Jump to content

Talk:Menorca/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 24 July 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed following relisting. Although the !vote ratio is on the narrow side, the trend is clear, and there is no point in belaboring the inevitable. bd2412 T 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Minorca → Menorca – Move from name used in Napoleonic wars history books to name used by Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times, The Times, BBC News, BBC Weather, The Sun, The Star, The Independent, Metro newspaper London, The Express, The Mirror, Irish Times, New York Times, CNN, Forbes, Condé Nast Traveller, South China Morning Post HK, The Straits Times Singapore. And almost all Googlebooks since 2000 not dealing with the Napoleonic war period (see book links above from 2013 and 2016). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I've re-opened this for further input per consensus at WP:Move review/Log/2017 August#Menorca. GoldenRing (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move. I understand I'm in the minority and that there is probably not going to be a consensus, but if the page was located at Menorca, there would be no reason to move it to Minorca. This is the same principle used in the yoghurt/yogurt discussions.  ONR  (talk)  19:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks ONR, but unlike yoghurt this isn't a UK/US-English distinction this is a 18th Century/21st Century distinction. The US sources also spell "Menorca" :) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The ngram cited is of data 2000-2008, editor has been pinged in section below but not responded In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: the article is primarily about modern Menorca, not the history of Menorca. So (a) have you excluded results related to the Roman period and Napoleonic Wars from that ngram? Also (b) how do you explain Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times, The Times, BBC News, BBC Weather, The Sun, The Star, The Independent, Metro newspaper London, The Express, The Mirror, Irish Times, New York Times, CNN, Forbes, Condé Nast Traveller, South China Morning Post HK, The Straits Times Singapore all using "Menorca" and all being wrong? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I wouldn't have thought this, but "Menorca" is about twice as common in Google Books results from the 21st century ([1] vs. [2]). It is also far more common on Google News in the same period ([3] vs. [4]). It appears the trend in English sources is to follow the Spanish and Catalan use.--Cúchullain t/c 14:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
As this has been reopened, I'll add some of my later responses to my comments here. I believe the situation has changed since the 2013 RM. It's true that Google Ngram shows Minorca in the lead, but Ngram only includes hits up to 2008. As much of the trend toward "Menorca" has happened in 21st-century sources, Ngram is out of date. I see no other evidence that "Minorca" is more common; my perusal of 21st century Google News and Google Books sources reflects what In ictu oculi notes above that Menorca is more common. Even tailored searches like Menorca island vs. Minorca island, and Menorca Spain vs. Minorca Spain, return more English sources for "Menorca".--Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Google Ngram Viewer shows that "Minorca", at least until Ngram's last update in 2008, still surpassed "Menorca" by far, so the proponent's argument that this is a "Napoleonic War"-only term does not sustain itself. There were several previous RMs in 2013 and 2016 which were turned down, and based on the search items for which the 2013 request was turned down, not much has changed ever since. Based on search since 2000: geography minorca -menorca 1350 to geography menorca -minorca 1540, economy minorca -menorca 2020 to economy menorca -minorca 1930, geology minorca -menorca 858 to geology menorca -minorca 1300, tourism minorca -menorca 552 to tourism menorca -minorca 1940, politics minorca -menorca 2130 to politics menorca -minorca 1220. "Menorca" seems to be gaining traction over time, but as of now there seems to be a tie (Minorca/Menorca edging out each other by small margins in "geography" and "economy", respectively, with wider margins for each one in "tourism" and "politics". For instance, "Menorca" is widely used in tourism-related themes, but then "Minorca" is much more commonly used when it comes to talk on politics. And surely we could find many more sources showing one term or the other being preferred, but that would just point to the obvious: that they may (and indeed are, in many cases) used interchangeably in English reliable sources. As quoted from the 2013 RM, this is not "Menorcatravelguidepedia", and all reliable sources covering all subjects should be looked on instead of selective citations of sources using one's preferred spelling and intended just for the sake of making a point for the move. As per WP:UCN/WP:UE, "Minorca" should be retained as title. The WP:DIVIDEDUSE convention also advises for the article name to be left at the latest stable version in the event of divided use in English RS, which in this case is the English-language term of "Minorca".
As a bonus, the page's temporary move to "Menorca" has unveiled interesting data on what the most searched-for term is for Wikipedia dwellers. Based on this, it can be easily figured out that "Minorca" was still the preferred term by far for viewers searching for this article's subject in Wikipedia before the move, and even after the move "Menorca" wasn't close to matching it (it also could be figured that many views to "Menorca" after the move came as a result of redirects from "Minorca" itself, and also that "Minorca" is much more stable across Wikipedia). Impru20 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Relisting, defunct 2008 ngram data : Question, for @AjaxSmack:. Sorry, but have to ask but how many years should en.wp lag behind changes in usage? You're arguing from a defunct software tool which collected data till 2008, when it's been demonstrated that US GNews media (NY Times, etc.) and US Gbooks (Fodors, etc.) moved to follow modern UK and Irish usage during the period 2011-2014, just as US Fodors moved to follow Lonely Planet. While GNews and new GBooks published 2016-2017 are overwhelmingly using the spelling that UK holidaymakers know, we have to stick with usage pre-2008 because the ngram software tool is defunct? The same searches can be done manually usuing GNews and GBook Advanced Search to get 2016-2017 results. Why shouldn't we look at them?
Also assuming we do use 2008 data rather than 2017 data, how do we explain this? Something's wrong with the data here. Has anyone an explanation for that sudden freak data? Adam Hammond Literature in the Digital Age: A Critical Introduction "Google Ngram viewer". See Google_Ngram_Viewer#OCR_issues for part of the problem. The alternative explanation about from OCR errors (which explains some of the gap between the sudden return of the dying spelling "Minorca" 2004-2008 Ngram, is the dump into the Google OCR hopper of large amounts of historical material technically 2004-2008 but reprints and collections of older material. We've seen these blips by data dump in other Ngrams at the tail end of word changes where the very very clear trend suddenly gets a rogue reading. And then 2009-2017 we have zero ngram to correct the blip. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment The main reasoning for the move was, in your own words, that "Minorca" was a name used in Napoleonic wars history books. Another reasoning was that "Menorca" was the name used by almost all Googlebooks since 2000 not dealing with the Napoleonic war period. Obviously 2008 is more recent than 2000, and thus NGram is, just by itself and even if we did not consider other sources, more than enough to disclaim such a reasoning, as it's a well into the 21st century-source. Besides, back in 2013 you already claimed the very exact same as you claim now (quoting you): On that search Menorca : Minorca is 3:1 2000-2013. Menorca is WP:COMMONNAME. It was untrue then. Now you come selectively choosing sources and dates (as you did back then) but I'd also like to point that this was not your initial reasoning for the move. The truth is than "Minorca" is still far more common considering all sources from 2000 to nowadays. Impru20 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Not responding to this. This misrepresents what I said, as anyone scrolling up can see for themselves. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Your different reasonings depending on when and on who you answer to are pretty clear, indeed. I just note that this already happened in previous RMs started by yourself with your own quotes. People will be also able to see how other users complained on your selective choosing of sources back then if they scroll up to check the 2013 RM. This is not new, actually. Impru20 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Not responding to that either. No need. Fact; GNews 2014-2017 "Menorca is" x112 is more than "Minorca" x13. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Fact 1: You already said that (and tried) in 2013. Fact 2: You said the same in 2016, when you allegedly claimed that Menorca overcame Minorca already in 2010 (which was untrue as was proven in the 2013 RM). Fact 3: You tried (and failed) again in 2016. Now in the current RM you present us with the same evidence and reasonings as then. Back in 2013 you were already accused of selectively choosing sources to back up the move and you ended up being dismissed, and now again you use selective citations of sources using your preferred spelling instead of looking at all reliable sources covering all subjects on the topic. I've presented proof that shows that "Menorca" does not outnumber "Minorca", based on the same search results that were decisive for the closing of the 2013 RM (indeed, "Minorca" is still the favored term in a number of topics). "Minorca" is also the most stable term in Wikipedia, as it has been proven both by a sourcing of page views as well as a simple search of the page's history showing it having been stable since 2002. Move claim has already being refuted. No need to say anything else, indeed. Impru20 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
112 > 13. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose once again (EDIT: Never mind. Call it neutral / abstain. See below.). I made a point of ignoring all links above and doing research myself, since it's very easy to sway results to look the way you want with so many possible sources. Conclusions:
  • Variants of Google News searches, although slightly thrown by false hits (something in Minnesota called Minorca Mine, a politician called Lowell Menorca, etc.), seems to show that IIO is correct that very recent Google News hits seem to prefer "Menorca". This seems especially true for the UK travel press. Checking the NYTimes, and searching for both terms, they had long, in-depth articles using "Minorca" in 2001 and 2012 ( [5] , [6] ), and a travel-guideish article in 2015 that used "Menorca" ( [7] ). Not sure what to make of that, since it is more recent, but it is only one article.
  • Google Books ngrams shows that "Minorca" still wins by a convincing margin as of 2008. Even if we charitably assume that 2/3 of these references are "historical", that implies that Minorca - Menorca are largely even on usage, and in such a case, Minorca would easily win the tiebreaker as once being far more prominent in usage.
Final thoughts: Gonna stand by what I said in 2013. If the news results are still so heavily slanted in 2023, sure, let's move it then; until then, it's not clear that the usage has changed outside travel / vacation hype and in scholarly works as well. Shame that judge shut down Google Books so we don't have more up-to-date Ngrams... SnowFire (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@SnowFire: that's a rather unusual oppose argument. You've recognized that newspapers 2015 2016 2017 overwhelming (my "Mxnorca is" GNews test was 112:13 I don't see you disagreeing) use the UK name Menorca, even American newspapers now mainly use the UK spelling. So why should we wait till 2023. If it was Kosovo or South Sudan or Madras/Chennai we change the name immediately that Guardian, Independent, NY Times, Washington Post do. We don't wait 13-14 years. This is misleading people. Please try searching "Minorca" on Amazon.com and see the years of the books. The only current one I got was the Italian edition of Lonely Planet Minorca 2017, because Minorca is the Italian name for the island, not English. This is not the Italian wikipedia. Please look again at Amazon.com, and look at publication dates. Look at 2017 newspapers. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Such as Mumbai rather than Bombay? Is that obnoxious? That doesn't to me sound as though you clicked 112 > 13 but just a !vote based on "This whole push to replace centuries-old, well-established English names with their native equivalents is misguided and obnoxious". Would that be a fair conclusion? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment Just to point it out: Bombay was officially re-named Mumbai in 1995. So you're comparing a name change taking place very recently with a name which has remained unchanged over centuries, and so has its translation. This would be more akin to Navarre (instead of Navarra), Biscay (instead of Vizcaya/Bizkaia), Seville (instead of Sevilla) or even Majorca (instead of Mallorca). Impru20 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Bombay to Mumbai is one example. It's ridiculous - the replacement of an English word with centuries of history with a foreign equivalent for reasons of misguided nationalism. However, trying to change this one is even more inexcusable, since there was no official name change (unlike in India). Genealogizer (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, WP:TPO requires for a short explanation to be added next to the stricken text when other editors have replied to the comments, something which seemingly hasn't even been cared for here. Anyway, Genealogizer made a valid point so I'll rescue his argument, given that the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary prefers Minorca over Menorca seems pretty convincing. Impru20 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm content with the evidence provided both by Cuchullain and In ictu oculi, which amply demonstrates that usage has shifted. "How many years should en.wp lag behind changes in usage?" is a well-put question. I'm not particularly swayed by the argument that the shift has happened mostly in travel-related literature and news and not in academic studies and history books – COMMONNAME only requires "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". And English usage in general has been slowly shifting towards endonyms rather than exonyms; I wouldn't call that "misguided and obnoxious". No such user (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I hope that closer will comment on (a) the whether GNews 2014-2017 "Menorca is" x112 vs "Minorca" x13 supports the claim in the opening move proposal, and also (b) on the suitability of the 2008 ngram being cited as a reason not to move. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The closer should consider all arguments, obviously. Also the opening reasoning of this being a "Napolenic War"-term (which has been already disclaimed), and the fact that bombing the move request with the same selected links once and once again doesn't account for a stronger argument for a move. Even in the outdated 2008 Ngram, "Minorca" far surpasses "Menorca" as preferred term (and even the trends doesn't show an increase of preferences for Menorca (which remain pretty low) over Minorca either). ;) Impru20 (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
112 > 13 In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I can also do it, of course: geography minorca -menorca 1350 to geography menorca -minorca 1540, economy minorca -menorca 2020 to economy menorca -minorca 1930, geology minorca -menorca 858 to geology menorca -minorca 1300, tourism minorca -menorca 552 to tourism menorca -minorca 1940, politics minorca -menorca 2130 to politics menorca -minorca 1220, plus Oxford English Dictionary [8], plus ngram. We could of course flood the whole RM with links, but given that we've already made ourselves clear, I doubt on the meaning of keeping posting the same links over and over again. You were already warned on 2013 to look on all reliable sources covering all subjects should be looked on instead of selective citations using your preferred spelling (and you've done so here again), something which you refuse to do. I suggest we leave it up to the closer to review the arguments on each side and take a decision based on that, instead of us keeping on a discussion with no new argument. Impru20 (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
"I can also do it of course" yes you can, and if you start from 2000 as you are doing [ylo=2000&as_yhi=2017] then you will get data from 2000. Which is fine if we are the 2000 Wikipedia.... No one is denying that a decade ago Minorca was more common, so presenting data from 2000, or 2008 doesn't help. Redo those same searches you did with 2014-2017, which is after American newspapers switched to follow UK newspapers, and you'll get 2014-2017 results, not 2000 results, all of which show the opposite of your 2000 results above. The case you need to make here same as others refusing to go by current sources is why en.wp should lag 10 years behind BBC, CNN, newspapers? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
First of all, it is you defending the move, so it's you the one needing to make a case here for the move, not others. Then you say "and if you start from 2000 as you are doing [ylo=2000&as_yhi=2017] then you will get data from 2000". And? What's wrong with it? Those defending the move (you yourself included) have frequently used links with data from 2000 and have priorized "21st century" results over older results. Your own move proposal itself used since 2000 as part of the rationale for moving the article, and in your first reply to one of those supporting the move, you argued that this is a 18th Century/21st Century distinction. So, you can do it... but others can't? You even argued that this should be moved because Minorca is a name used in Napoleonic wars history books, which has already been proven false. You are now, seemingly, changing your mind and selectively determining which dates should others use to oppose the move (you change 2013 to 2014 to 2016 whenever you feel like it) and also selectively choosing which sources should be considered (only those that suit you best), for no arguable reason, even if doing so contradicts your previous rationale for moving the article. But there are precedents on this, and those are the 2013 and 2016 RMs. Those opposing the move have also provided valid links and reasonings against it in this RM (including media and newspapers). Get with it; let others participate on this (if they wish) and the closer to decide on this either way based on what already has been posted. It has been made abundantly clear that you (or I myself, btw) have nothing else to say here other than repeating what has already been said over and over again.
Btw, this sentence of you effectively destroys your own case for moving the article --> No one is denying that a decade ago Minorca was more common. Well, yeah, you denied it in your rationale for the RM when saying: Move from name used in Napoleonic wars history books to name used by [some selectively picked sources]. And almost all Googlebooks since 2000 not dealing with the Napoleonic war period. You specifically denied it and used it for trying to move this article. Impru20 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
112 > 13 In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
And again, the spam. Impru20 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – As per No such user: It would seem that something has changed. Trying to find modern (21st century) books that include Minorca is possible but they are in the minority. Many of the modern books using Menorca are travel guides, but that is not unsurprising as it is a popular destination for tourists, but they are still valid indications that Menorca is now the name used for the island. In addition Google Maps shows it as Menorca...Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as before. Usage is mixed across a variety of sources, and close enough that it is not possible to tell which spelling is more prevalent. It's just not compelling enough of a case to justify the move. Dohn joe (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This just isn't true. It's perfectly possible to tell which spelling is more prevalent - you just have to look in newspapers and books from this year. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The results were split in 2013, and I don't see the clear evidence that it has appreciably changed in four years. Take 2017 results from Scholar for "Minorca is" (19 hits) versus "Menorca is" (23 hits). It's close. Dohn joe (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The results of what were split in 2013? Yes they were, US newspapers were still catching up with UK usage. But why would anyone take Google Scholar over The Guardian and BBC? It is close in Google Scholar, and not surprising with quotes like "In 1751, Cleghorn, a British army surgeon serving in Minorca" (this is the nature of Google Scholar, it includes history and older sources) but why would anyone go to Google Scholar when the 2017 news media are so clear? I ask the same question as of the others who are opposing despite news media. How many years should Wikipedia lag behind the English language? This is the most recent article on GNews: dailymail.co.uk Family return home from two-week Menorca holiday to find their car missing from airport 'meet and greet' parking and their home completely ransacked, does it says "Minorca" or "Menorca"? So how many years should Wikipedia lag behind newspapers? UK media changed to Menorca a decade ago. US media caught up 3-4 years ago. How many years does Wikipedia have to wait? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment Don't think this is proof of anything other than what cited sources throughtout the discussion may already provide, aside from proving that, indeed, "Menorca" wins over in tourism-related searches as has been already explained (many of the top 25 searches are related to travel, weather and holidays in both the US and UK). However, if you thought this relevant enough to influence the outcome of the vote I'm curious as to why you didn't bother to specifically ping me to comment on this despite me also having opposed the move and having actively participated in the discussion with you (indeed, I seem to be the only "oppose" voter you skipped over despite me being, arguably, the most active). Impru20 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
(a) Because the Google Trend data 2010-2017 shows searches by native English speakers in the United States. (b) because those three opposes have not made their final position clear, wheras you have, repeatedly. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Still I can't see what new data does it provide that we haven't seen already through the already cited links and sources. If anything, it shows that Google Trend is not reliable for this, as it allegedly shows data from 2010 showing "Menorca" ahead (because of tourism-related searches) but it was not even considered in your previous RMs in 2013 and 2016, meaning other sources proved it would have been wrong back then.
On the (b) issue, those three opposes did make their final positions clear as well, their reasonings being no more conditional than mine, even if I had been far more active than them. That you think they may change their views is legitimate, but then, it doesn't just seem right that you think I may not. If you thought this was so relevant so as to influence the RM's outcome and to merit pinging all other "oppose" participants, I can't understand why I was the only one left out. If it was so obvious, I of course could've changed my mind. Consensus is meant to be achieved through discussion and policy-based arguments, not through a vote.
Connected to the issue, while I wrote here I happened to find this in SnowFire's talk page. Seemingly a discussion from over a month ago and directly related to this RM (covering my previous RM and the relist), you have just re-activated it a couple hours ago to post two links from the CNN that, from what I can see, use your intended "Menorca" form. SnowFire happens to be one of those opposers you have pinged here. I don't know what to think, but this, coupled with your notification of all "opposes" but, precisely, the one you acknowledge "has made its position clear repeteadly", looks as if you were seeking to influence the RM by unduly trying to sway some opposes into changing their views. Impru20 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely! And no apologies for it. I understand that it's different for you because as a Spanish speaker you perhaps believe that English speakers should use the "British name" (if so then fair enough), but for our three American opposes it should simply be a question of looking at 2017 sources, so absolutely yes, I am trying to influence them to look, and Snowfire did look and changed view. This is the whole point of having GNews 2017 data. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. As a "back to basics" comment. In general, books and scholarly sources are preferred over news sources on Wikipedia. For naming, this means that GBooks ngrams is among the most potent sources available, which is why I put a lot of stock in it. Google Trends is also not really a great source normally, as it can be influenced by a lot of things - e.g. US users for whom Spanish is their first language. And the CNN links don't show much we didn't already know. This is why I marked a weak oppose above.
That said, fine, I'll strike my vote and go to neutral. It's clear that IIO really really cares about this, and while I still think the move is borderline at best now, it does indeed seem like the "trend" (not the Google Trend") is that this move will eventually pass, so getting it over with now might be the easiest thing to do. (TripAdvisor moving over is actually relevant as well.) It does appear that in the UK at least, the news split is pretty overwhelming for Menorca, so. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, sincerely, it's rare to see a !vote against a modern name change in a discussion. Yes I do care because "Minorca" is simply wrong in the UK which has more ties to Menorca than the US. But I don't think all those people in the US searching "Menorca" not "Minorca" are hispanics, because the same is true for Canada where "Minorca" completely drops off the scale - presumably because of no condos in Florida. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I recently went on holiday to the island and beforehand and when I began doing a bit of research, I was mildly surprised to see almost every source I used referred to the island as "Menorca" rather than the "Minorca" I was brought up with. Usage has definitely changed. Number 57 21:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect closure

Just noticed this, and this closure seems like a clear mistake to me. I would add arguments to support this, but as you've already closed it that doesn't seem appropriate now. However, I would encourage a challenge to this closure, and at that point, I would bring my arguments to bear, if notified. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with either close. The second RM was indeed disruptive and made a confusing mess out of something that should have been cleared up by just talking to the closer or going through. The nominator did not respond to several requests that they do that, which just compounded the confusion.--Cúchullain t/c 17:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
As a point of order, completely ignoring the merits of the above move, a quick follow-up RM after a low-turnout original RM is perfectly common and in no way "disruptive." It happens all the time, especially when a contentious move is only noticed after links start getting updated. SnowFire (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as how this has attracted much attention in part due to the follow-up RM, and just as per SnowFire's reasoning, the second RM was by no means disruptive. Indeed, the second RM spanned a much longer and detailed discussion than the one resulting in the page's move. You may like it or not, but by no means is this any more "disruptive" than having just 2 editors deciding on the article's fate and completely ignoring previous RMs and established consensus. Impru20 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
SnowFire: yes, it is widely considered disruptive to start a new RM immediately after the last one closed, not only because it can look like gaming the system, but because it causes all manner of confusion in the processes. Just look at where it's gotten us: another RM, which rehashed the same things and was closed, and then finally a move review, where we'll be tied up for days if not weeks before the original move discussion is reopened and relisted. This is exactly the sort of situation move review was created to avoid. If the initiator of the second RM had just followed the procedure and asked the closer to simply reopen the discussion, they would have done it; they're clearly amenable to it. I informed Impru20 of this repeatedly, but they failed to act on it until other editors did what they should have done and pursued a move review.--Cúchullain t/c 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree re-opening and relisting the original discussion would have been the easiest thing to do. I don't see how opening a new RM is THAT different, though, so if you'd have been okay with re-open and re-list, I'm not sure why a new MR is so bad in your view. If you want to invoke precedent and history, the far larger turnout in earlier failed RMs surely bears some weight too.
As has been said before, the "gaming the system" argument is something that goes against the original move request, as it'd failed many times in the past. But whatever! Totally within IIO's rights to re-litigate the issue. Just as his MR was legit, so was Ipru's MR, and such stringent opposition on procedural grounds ignores the many other RMs that had failed in the past. Again, follow-up MRs after well-attended MRs can *sometimes* be disruption (but sometimes also a sign that a move turned out really strangely, so even that is not always bad). Follow-up MRs after sparely attended MRs are harmless. You seem to be acting like it's terrible, and it's not. (Maybe the MERITS of the case are terrible, who knows, people can disagree, but again, from a strict standpoint of procedure, it was nothing odd.) SnowFire (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
SnowFire: Not to keep this going around and around, but speaking as someone with a lot of experience with RM, it is in fact widely considered disruptive to start another RM right after the last one closed. That feeling is obviously widespread, or else an admin wouldn't have closed it. It's not entirely fair, but it invites opposition based on frustration or the feeling that the nominator is trying to re-litigate a decision that just closed. As you say subsequent RMs are totally fine when an amount of time has passed, or something has changed, neither of which was the case here. There's not a set period of wait time, but 5 hours doesn't cut it. Just look at what the result has been here: instead of just asking the closer to re-open the discussion and let people get back to it immediately, it led to a day of the same people having to rehash the same things in a new RM, a close, then several days later a move review that still hasn't closed 5 days in (and that could be open for days or weeks). Now, is it "terrible"? No. Is it frustrating? Yes.--Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This is now moot, pursuant to the relisting and subsequent close of the relisted discussion. bd2412 T 16:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoever opens the next one, please include a sidebar or something that lists all the previous discussions (if any are not present above). We don't need yet another closing then being contested on the grounds that it ignored previous consensus discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Menorca/Archive_4&oldid=1270426255"