ellsworth, ed.    00:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Yes, the closure was out of process. But at the end of the day, the former title fails WP:CRITERIA, so I see no need to reopen the discussion per WP:NOTBURO. Calidum 03:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. This was the quintessential reverse WP:SNOW situation — the proposal did not have a snowball’s chance in hell of not passing. The call to end the process early was the right one. Why burden RM with discussions about non-controversial proposals? That said, the closer deserves a
{{trout}}
whack for closing a discussion in which they were involved. But then the IP who open this MRV deserves one too, for not discussing with the closer first. —В²C ☎ 16:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category: