Jump to content

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2025 January Move review archives 2025 March >

2025 February

[edit]

Denali

[edit]
Denali (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

The closer's claim of "no consensus" after the bare minimum 7 days rests on a false premise. They claimed that "quite a lot" of input was not based on policy or guideline, which is just plain wrong. Many, many arguments cite project guides and rules. Surprisingly many actually, in an RM that is tangentially connected to the current president, where heated opinions often bubble. The closer then used this discarding of votes to whittle down the vast leaning towards oppose (2/3rds to 1/3rd) and declare a "No Consensus." All this does is punt the discussion to the future, which is literally ("Once things have settled down, another RM should be made...") what the closer wants. Overall, bad close, please relist or close as "Not Moved." Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Endorse of the close of No Consensus - My machine count of the !votes is 76 Support, 105 Oppose, and No Consensus is a valid judgment by the closer of consensus. After 181 !votes, a Relist would be stupid. The appellant states correctly that what the close does is to punt the discussion to the future, which is exactly what should be done, to allow time for public opinion and the opinions of editors to stabilize. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Machine counts never work on these type of discussions because people use the keywords in their rationales. I used the manual counting method twice, and got 50-86 (37%-63%), which is definitely in Oppose territory. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Open Even if the end result would be the same, this was a very active discussion that was closed a week after it opened. That was way too soon. Usually when we see closures after a week it's because there were five or six editors discussing the RM and it had slowed to a crawl. I expected two-three weeks or when we saw participation slow to a crawl. Procedurally, it can be closed in seven days, but we are also supposed to look at the polling situation and use some good judgement. I'm not convinced that was done here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-open per the above. The RfC was still gaining comments, and as mentioned elsewhere I am unconvinced that No Consensus was the right call anyway, given the heavy preponderance of Oppose !votes and the weakness of a number of Support rationales. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. < uninvolved > This a rare instance when there is a long discussion, a preponderance of opposition, and the abundant unliklihood that a consensus to move would be achieved any time soon. Editors are asked to go with the flow on this one and allow some time, at least three months, study this RM with an eye toward improving supportive arguments, and then open a fresh move request. Good, strong rebuttals to the present opposition rationales are badly needed if editors want to be successful. On the other hand, if editors want to fruitlessly debate this issue for several weeks, then by all means relist it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? I clearly said on my talk page that I was willing to reconsider the closure. Rather than respond further and try to convince me, you've gone straight to the nuclear option?
That said, I lean to endorsing my own closure. This was already a long discussion, and relisting for an entire second week would lean to one of those unpleasant situations where a long and controversial discussion is longer than it needs to be. More importantly, the key here is that we need to wait and evaluate the sources. If the sources are changing while we're discussing, we have !votes on day 3 based on some sources and !votes on day 12 based on others that the day-3ers didn't even know about... this is manageable when it's a small discussion, but on this scale it just becomes a giant mess that can be avoided by closing the discussion on schedule.
I also respectfully don't buy the argument that it should have been relisted because discussion was ongoing. The point of a relist is to clarify consensus, and often to get more participation. As noted on my talk page: WP:RMCI tells us: Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus. Editors are under no obligation to wait to close a move request after it is relisted. Once a move request has been open for the full seven days, it may be closed at any time by an uninvolved editor. There is no consensus here, true (that's why I closed it that way), but relisting for seven days is unlikely to help things, as Paine Ellsworth says. There's more than enough participation already.
Regarding questioning of my "no consensus" close itself: as I said in my closing statement, there's simply no consensus about the applicability of WP:NAMECHANGES. We cannot agree on a WP:COMMONNAME, probably because the rename happened only a week ago. If anything here was premature, it was the launching of this RM – basically the same day as the change happened. The RM should not have been started so early because it was difficult to properly evaluate the sources. Cremastra (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that is a reasonable conclusion. I wish that had happened in 2015. But we have big discussions going on about the word Century that has been open since January 3. It's now late in closing but that's what we usually see. This seemed like a rush. Had you closed this with "Because details are still coming in and the !votes reflect that changing dynamic, lets wait 30-60 days and try again" perhaps many would have calmed down or not been upset with the close. I actually think it was started so soon because the same was done in 2015 when the official change simply won out in consensus. So this RM was started when someone assumed the same thing would happen. Obviously not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say, Had you closed this with "Because details are still coming in and the !votes reflect that changing dynamic, lets wait 30-60 days and try again" perhaps many would have calmed down or not been upset with the close.
For the record, by my understanding that's pretty much what the close did say. Sources seem to be in a bit of disarray as to what to call the mountain, and this discussion reflects that: things are still changeing, and there no consensus as to whether or not a new WP:COMMONNAME has been established to meet WP:NAMECHANGES. Once things have settled down, another RM should be made, and sources should be evaluated.
The main difference I see is that the close provided reached a conclusion on the content of the discussion (which is what a close should be doing), and did not imply that a move was the preferred outcome (as let's try again potentially would have done). Kahastok talk 21:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mine also had an exact date range. Often editors complain that a new rm/rfc is opened way too soon after a closing, and they shut it down. With an exact timeframe editors could re-evaluate based on that. But I do expect the same result by consensus in the future regardless of where the common name is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. The whole page is a mess. There are Wikipedians making reasonable arguemnts from both perspectives, and also a lot of poorly-informed drive-by comments from barely-used ot long-inactive accounts. I stopped closely following any of the discussions days ago because they are all congested with unhelpful commentary and bickering. This is a CTOP page now and a timely close is exactly what it needed. I do think it was leaning more to the oppose side, but this is one of those cases where somebody would have brought this here regardless of the close. As much as this does upset me as an Alaskan it is hardly the main issue in the sweeping sea of executive actions we've seen in the last few weeks, and once the outrage machine moves on to something else and sources have had time to do real reporting on the mountain and not just reaction pieces, we may find it easier to find a clear consensus arrived at through policy-based arguments. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this closure but allow a new RM to be opened – I have to agree that this move request was tainted due to the “I like it” and “I don’t like it” arguments. Now I will say that it was open for at least a week; but I think the appropriate thing should have been to relist because it still seemed split. So, based on the fact that it was closed too fast, and many of the !votes were based on things other than policy; I think that we should just restart the whole RM, clean slate; that way we don’t have !votes that are tainted by “I (don’t) like it” arguments. Involvement note: I did vote “weak support” in the RM. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure how a new RM at this stage would be anything different from the current one. You'd have the same suite of users making the same arguments (based in policy or otherwise) using the same evidence base, and would likely reach the exact same outcome. A new RM down the line would give time for the dust to settle. Turnagra (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think let’s endorse THIS closure; and then open a new RM in about a month or two. That’s what I’m referring to. Because there have been complaints about people basing there !votes on whether or not they like the name; and not based on policy. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Turnagra that way they can see this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I still stand by my original comment, though. I appreciate the distinction between reopening this RM and opening a new one, but my point is that the circumstances that lead to this RM being a dumpster fire of poor arguments are still exactly the same, and a new RM would likely go the exact same way. We'd be better to taihoa for a few months and then if there's evidence that usage has shifted a RM can be opened at that point, once the dust has settled. Turnagra (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree on that point. I very much think that the dust should have time to “settle” @Turnagra. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse closure as is; do not reopen: Incredibly clear that there was not going to be a consensus in favour to move, no matter how long you kept the RM open. Whether it's closed as "no consensus" or "not moved" is academic, really. Sceptre (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as is as there is no rush, this is not a WP:BLP issue, and no non-renaming stories involving the mountain have occured in the last week or two. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES "Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one" and I would strongly urge that no move requests be allowed under three months after the close of this one. Calwatch (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I see no reason to think consensus would have been reached by keeping it open longer. anikom15 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure for now. This entire RM has been a mess so much so that I had to fully protect the page at one point. Finding consensus is going to be really hard and no matter what move is made people will be upset. Here is my thought process on this. Article titles generally follow the name that reliable English-language sources most commonly use in practice (WP:COMMONNAME). We do not necessarily use an “official” name if the official name is not actually the term in widespread use. If a subject changes its name, we look at what current, independent, reliable sources are doing after that change. (WP:NAMECHANGES) If the majority of these sources “routinely” adopt the new name, we should also adopt the new name as well. We need to avoid jumping in too fast in cases like this if usage is still uncertain or if the new name is only used by a small number of sources. Even if The Department of the Interior announced the official name, it might take months or more to see how reliable sources actually use it. WP:COMMONNAME tells us to avoid guesswork (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and since we are nowhere near consensus now we might as well wait and see what happens after the dust settles. Even during the period this RM was open there were changes in reporting of the name. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and DO NOT reopen there are almost twice as many people opposing it rather than supporting it, and also WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRYSTALBALL made the most sense. If we reopen the rm then it'll just be another big mess for more people to argue. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    there are almost twice as many people opposing it rather than supporting it not a good reason, see WP:NOTVOTE. Cremastra (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to not moved (uninvolved, though I did mention the article name in another discussion recently) There are two core arguments here which might be policy-based: those supporting say the OFFICIALNAME is now the COMMONNAME, and those opposing say it's still the COMMONNAME. Opposers have the stronger argument if you look at our precedent for other similar situations, for instance when countries change their name - it's a wait and see process, we generally do not make the change immediately unless there is an urgent reason to do so. 40-60% consensus with such a high number of people involved is well out of no consensus territory. It was also open for a week and was well-discussed, so I see no point in re-opening either. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to not moved (involved) per SportingFlyer. Technically per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, not moved and no consensus are different closes, even if for practical purposes they are the same. Regardless, the discussion should not be reopened or restarted given that an extremely high level of participation occurred. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to moved (involved): Open for one week the discussion had more supporting points than opposition ones; many arguments on the basis of native usage were very WP:OR cases to make. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OR is completely irrelevant for move discussions. It even says so on the page: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There were arguments on both sides that were poor; this is why it's useless to count votes (and why I closed it the way I did). Cremastra (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is patently untrue, and largely the reason we are here. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry? Are you asserting that all the arguments made were perfect, well-thought out, and based in policy and guidelines? That's absurd. Here's just a few, on both sides:
    • Support It's the official name now.
    • Oppose This is just another ploy by the Trump administration to create more division and hate in this country. Keeping the article as is is a form of rebellion and standing our ground. Just because Trump is running the show now doesn't mean we have to tolerate his new policies. This IS still a democracy after all. Keep it as Denali.
      • Um.
    • Support If AP style has already shifted to reflect the change, it must be moved. Any opposition to this is silly and obviously rooted in bias against Trump. Accept this and move on.
      • Bad-faith aspersions aside, last time I checked, the AP style guide was not a commandment from heaven.
    • Strongly Oppose , Common people of Alaska including Democrats and most Republicans continue to call it Denali and used the word Denali even before Obama renamed it according to the source.
      • No evidence, WP:COMMONNAME is sort of implied vaguely but not even backed up with a "per [username]".
    • Support. This page was moved to Denali almost instantaneously once Obama declared that to be the name. I see no reason not to follow that precedent now.
    • Oppose The content of Wikipedia shouldn't reflect political stunts. If content can change at the whim of a politician then that seriously undermines readers' ability to trust Wikipedia.
    • Support Regardless of our feelings about the name change or the man behind it, it's our solemn (sometimes tedious) duty to report the facts of reality, and this is the official name. Ignoring that would lead to a problem where everyone could rename stuff on Wikipedia.
    • Support
    Also a lot of the votes and replies were just screaming "IT'S THE COMMON NAME!!!" "NO IT ISN'T!!!!" with rather a dearth of evidence cited for such a major discussion. I stand by my close. Cremastra (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cherry-picking like this is just further cementing the fact that you were unfit to close this discussion. Zaathras (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree - this is a perfectly valid response to your assertion, and I don't see this reply as providing any indication as to Cremastra's ability to close the discussion. Turnagra (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zaathras You must be kidding me. You ask me to provide evidence of any bad !votes whatsoever; I provide some; and then you accuse me of cherrypicking quotes!? If I had included some of the good !votes, it wouldn't be a response to your (clearly unsubstantiated) claim, would it? If compiling evidence is "cherrypicking", then yes, I suppose this is. But your insistence on aggressively attacking my decisions for no apparent reason troubles me. In fact, I wonder if this whole MRV is frivolous, especially given that you rushed to this option even though I made it clear that I was willing to discuss this further on my talk page. I am, not to put too fine a point on it, ticked off at pretty much everything I've seen of your conduct so far.Cremastra (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your feelings are wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand, and the point remains that you rushed to close an active discussion as no-consensus by fraudulently claiming that a preponderance of the input was not policy-based. We're done here, and we shall await the close of this filing. Which should either be re-opened or closed now as a consensus to Not Move. Zaathras (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't accuse other editors of making fraudulent claims. Your aggressive behaviour is way out of line. I do not wish to deal with you further. Cremastra (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: Thanks to Cremastra for tackling such a contentious move and doing a decent job of it. What a lot of words to sift through on all of this! I agree with Calwatch. Let's just wait three months and see what happens. Encyclopedias move slower than news outlets. That's ok. Maybe even good. Surely enough of all this for now. Ironic (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) Given the recent events regarding the name change and the intent of WP:NAMECHANGES, there is clearly not yet any consensus one way or the other regarding the question at hand. The highly attended discussion reflects this, and more time for discussion would not change that outcome at this time. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2025_February&oldid=1275787553"