Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 22 January 2024

2024 January

TNA Wrestling

TNA Wrestling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Bit of a weird one, this, as the decision to move the page away from Impact Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was undoubtedly correct – I don't see a single person in opposition to the move – but nearly everybody in the discussion preferred Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to TNA Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The closer is strangely reticent to revisit the closure and has suggested another RM, but I think MRV is the better venue for this. Sceptre (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Mostly uninvolved) The closure is a bit funny because it was originally "looks like a clear consensus to move the page to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling", but then Amakuru argued that the more common title would be TNA Wrestling, whereupon the closer changed it to "looks like a clear consensus to move the page to TNA Wrestling". I would have rewritten the rest of the closing statement to explain that change.

...That being said, I don't really see a good reason given in the discussion for choosing the long name. This should be governed by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACROTITLE, under which this seems the correct outcome. The only reason I see given is that NFL, MLB, and so forth are spelled out, as though the proposed title had been TNA (which would be ambiguous and not currently a primary topic) rather than TNA Wrestling (unambiguous, concise, common). SilverLocust 💬 06:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). The closer initially closed in favor of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, went to WP:RM/TR to have the move executed, got challenged by one editor (Special:Permalink/1195865077), and changed the closure to TNA Wrestling. The resulting closure gives conclusive weight to the one editor's views, which (while perfectly fair arguments to make) were not even part of the RM, and which participants had no opportunity to respond to at the RM. This was improper. (A "super proxy vote", I say in jest – I'm sure that's not what either the challenger or closer intended.) The overwhelming agreement of participants was to move to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. The closer did not have discretion (unlike WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE, which requires no consensus) to choose otherwise. New arguments can be made afterward at a new RM. The closure now should be overturned. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Addendum: Let me be clear – the consensus of an RM discussion is determined by the arguments and evidence made in the discussion. It is not determined by arguments newly made in comments on another page (WP:RM/TR) that RM participants had no notice of or opportunity to respond to, nor by arguments newly made by the closer, nor by any other arguments newly made after the fact. Unfortunately this MRV is continuing to descend into litigating such arguments.If you ever come across an RM, and you think there are great points about evidence and policies that no one there has made yet, then your role is to get involved and make those points, and let the next people who arrive weigh their strength. If you think those great points and WP:NOTAVOTE are license to just shut down the RM, you are thinking the same way every supervoter ever has. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Initially, the closure leaned towards "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling," but it was subsequently adjusted to "TNA Wrestling" based on arguments by Amakuru, emphasizing the commonality of the name across related pages such as TNA+, TNA X Division Championship, TNA World Championship, TNA Impact!, TNA World Tag Team Championship, TNA Knockouts World Championship.

Considering the points raised by Amakuru, it became evident that "TNA Wrestling" is the more commonly used and recognized name, aligning with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. It's essential to ensure consistency across related pages, and the prevalence of "TNA Wrestling" in the broader context supports its adoption for the main page.

acknowledge the concerns raised by SilverLocust regarding the RM close and the perceived lack of a strong rationale for choosing the longer name. However, the decision to prioritize "TNA Wrestling" over "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" is grounded in the understanding that it better aligns with Misplaced Pages's guidelines on common names and title conventions.

While I understand the call for an overturn based on the initial consensus for "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling," it's crucial to uphold the principles of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACROTITLE in determining the most appropriate title. Any further discussions or reconsideration can certainly take place in the appropriate venue, but the current closure aims to maintain consistency and reflect the widely recognized name for the subject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony 07:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That argument makes absolutely no sense, as by that logic, the article for Ring of Honor should then actually be titled ROH, as that's the common branding most wrestling news sites use to refer to Ring of Honor. And, as it's been pointed out, that also means the articles for NFL, MLB, NBA, & any other organization that utilizes abbreviations for its common branding SHOULD then be titled using their common brandings (the abbreviation), as that's how most people would refer to those sports leagues & other organizations. I mean, there's a reason the article for Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, before the name change to Impact Wrestling, was titled Total Nonstop Action Wrestling instead of TNA or even TNA Wrestling, because, unless the company uses as its main branding an abbreviation, the article should be titled according to the brand's full name.

And as I even pointed out on the talk pages for both Amakuru & ZI Jony when oknazevad "approached" them about the improper article name move, there IS a Misplaced Pages policy that states it is possible, sometimes even necessary, to ignore Misplaced Pages's own policy/guidelines when adhering to them prevents an editor from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, and that is WP:IGNORE.

So, I would submit that the editor who moved the article from Impact Wrestling to TNA Wrestling over what seemed to be the majority community consensus of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling acted improperly by overriding/defying what seemed to be the will of the community consensus concerning the name of the article. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It does make sense. Note that TNA wrestling is not an acronym, whereas ROH is. Since there is ambiguity about the title ROH it is made into a disambiguation page. TNA wrestling is already an unambiguous title, hence there is no policy reason to expand, we go for the WP:COMMONNAME. Polyamorph (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would argue it's part acronym & part something else (not sure what, though).

And, as far as arguing COMMONNAME, by that logic, you're arguing the articles for NFL, MLB, NBA, and any other organization that's COMMONLY-KNOWN by an acronym SHOULD then have their articles retitled with that acronym.

Either you apply your chosen standard CORRECTLY (as in consistently), or don't bother advocating it at all. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse or relist. (involved in the post-close process) - as others have mentioned, I raised a concern with the initial close when it was requested at RM/TR, that the proposed name Total Nonstop Action Wrestling was not the best title according to WP:COMMONNAME. Sources overwhelmingly refer to it simply as TNA Wrestling, including most mentions on the org's own website. I pointed this out to the closer, and they concurred with that argument and amended the closer accordingly. The close is now not necessarily in line with the way the !votes lay, but that's compliant with the WP:NOTAVOTE convention, which states that WP:CONSENSUS on WP is determined through arguments and evidence, not through head counting. Given that the initial proposal on the RM was for TNA Wrestling, and it's clear that's the commonly-used name, it wasn't at all unreasonable for ZI Jony to close that way, and I'd recommend we stick with that. Failing that, if people feel there's too much of a mess here, then a relist might be in order. There's no case for moving to the fully spelled-out title without further discussion though.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Except it turned out, much as oknazevad even pointed out to you, that the editor who started the RM to change from Impact Wrestling to TNA Wrestling did eventually change their vote to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, and in going with TNA Wrestling instead, it would seem you ignored that change of vote for the article's name. And, honestly, it makes it even more irritating that you now justify your improper action based off the RM initiator's original decision instead of what they ended up changing it to. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

1) comments at these discussions are not votes. 2) policy overrules any local consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

1) I would point you to WP:RMCOMMENT. 2) As I pointed out in the other thread above, I believe WP:IGNORE applies to the end result of the requested move for the article for Impact Wrestling. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• With respect, I think that your action at RM/TR were improper (though not so bad as to require anything more than a WP:TROUT). ZI Jony had every right to close the discussion in such a way that required administrator intervention for technical reasons (i.e. the dreaded indef move protection). We have a process to question RM closures, and I do not believe RM/TR#AN is meant to be part of it. As Adumbrativus says, it feels like a "super proxy vote"; I'm going to create a thread at WT:RM later today to ask if it's proper to use RM/TR in this way. Sceptre (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it was particularly improper... phase 1 of questioning a close is to discuss it with the closer, and that's what my RM/TR comment was doing. There isn't an obligation to have such a discussion at the user's own talk page. I probably expected the closer to relist the discussion, given that the policy issues I'd raised didn't match with the way the discussion evolved, but they decided instead to simply amend their close to reflect the policy situation and also the way the RM was initially proposed. That part of the process was not my decision, but I'm not unhappy about it, because either way the correct result for our readers has been achieved and WP:COMMONNAME is now being followed correctly. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  RM/TR is a venue to ask admins to do technical work which a non-admin cannot. Once a closer has made a decision, then it ideally should be respected unless there is an objective reason to not do so. If you want to question the result, then go through the talk-to-review process; the mop doesn't give you special powers to effectively overturn a close in this regard. Sceptre (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  There seems to be a misconception here. Admins and page movers are under no obligation to unilaterally move pages at RM/TR. Since this move goes against policy, Amakuru was right to question it. Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, the "administrators needed" section of RMTR does – at least in spirit – carry an obligation to effect the outcome of a good-faith closure. Amakuru's actions were out-of-process; if he had opinions about the proper target, he should've contributed at the RM beforehand; if he had issues with the close, he should've brought it up on Jony's talk. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Incorrect. Amakuru first commented at the RM/TR entry that the discussion hadn't been closed. This demonstrates due diligence. Then when it was closed mentioned the inconsistency with policy to Jony in the same section at RM/TR, again demonstrating due diligence and keeping the discussion transparent in the same place. This is normal practice at RM/TR. Polyamorph (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  There was nothing stopping Amakuru from closing the RM himself; he is unquestionably qualified to do so. Administrator tools were needed to effect the RM close (the page is indef-move-protected), which is probably why the request was filed pre-closure, but that's not a disqualifying mistake. That he didn't close the RM with a helpful "this isn't what the section is strictly for but I understand why you'd think it is" sort of message indicates, to me, that he thought his closure would be a SUPERVOTE. Sceptre (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  You have made a lot of assumptions there. It is better to let Amakuru to speak on what they were or were not thinking but, once again, there is no obligation on anyone to close any given discussions or to move pages to targets against their better judgement and there is nothing wrong with contesting or questioning requests at RM/TR. Polyamorph (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  In the long run, with the requested move that was initiated by vjmhlds, the overall majority support plainly & clearly is on the side of renaming the article to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, rather than TNA Wrestling.

  Again, to point out that the editor (vjmlhds) who initiated the requested move eventually changed his stance from supporting TNA Wrestling to supporting Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.

  In that case, if Amakuru was to abide by the discussion launched by the requested move, the page should have been moved from Impact Wrestling to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.

  And, as I'm now pointing out for a THIRD time: once in the past, back before I registered an account, there was an edit I wanted to make to a talk page to remove an unnecessary section. But, I wasn't sure if it was OK, so I contacted a registered editor & notified them about the situation. In the end, they referred me to WP:IGNORE, which plainly & clearly states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.

  So, I argue that IGNORE would dictate, in this situation, that the page be moved to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, as per the majority consensus achieved through vjmlhds's requested move. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:COMMONNAME, "TNA Wrestling" is the overwhelmingly used name in sources. There was consensus to move, and this is the policy-based (and hence consensus-based) target. Polyamorph (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  "per COMMONNAME" is an RM argument, not a MRV argument, especially when the issue of COMMONNAME wasn't brought up at RM. Additionally, even were the argument one that could be put forward at MRV, you would need to be able to back it up; if there is an overwhelmingly used common-name, it's arguably just "TNA". Sceptre (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Relist in order to allow new information to become part of the discussion and have participants in the discussion weigh this new information. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. <uninvolved> Do not relist. Apply moratorium for six months. The discussion was well attended. The “ Total Nonstop Action vs TNA” question got plenty of attention, with clear leaning towards TNA. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. < uninvolved > This close is a prime example of supervotes made both by the closer and one editor at WP:RMTR. There was clear consensus in the RM to use the spelled-out name, just as the closer initially respected. A supervote by the editor at RMTR turned the closer's actions into another supervote, which is not in line with WP:RMCI. Completely and totally an UNreasonable closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  17:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t agree that there was a clear consensus to use Total Nonstop Action Wrestling over TNA Wrestling. Both got a good mention, and few specifically addressed the choice, and where they did, it was lukewarm, not clear. A lot of strong support for Total Nonstop Action Wrestling I read as couched as relative to the prior title Impact Wrestling. Then, given that everything but the official source was using “TNA”, I find the close looks totally reasonable, with an arbitrary choice having been made over spelled out over abbreviated.

  Given that there has just been a branding change, I think it is very sensible to wait six months to see which way new coverage goes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  With regards the allegations of supervoting, it is explicitly stated in the RMCI that you link Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Misplaced Pages community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments. (My emphasis). Polyamorph (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

COMMONNAME was effectively countered in the RM by editors. "TNA" is the common name for many of the events, and is being used in several recent RMs to rename those events from "Impact...". Since this RM was about the promotion itself, then the full name should be used as expressed by the editors' rationales in this RM. And the closer initially respected that. There is no attempt to overthrow community consensus in this case. The closure was in error, unreasonable, and not in accordance with WP:RMCI as already stated by several others. That clause in the closing instructions you quoted simply does not apply in this case. So we will have to agree to disagree. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn consensus at that discussion was clearly a name change to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Whether this is correct or not per COMMONNAME I have absolutely no idea especially given it's a relatively fresh change, but that is what the participants decided, and the close I would have made. SportingFlyer T·C 13:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia

Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The move discussion had been open for a month when Vanderwaalforces relisted it with the comment:

"The 'supporters' of the move have provided reasonable arguments for why it should be moved, while the 'opposers' have not provided reasonable arguments for why it should not be moved."

That in itself I found odd, since after a month such a finding should have resulted in closure. I was astounded when, 6 days after such a finding, Vanderwaalforces closed the move as "no consensus". The explanation left me even more perplexed: Vanderwaalforces now found that "the convention", which (as noted in the discussion) was rejected in an RfC two months ago, "countered" the WP:Article title policy and present naming convention. They also referred to the dissatisfaction of the opposers with the RfC result, among other dubious arguments.

Moreover, the closer's talk page and archive appear to be littered with complaints about their closures, with four such sections there now, including a case of participating in a move request after relisting it (WP:SUPERVOTE). Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: I would very much appreciate if uninvolved editors could pay special attention to the interpretation of the WP:RECOGNISABILITY policy because this is a recurring issue. We are seeing some closers interpret it as recognizability to readers familiar with the subject (which is what WP:RECOGNISABILITY says), while others accept the interpretation that the title should define the article subject for those who are not familiar with the subject (the "household name" argument). Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Any idea where people are getting this "not a household name" line from? I am not seeing this phrase anywhere on WP:RECOGNISABILITY. Perhaps its from a previous revision? Bensci54 (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved). When the closer relisted this RM, they stated that no "reasonable arguments" had been provided to oppose the move. After that relist, the only new comments were from users criticizing the current guidance of NCROY (which is backed by recent RfC consensus). The fact that the closer then closed a "no consensus" suggests to me that the criticism of NCROY is what swung their opinion – but treating individual users' dislike of a consensus-backed guideline as sufficient reason to discount arguments based on that guideline is a contravention of WP:CONLEVEL. For that reason, I believe the close was erroneous. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn , not agreeing with the revised guideline has insufficient weight. It would have been different if the argument was that the revised guideline is not applicable for this case, but that is not what happened in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. < uninvolved > Agree with above arguments. This closure was not a reasonable outcome nor was it in accord with WP:RMCI. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  15:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn the vote count was pretty much equal so I can understand a no consensus result, but reviewing the relevant policies, those proposing the move brought up a very clear guideline in WP:NCROY and this was not rebutted by any of those seeking to keep the name at its original title. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Nicholas Fisk (author)

Nicholas Fisk (author) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, the discussion was closed as "no consensus", when a "not moved" outcome seems correct, given that the proposed move saw no support from anyone other than the OP. User:Aviram7 was contacted on his/her talkpage, responded rather cryptically, and then deleted the thread. See discussion at Special:Permalink/1195854060#Talk:Nicholas Fisk (author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162 etc. (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. There were only three participants: 1 supported, and 2 opposed. We're not here to re-litigate the RM, a No consensus isn't an unreasonable result from that simple vote count. Also, there's no substantive difference between "No consensus" and "Not moved", so even if this RM close were to be overturned and re-closed as not moved, what's the point? Iffy★Chat -- 01:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  While ultimately both "No consensus" and "Not moved" will result in the page not being moved, they are not the same thing. I'd argue that "No consensus" for a discussion where there is no support whatsoever for the proposal is indeed unreasonable. 162 etc. (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. < uninvolved > The outcome was "not moved". The reason for not moving was "no consensus". To me, it seems obvious there was no consensus to move the article, which is what's implied by saying "no consensus". It's a waste of time to quibble about the words used when the outcome will be exactly the same. Anyone can read the very short discussion and decide for themselves whether there was "no consensus". Station1 (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to "Not moved". < uninvolved > Judging by the discussion on the closer's talk page he acknowledged that he may have erred in this closure. I do think what he meant was "Not moved" rather than mere "no consensus". There is a difference between those two types of closures that pertains to the length of time suggested before another move request should be opened. So this mistake by the closer should be rectified by overturning the closure and clarifying that the article should not be moved. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  14:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  If, hypothetically, some editor comes along in a week or a month with a better argument for moving, citing policy and sources, and other editors support that move, then the article should be moved, regardless of how this close might be worded. Station1 (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That does happen sometimes. The wait times are suggestions based upon historical liklihood of success, everyone should know that. However, when there is consensus to not move, the closer should acknowledge that and should not label it a "no consensus" outcome, which in this case is clearly incorrect. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  11:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). 162 etc. and Paine Ellsworth are right that this was a consensus against a move. And they are right about WP:THREEOUTCOMES and the conventional meaning of "not moved" and "no consensus". Other reviewers are correct that it makes almost no practical difference in this case, but it's ok to still review the close if we want. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse There is clearly no consensus to move the article, it serves no purpose to overturn. Polyamorph (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

As editor SmokeyJoe points out on occasion, the purpose is that a "no consensus" closure would be confusing to posterity. Editors who read the RM in the future would go "'no consensus'??? That doesn't make any sense!" The correct outcome is "not moved", and that is what the RM should reflect to posterity. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  11:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but in my opinion, it serves no purpose to overturn the result. It was a poorly attended discussion, and there is no consensus to move. The article has not been moved. I simply don't see the point of overturning. Polyamorph (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Reword. “No consensus to move”. <uninvolved> The close was not a no consensus, but was more like a non starter. The nomination was weak, and opposers immediately introduced new arguments. It should have been closed, as it was, but “no consensus” is not a good explanation. “Not moved” is also not a good explanation because it reads as a statement of tautology. The close was not quite a WP:BADNAC, but good NAC closes are better explained, get given much better explanations when questioned, and are self-reverted if there is a hint of a reasonable challenge. A NAC that results in a contested MRV is NOT a productive contribution. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That does not reflect the discussion and would still be very confusing to future editors who read the RM. The decision should have been Consensus to not move or simply Not moved, which is shown by THREEOUTCOMES to be significantly different from "No consensus" to move or not move. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  16:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

THREEOUTCOMES was written by someone who likes shorthand. It’s not very good. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I read the two respondents as having rebuffed a poor nomination. I don’t read a “consenus to not move”, just a consensus to reject that weak nomination. I don’t think it warrants the default six months moratorium. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Consensus to not move would have been a correct close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse or overturn This wasn't a good close even though it reflected the discussion - a 2-to-1 poorly attended move discussion that had only run for a week should probably have been kept open longer, but there indeed is no consensus, though not moved would be a better result. It really does not matter IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 13:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ferdinand VI of Spain (closed)

Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) (closed)

Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany

Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This was a multi-page move, proposing to remove the term "Grand Duke of Tuscany" and other peer titles from a series of articles (e.g. move "Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany" to simply "Cosimo III de' Medici", etc.) Five editors objected, some strongly (including myself). Four supported, one semi-supported. The closer nonetheless claimed he found "a consensus to move". Naturally, given the majority against it, this surprises me.

I am perplexed how this "consensus to move" was discovered. I asked the closer User:EggRoll97, for clarification and he specifically said he relied on two policies. He said the policy cited in against the move (WP:NCPEER) only applied to British dukes, and not Italian dukes. But this is clearly contradicted in the policy page ("Treat other European nobility like British nobility above, adapting for local circumstances; thus Philippe II, Duke of Orléans."). And he also cited also the recently-changed WP:SOVEREIGN policy, on the belief these dukes were sovereign (these dukes are not sovereign, but vassals of the Holy Roman Empire, and moreover some of the people moved are not grand dukes at all). It seems to me the closer allowed himself to be misled by inaccurate and misleading statements of those policies in the discussion.

I presented this to the closer, but he insisted he somehow found a "consensus to move" regardless. Frankly this seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I would like the move reviewed.

Given that the move has contested in majority, and vigorously so, it would have meant at the very least "no consensus", and by RM criteria would have left the pages where they are (i.e. where they have been stable for the past 15 years.) Walrasiad (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Two things to note here. Firstly, WP:NCPEER is not a policy. It is a guideline. (More specifically, it is an obscure guideline crafted by two guys 15 years ago without community input.) Secondly, move discussions are not polls in which votes are counted. Each of those in favor of the moves cited policy: OP (I) cited WP:PRECISE, then one cited WP:CONCISE, another WP:COMMONNAME, yet another WP:Article titles in general, and WP:CONCISE again. Such input weighs more than "strongly oppose" on the basis of the said obscure guideline or "strongly oppose" with no explanation at all. See WP:RMNOMIN for information on how consensus in move discussions is determined. Lastly, if the above stated understanding of the cited guideline is correct, then the guideline contravenes policy and needs to be amended. That will be discussed next. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

To clarify: the commentator above (User:Surtsicna) is the the editor who proposed the multi-page move. Walrasiad (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It is customary to note in move reviews if you're involved or not. Walrasiad (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I did note it. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Where? I am afraid I don't see self-identification in your comment above. It helps other commentators here to know who is and who is not involved. Walrasiad (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Read more carefully then. I identified myself as OP. Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hah :>) in all fairness I also did a double take. At first glance I read your "(I)" as a one. T'were me, I'd have probably used "(myself)" oslt. It's all good. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: If you want to trash NCPEER be my guest, but you rely heavily on the NCROY guideline in these RMs. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I rely on the part of NCROY that is the result of community consensus, reached after the recent two-month-long RfC discussion, and specifically intended to be in line with the article titling policy. It is not the same sauce as something that was written 15 years ago without community input or regard for the article titling policy. Surtsicna (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment You haven't placed a notice on the talk page about the move review as is required by step 4, nor did you add the template to my talk page per step 3 to notify me that you had indeed gone ahead with the move review. No harm, no foul, though. I've added the notification above the closed RM and you may consider me notified for the purposes of this discussion. As for my response as the closer, I stand by my comments made on my talk page, and I believe I have remained in compliance with the closing instructions. EggRoll97 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved). NCPEER is the more relevant guideline than SOVEREIGN, although I don't particularly like either. (My !vote in the RM was based on neither.) Srnec (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - The current status of WP:NCROY is the deciding factor & there's nothing can be done to change that. Regrettably, it's created inconsistency across multiple monarch bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

These Tuscan dukes are not sovereigns. WP:NCPEER is the guideline here. Walrasiad (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn - now that I'm aware of WP:NCPEER. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCPEER was never supposed to apply to rulers but to peers. WP:SOVEREIGN applies. Also, NCPEER has no community legitimacy, whereas WP:SOVEREIGN has "strong consensus" according to the recent RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved). Grand duke is a monarchical title. That's why it's listed within WP:SOVEREIGN. The grand duke was the sovereign of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. It doesn't matter whether a monarch was called a "king", "prince", "doge", or "grand duke". If you're above everyone else in your state, you aren't a peer. Some editors here may be confusing a grand duke with, say, a British duke. SilverLocust 💬 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll leave this comment, but I take the point below that their sovereignty varied over time. SilverLocust 💬 23:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. < uninvolved > Reasonable closure and in accord with WP:RMCI, though perhaps a tough call. As for NCPEER, 15 years is adequate time to become a full community consensus; however, would agree that in this case SOVEREIGN rules – ahem. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  21:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The individual who brought this to MR asserted that they are not sovereign because at this point in history, Tuscany was nominally a fief of the Holy Roman Empire. I do think this was at best only a nominal assertion, though. Looking at the Holy Roman Empire page, it appears that Italian territories start being left off of maps of the HRE by the 16th century. Bensci54 (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Duchy of Tuscany was de jure a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire, de facto a vassal of Spain. In either case, not sovereign.

Holy Roman Emperor was sovereign over Tuscany, by definition - judicial cases could be appealed up to Emperor, dukes were invested imperial vicariates (and could be revoked), they owed taxes and troops to the Emperor through to the end. It was more sovereign over Tuscany than the United States is sovereign over Puerto Rico. Walrasiad (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

They very fact we are talking about retaining family names to disambiguate is a pretty good indication we are not talking about European sovereigns. After all, why not go the whole way to Cosimo III like in the other RMs? Srnec (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sovereigns can have family names. Even some modern monarchs do. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is addressed specifically at WP:SOVEREIGN #8, which indicates "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. The exception holds, for example, for Italian Renaissance dynasts." This is an Italian renaissance dynast, so per the example listed in the guideline, the family name should remain as an exception to the rule.

Also as I think more about this, I am beginning to become uncertain that "top-level" sovereignty is what WP:SOVEREIGN is really concerned with. I think the difference between the applicability of WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:NCPEER is whether they were an actual ruler, as opposed to a noble in title only as part of peerage. It doesn't matter if they had an overlord; I think WP:SOVEREIGN should apply even for rulers of sub-realms. That's how the guideline comes across to me, anyway. Bensci54 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Bensci54; WP:SOVEREIGN lists, under point #5, "European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes)" and names Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria as an example of an ambiguously named ruler. Maximilian was a contemporary of Cosimo and, like him, a ruler within the Holy Roman Empire. That is to say, rulers regardless of rank were always intended to be covered by WP:SOVEREIGN. Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Now we've left the territory "settled" by the recent RFC, haven't we? Does the "Italian Renaissance dynast" exception have more support than NCPEER? It was added with this edit back in 2007. Seems to have first been suggested by John K back in 2005 in Archive 13, although he explicitly saw the title remaining, as he said: So Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, not Cosimo de' Medici (the current location) or Cosimo I of Tuscany (what current practice would suggest we should do). Srnec (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse While numbers were close, I think this was a perfectly fine reading of the discussion and policy by the closer, especially considering the primary guideline presented to oppose the move deals with a country these people were not from. SportingFlyer T·C 13:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not true. The NC:PEER guideline most certainly and explicitly states it applies to European nobility, not merely British (see quotation above). Walrasiad (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I read the entire guideline when endorsing. The quotation is technically outside the guideline's heading, so I support the conclusion that it's technically British only - even accepting your point, I think it's valid to conclude WP:AT and WP:CONCISE outweigh this small sub-point based on the nature of that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages move review monthly listings