| Revision as of 16:37, 18 March 2014 editDpmuk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,211 edits →Common Gull: Closing as endorsed← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:36, 18 March 2014 edit undoBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Period 1 element: response from closer: this move review is blatantly dishonestNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| In short, the proposal has these steps: 1. ], 2. ] policy check, 3. ] check. Re 1: The scientific name is "period 1" &tc. No one in all contested this. Re 2. Good as a title? The three opponents argued from the perception of 'title is not clear ''to me''', which is understandable but not part of title policy at all. Also, no solution was given for the linguistical deviation: 'Team A' is not the same as 'Team A member(s)'. Re 3. Is disambiguation needed (conflicting titles ahead)? No. So from policy reasons, undisputed, the Move is sound. I conclude to '''Overturn close and move''' to proposed titles. ] (]) 16:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) <small>(minor edit ] (]) 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC))</small> | In short, the proposal has these steps: 1. ], 2. ] policy check, 3. ] check. Re 1: The scientific name is "period 1" &tc. No one in all contested this. Re 2. Good as a title? The three opponents argued from the perception of 'title is not clear ''to me''', which is understandable but not part of title policy at all. Also, no solution was given for the linguistical deviation: 'Team A' is not the same as 'Team A member(s)'. Re 3. Is disambiguation needed (conflicting titles ahead)? No. So from policy reasons, undisputed, the Move is sound. I conclude to '''Overturn close and move''' to proposed titles. ] (]) 16:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) <small>(minor edit ] (]) 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC))</small> | ||
| *'''Response from closer'''. This move request was based on the proposition that scientific usage does not include the word element. The opposition to it was based on a concern that removing the word "element" made the titles less recognisable. | |||
| :Both those arguments are valid points per ]; recognisability is a central concept of the guideline. It says at the top: ''This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.'' | |||
| :Since both arguments were founded in policy, this was a case where editorial judgement would weigh the options. The nominator suggested at one point that since the common name is "period x", any disambiguation should be done by adding a parentheseised disambiguator "period x (element)". That point was specifically contested with the argument that "parenthetical disambiguation is the least preferred", which is also founded in ]'s stress on the merits of naturalness. | |||
| :Since all arguments were well-founded in policy, my job as closer was to count the support for the different options. That task was complicated by the fact that the nominator had not structured the nomination properly. Instead of the conventional process of a discussion raking place on the talk page of the first listed article, the nominator instead used that talk page to direct editors to ]. That would have been fine if editors had followed it, but some of them didn't. Presumably there were used to the discussion taking place immediately below the RM notice on the article talk page which is linked to from ]. | |||
| :The result was that the discussion was split between two sections. This was not the nominator's ''intention'', but it was an unsurprising ''effect'' of a malformed nomination. Any such discussion is contaminated, because editors participating in either location cannot be assumed to have seen al the relevant arguments. In closing any such debate as anything other maintaining the status quo, the closer would have to be very sure that the procedural failings had not impeded a clear consensus. | |||
| :In this case, there was a clear consensus at both locations in favour of the status quo. So no matter which way I looked at this proposal, it had failed. No particularly strong policy-based arguments to favour one side over the other, and at both locations, more editors favoured the status quo. | |||
| :Unfortunately, the nominator appears unwilling to accept two simple facts about this discussion: a) that the nom's procedural error impeded the discussion; b) that whichever way it is weighed, more editors opposed the proposal than supported it. The nom's ] was verbose, wikilawyering, and somewhat silly -- because De Piep asked me to actually "do move" the pages despite the extent of opposition. | |||
| :Having because I felt that I was being badgered into altering my close into one unspported by the discussion, the nominator then tried . I . | |||
| :This review request is yet more wikilawyering. I won't waste time replying to all of it, but I will take two points. | |||
| :'''Falsehood #1.''' DePiep claims that I stated that ''even a "deliberate excercise in disruption" would not matter . That is opening the door to gaming the system.' | |||
| :This is not just distortion of what I wrote; it is a blatant inversion of my point that any procedural flaw, whether in good faith or bad, impedes consensus-formation. What I wrote | |||
| <div style="font-style:italic; size:90%"> | |||
| :::] is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages; it is the basis of how we make decisions. A discussion split over two locations is no more appropriate for reaching a consensus than a face-to-face discussion which is happening in two separate rooms.<br />I am not interested in ''how'' the discussion came to be split. It may have been a good faith decision on how to structure the discussion, a mistake by editor(s) who intended to do something else, a misuderstanding of the intentions of the nominator, or a deliberate exercise in disruption. I assumed that it was a good faith error or errors, but the tenor of Feline1's post above tempts me to revise that view.<br />What matters to me as a closer is that the discussion ''was'' split. That means that there was not a coherent discussion, so it cannot be assessed as a consensus to move. | |||
| </div> | |||
| :'''Falsehood #2.''' DePiep asserts above that ''"The RM page has a 2:1 vote count in favor of Move"''. Again, that is simply untrue. At ], the move was opposed by ] and ], and supported by nobody except the nominator. | |||
| :Any editor has the right to request a move review. But in this case, I really do wonder why DePiep bothers to make such a blatantly dishonest request for review. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====] (closed)==== | ====] (closed)==== | ||
Revision as of 17:36, 18 March 2014
| < 2014 February | Move review archives | 2014 April > |
|---|
2014 March
Period 1 element
I nominated 9 pages for a move on the WikiProject Elements talkpage. On the talkpage of the first page of the list, an RM notice with link was placed: Talk:Period_1_element#Requested move. {{requested move}} containing a linked notice was subst'ed and bot-processed. So a difference with MR standard procedure was, that nomination and notification had swapped pages. Then editors posted contributions below the notification too, thereby opening a second thread.
USer:BrownHairedGirl closed the MR with this whole rationale (ref notes like added by DePiep):
- The result of the move request was: not moved. This proposal was a procedural disaster, because instead of listing a properly-formatted RM per Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves, the nominator split the discussion over two separate pages. The proposal was rejected on both pages, so the outcome is clear. RM page2nd thread
After the closing I asked the closer to clarify and correct, in two posts. With their second reply, the closer also closed that talkpage discussion. Below I'll describe the issues from the closing ratio, expanded where needed with pointing to the ensuing talkpage talks. From User talk:BrownHairedGirl: DePiep, talk1 BrownHairedGirl, reply1 DePiep, talk2 BrownHairedGirl, reply2+closing.
A hiccup away from the full procedure indeed, but not a disaster. Proposal and notification were simply swapped. No 'formatting' problems seen. Prescribed template {{requested move}} was subst'ed and then processed by the bot, so it listed correctly. A "disaster"? Misplaced Pages did not break down, and any closer could have easily overseen the situation. Starting a discussion at a project talkpage is not out of order. Now the closer can add a little dramatic wording, but in the light of other statements (more below) this 'disaster' conclusion might be unreasonably strong. It may also have prevented a more appropriate action.
No, it was not the nominator who split the discussion. Someone else started a thread below the notification. This erroneous statement was made while closing, and sustained in subsequent talks. Later the closer may state that "I am not interested in how" but as a fact of error it stands. (Really not interested? For sure they did write it in a small closing reasoning, which proves that it was part of it. And in the replies, BrownHairedGirl shows they still do not see the cause of the split while it is visible at first glance), Then, by seeing it this way the nominator prevented themselves from taking a more appropriate action like procedural correction. I also note that, had the procedure been followed exactly to the letter, the same issue could have arisen (editors contributing below a notification). Anyway, this lack of overview by the closer awarded wrong postings (good faith postings in the wrong place), when writing that a even "deliberate excercise in disruption" would not matter . That is opening the door to gaming the system. Also, in the nomination and near the end of the discussion, I explicitly pointed to procedural options. The closer did not take heed or respond to these suggestions.
"was rejected on both pages" No. The RM page has a 2:1 vote count in favor of Move. When one resorts to !vote counting, at least the counting should be correct. This may be an undecisive detail, but the factual error is there. Afterwards BrownHairedGirl motivated one dismissal in : "That lone supporter chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it". Throwing out an argument because of not formatting as a !vote? By which right? The editor of this dismissed argument responded (feline1: ).
Actually, the dismissed argument did contain substance, which cannot be said of a 'me too' rejection post . The 'me too' was kept in all countings without further qualification.
Then BrownHairedGirl wrote "3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference" (to reject) . Here too and again, BrownHairedGirl does not count the nominator. The count is: 3:2 (or 3 out of 5) !voted rejection. So, to maintain that on that page the proposal was "rejected", BrownHairedGirl had to eliminate two contributions including the nomination. This is written in the second talk reply after closing, so it is entrenched not a mistake. !vote counting is explicitly disapproved in WP:RMCI. But when one does count, at least the numbers must be added right.
"so the outcome is clear" - Eh no. Apart from the explicitly wrong voting count proven above, the argumentation also does not support rejection of the proposal. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS simply says: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Closer did not put any argument to the test. These points were addressed on the usertalk page, but not convincingly addressed or even clarified. As said, with their second reply BrownHairedGirl declared the talkpage discussion(s) closed .
Seeing the failed basic argument reading and counting, I find no solace in BrownHairedGirl's defense that we editors are "complaining to the messenger", and instead should be "learning how to make consensus-forming discussions work properly" . Recently I read this 2nd take, which still did not enlighten me into the reasoning. Nor did I see any spirit of RMCI reflected by the closer.
Concluding. As demonstrated, the statements about the discussion were wrong. Although in itself such an error may be irrelevant, the fact of the errors says that the conclusion was based on wrong reasoning. No stable argument for non-RMCI !vote counting has been brought forward, while arguments present have not been weighed. This merits overturning the close.
That brings us to the procedural issue: once MR is reopened for MRV review, is there a relisting or other procedural correction needed? To be 100% formal, maybe yes. But in my opinion, the content of the discussion already leads to an outcome. That outcome is present on both pages, both separately and taken together.
In short, the proposal has these steps: 1. Scientific name, 2. WP title policy check, 3. Disambiguation check. Re 1: The scientific name is "period 1" &tc. No one in all contested this. Re 2. Good as a title? The three opponents argued from the perception of 'title is not clear to me', which is understandable but not part of title policy at all. Also, no solution was given for the linguistical deviation: 'Team A' is not the same as 'Team A member(s)'. Re 3. Is disambiguation needed (conflicting titles ahead)? No. So from policy reasons, undisputed, the Move is sound. I conclude to Overturn close and move to proposed titles. DePiep (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (minor edit DePiep (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC))
- Response from closer. This move request was based on the proposition that scientific usage does not include the word element. The opposition to it was based on a concern that removing the word "element" made the titles less recognisable.
- Both those arguments are valid points per WP:AT; recognisability is a central concept of the guideline. It says at the top: This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.
- Since both arguments were founded in policy, this was a case where editorial judgement would weigh the options. The nominator suggested at one point that since the common name is "period x", any disambiguation should be done by adding a parentheseised disambiguator "period x (element)". That point was specifically contested with the argument that "parenthetical disambiguation is the least preferred", which is also founded in WP:AT's stress on the merits of naturalness.
- Since all arguments were well-founded in policy, my job as closer was to count the support for the different options. That task was complicated by the fact that the nominator had not structured the nomination properly. Instead of the conventional process of a discussion raking place on the talk page of the first listed article, the nominator instead used that talk page to direct editors to WT:ELEMENTS. That would have been fine if editors had followed it, but some of them didn't. Presumably there were used to the discussion taking place immediately below the RM notice on the article talk page which is linked to from WP:RM.
- The result was that the discussion was split between two sections. This was not the nominator's intention, but it was an unsurprising effect of a malformed nomination. Any such discussion is contaminated, because editors participating in either location cannot be assumed to have seen al the relevant arguments. In closing any such debate as anything other maintaining the status quo, the closer would have to be very sure that the procedural failings had not impeded a clear consensus.
- In this case, there was a clear consensus at both locations in favour of the status quo. So no matter which way I looked at this proposal, it had failed. No particularly strong policy-based arguments to favour one side over the other, and at both locations, more editors favoured the status quo.
- Unfortunately, the nominator appears unwilling to accept two simple facts about this discussion: a) that the nom's procedural error impeded the discussion; b) that whichever way it is weighed, more editors opposed the proposal than supported it. The nom's approach to me on my talk page was verbose, wikilawyering, and somewhat silly -- because De Piep asked me to actually "do move" the pages despite the extent of opposition.
- Having closed the discusion on my talk because I felt that I was being badgered into altering my close into one unspported by the discussion, the nominator then tried having another go at me. I reverted that.
- This review request is yet more wikilawyering. I won't waste time replying to all of it, but I will take two points.
- Falsehood #1. DePiep claims that I stated that even a "deliberate excercise in disruption" would not matter . That is opening the door to gaming the system.'
- This is not just distortion of what I wrote; it is a blatant inversion of my point that any procedural flaw, whether in good faith or bad, impedes consensus-formation. What I wrote
- WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages; it is the basis of how we make decisions. A discussion split over two locations is no more appropriate for reaching a consensus than a face-to-face discussion which is happening in two separate rooms.
I am not interested in how the discussion came to be split. It may have been a good faith decision on how to structure the discussion, a mistake by editor(s) who intended to do something else, a misuderstanding of the intentions of the nominator, or a deliberate exercise in disruption. I assumed that it was a good faith error or errors, but the tenor of Feline1's post above tempts me to revise that view.
What matters to me as a closer is that the discussion was split. That means that there was not a coherent discussion, so it cannot be assessed as a consensus to move.
- WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages; it is the basis of how we make decisions. A discussion split over two locations is no more appropriate for reaching a consensus than a face-to-face discussion which is happening in two separate rooms.
- Falsehood #2. DePiep asserts above that "The RM page has a 2:1 vote count in favor of Move". Again, that is simply untrue. At Talk:Period 1 element#Requested_move, the move was opposed by User:SmokeyJoe and User:Xoloz, and supported by nobody except the nominator.
- Any editor has the right to request a move review. But in this case, I really do wonder why DePiep bothers to make such a blatantly dishonest request for review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Common Gull (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
| ====
Wikiproject Birds has adopted the IOC nomenclature as its naming convention. The IOC name for this species is Mew Gull. Personally I do prefer Common Gull, but we are trying to streamline bird names where there are issues. Under Misplaced Pages:COMMONNAME - one is the common name in America, the other is the common name in Europe, hence both could apply. The IOC gives more weight to one name. Funnily enough, a quip among birders is that the name should be uncommon gull as it is by no means the most abundant species....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
List written with the aid of a script. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because: 1) closer counted supporting and opposing votes incorrectly and 2) closer based the decision on the (incorrect) numbers rather on Misplaced Pages Titling Policy in closing this requested move prematurely. There was a lack of consensus for the recent unilateral move to a new, irrelevant name by an interested party. Therefore, the closer should have reverted the page title to the longtime title while discussion continues. Thank you for considering this review.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |