Edward IV

Edward IV (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Edward V (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Discussion was closed by a non-admin in favour of the move, even though consensus was clearly not in favour. The closure appeared to have little reasoning or valuation of the arguments behind it. Non-admins are advised against closing discussions where the outcome is likely to be controversial, which this one clearly was. The response to my approach was that "The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. In this case, the guideline's prescription is clear". If the latter were truly the case, there would not have been such a long dispute over its application. Deb (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closer's comment: I'll just repeat what I said on my talk page. The guideline is clear: article names of Medieval European monarchs should not include territorial designations unless disambiguation is required, which everyone agrees is not the case here. Consensus is based on the strength of arguments rooted in policies and guidelines, and the arguments of one side were clearly better rooted. It is obvious that some people do not like WP:SOVEREIGN's prescription, but they should be seeking a consensus to change that guideline, not waging dozens of battles across individual RMs. Until they do, it is the closer's job to apply policy as it is, rather than as some editors wish it were. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC); edited 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  What about the guideline on consistency? Deb (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Topic-specific naming guidelines provide a stable framework by which to balance all five criteria (recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision and consistency). Their consistent application provides for what editors have determined to be the best balance of all five. If editors believe that the guideline improperly balances these things, they should seek to amend the guideline. Retaining a handful of titles that contradict a guideline because editors feel they are more appropriate, without defining and codifying why they are more appropriate in said guideline, ultimately decreases rather than increases the consistency of our titles. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closer made a "no-consensus close" (with the exception of WP:NOYEAR), but has also insisted the title remain at the location it was boldly moved to, rather than to title used in the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made, as required by WP:TITLECHANGES. The close itself appears reasonable, but the decision on what title should be utilized given a no-consensus close is contrary to policy, and I am opening this move request to request overturning that aspect and moving the article to "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus".

Note that there have been two other discussions on this, at RMTR and the article talk page; the discussion at RMTR is the cause of this move review being opened, as while three uninvolved admins have agreed that the article is at the wrong title, none have been willing to unilaterally move it over full move protection and the objections of the closing admin - they have instead recommended that a move review be opened. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close. The closer correctly interpreted the discussion as concerning a request to move away from the current title. They correctly observed that a proposal to return to the initial title was among the actively discussed options, however it did not garner necessary support – the community has undoubtedly supported the initial rename, even if it was undiscussed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Why do you say "the community has undoubtedly supported the initial rename"? Maybe I missed some context, but that doesn't seem supported by the no-consensus close, at least. The closer clarified that "There was no consensus in the discussion for anything except WP:NOYEAR." XDanielx (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Note: Kashmiri was involved in the RM (opposed the proposed revert and replied supporting removing the year). Involvement should be disclosed per #Commenting in a move review. SilverLocust 💬 04:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved) for the procedural reasons BilledMammal mentioned. A no-consensus close should have restored the default mentioned in WP:TITLECHANGES, rather than keeping the result of an improper move (a clearly-controversial move that was done without a RM). XDanielx (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). The title was 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus prior to a BOLD move on 2 April. The closer found consensus to remove the year but explicitly said "there was not" consensus to do anything else. Under WP:NOCON/WP:TITLECHANGES, the page clearly needs to go the "most recent stable title" (or, if you prefer, "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub") minus the year—Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. No objections to a new RM after this review is closed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Extraordinary Writ Before the 2 April move, the article had existed for a whole of 19 hours, so this is a weak argument. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse and overturn (uninvolved) this is a bit of an odd RM as it seems there was opposition to revert the page move, and I endorse the no consensus to revert the move to the original title, as there was consensus not to move it back. As a result WP:TITLECHANGES doesn't really apply, even though it's a strange one. However I don't see clear support for invoking WP:NOYEAR and would overturn the move to the originally suggested title. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: WP:TITLECHANGES is not applicable here and should be disregarded – it only refers to situations when an article title has been stable for a long time (bolding mine). In this instance, however, "consulate" was never stable for more than a day: the article was first renamed from "consulate" to "embassy" within 15 hours of its creation and remained so for two weeks, with a few later changes, back-an-forth, but always "embassy" was the more stable title. Yet, there was nothing resembling "long time" in this very new article.

Anyway, if policies are contradictory, we have to refer to local consensus, and there was no consensus to support the proposal of going back the much less stable term "consulate". — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If you read the final sentence of the paragraph you quoted from it clearly does apply; If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made

Further, the new title wasn’t stable because it was disputed an hour later on the talk page by opening an RM - stable means undisputed, not unreverted, as for it to mean otherwise would encourage edit warring. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

1 April: Article created

2 April: Article moved to "embassy..."

14 April: Article moved to "consulate"

Back-and-forth moves follow.

The stable name is obvious, no need to pretend. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You missed a few relevant events:

• 1 April: Article ceases to be a stub
• 2 April: RM opened, with editor saying "I suggest moving it back to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus"
• 13 April: RM closed as "no consensus"

BilledMammal (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

RMs can be opened at will, they only mean that an editor didn't like the existing title. We need to jduge consensus. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not responsive to BilledMammal's point, which wasn't about how long the title was live, but the fact that it was immediately contested. Clearly there is no stable title, since the page has only existed for a few weeks and the title has been debated essentially the entire time. Hence the aforementioned "first major contribution" default. XDanielx (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, this supposed procedural "clarification" by Kashmiri here is factually wrong. WP:TITLECHANGES does apply here, and according to the "first non-stub version" stipulation therein, the stable default title in the event of no other consensus is 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. The present title of the article is not the default unless a consensus explicitly finds so.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Move the building destroyed was the Counsulate as everyone can check by their own . The current title is wrong and misleading, moreover failing to comply with WP:PRECISE. Nicola Romani (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Bad vote. This is a move review discussion – what is being discussed is only whether the closer closed the discussion in line with our policies and consensus. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved) on the no consensus but yet not moving back to the original title conclusion. I had said my part in the RM/TR discussion. I don't mind it being moved to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus if the consensus was found to have the year removed from the title. – robertsky (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). Dylanvt boldly moved the page at 14:26, 2 April. Classicwiki disagreed with the move and was entitled to revert it per Wikipedia:Requested moves, after which Dylanvt could have opened a RM to reinstate the move. However, Classicwiki instead opened a RM to revert the move. Now we have no consensus to revert the move, no consensus to keep the present title, and (while there is consensus to remove the year) no consensus to just remove the year and keep the rest of the present title. Given the title is controversial, I think the cleanest sensible path forward is to wind the clock back to before 14:26, 2 April, restoring the original title, after which Dylanvt or anyone can start a new RM. As it happens, WP:TITLECHANGES says "default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made" – that was the original title. (I don't understand at all the arguments that WP:TITLECHANGES does not apply.) I don't object to dropping the year from the original title – that would be a less clean rollback, but is probably more sensible. Nurg (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) per Extraordinary Writ. I also dispute the removal of the year given how little attention it received. Pilaz (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) procedurally per WP:TITLECHANGES. But also since the current title clearly does not match the article lead. Marokwitz (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Today (Australian TV program)

Today (1982 TV program) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This move request should be re-opened as closer wasn't able to take into account that the 1982 TV program is the obvious primary topic for "Today (Australian TV program)", which has aired for 44 years in comparison to the 1960 TV program's one year. I support the second move occurring, but the first move doesn't need to occur and this article should be reverted back to its original location at "Today (Australian TV program)", it is the most likely topic being referred to when readers search for this program. Happily888 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. You are suggesting an incremental improvement over the result of the last RM which indicates starting a new RM to further improve the names. There is no need to do anything with respect to the RM nominated here for review.—Alalch E. 12:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). The close was reasonable based on the discussion that had occurred up to that point. I concur with Alalch that, if you're looking to change the title again (including back to the previous title), starting a new RM seems more likely to yield a productive discussion than reopening the prior RM would. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (closed)

Opposition to Chavismo

Opposition to Chavismo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Reading Beans may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: NoonIcarus, a user recently topic banned for POV pushing, who has been engaged in some page-move wars and who has forced their own titling on the project proposed a move only three months after their past proposal was opposed. As the previous discussion laid out, "Opposition to Chavismo" is actually less precise because there is both "Chavismo" and "Madurismo". Making the comparison to Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia and the other categories are a false equivalencies since the opposition has spanned over two presidencies and has not been against just one individual. The Venezuelan opposition (its common name in the English language) has been opposed to both presidencies.

Overall, the "Opposition to Chavismo" title is inaccurate, "Opposition to Chavismo and Madurismo" is a mouthful and having two different articles would be an unnecessary content fork. The title Venezuelan opposition is more concise, precise and is the common name for the movement that opposes both Chavismo and Madurismo. Also, having an article move proposal on such a controversial topic being closed with no involvement is not recommended. The move discussion should be reopened and relisted. --WMrapids (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reopen Since no one participated in the move discussion apart from the proposer, and the move is clearly controversial especially given the POV-pushing, we should treat this as a reverted unilateral page move and re-open the discussion to get a better consensus.

SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not oppose to this being reopened but calling it a reverted unilateral page move is uncalled-for; the supposed controversial move was opened for 2 weeks with no one supporting or opposing. Doesn't look so controversial to me. Best, Reading Beans 06:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reopen (uninvolved): Whenever someone requests reopening a recent WP:RMNOMIN closure, the best practice is to reopen. Reopening is a better way to "help in establishing a consensus whether to move or not" (quoting the closer), since move review isn't a place for continuing the move discussion. And in light of Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#Requested move 22 November 2023 (which includes comments that would still appear to apply in opposition to the move even with edits to the article), this is not a good candidate for a WP:RMNOMIN closure as uncontested. (I will also note that the portion of the argument based on consistency with Spanish Wikipedia should have little weight since WP:CONSISTENT is not aimed at inter-language consistency.) SilverLocust 💬 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. Overturn. (Restore old title.) < uninvolved > In light of current events, the older title should be restored, and a fresh RM should only be opened if there are new and strong arguments to do so. The RM under review was opened only about 3 months after a not moved decision and so appears to have been out of process. Not unsympathetic toward the nom's well-made points; however, we are here to evaluate only the closure, which was reasonable and in accord with the closing instructions. Also would not be averse to reopening and relisting if MRV consensus deems it so. As it presently stands, though, this was (still) a good close! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 16:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  There's only one way it could have been closed, though, because there was only one participant, who is now topic-banned. The close itself was not the issue, the procedure was the issue... SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

When I see a close and agree that I would have reached the same conclusion, then I pretty much endorse. Consensus can change, and when there is no opposition for twice the time it should take to reach a conclusion, then I see it as a change of consensus probably due to complacency on the part of topic-tired editors. Ya snooze, ya lose. In terms of what this review board is here for, that was a good close, reasonable and in line with WP:RMCI. It should be endorsed, and editors who snoozed and now think it's wrong should wait several months and then try to move it back. There was plenty of time to oppose and supply a policy-based argument. In terms of this particular closure, consensus has changed for the present and should be honored. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a move discussion with only one !vote is not "consensus." This is no different procedurally than unilaterally moving the page using the Move tool, even if it is not the fault of the nominator, and then having someone else notice it was moved several weeks ago and reverting. I see absolutely no reason not to reopen this even if the proposer wasn't topic-banned. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you've never closed a move request that was attended only by the nom. Over the years I've closed several like that. What makes this request any different? Editors had a full week plus a relisted week and then some. What would reopening accomplish? It might draw attention from those here at MRV, but if it takes two weeks and an MRV to change the consensus found by the closer, then there is something wrong with this picture. And I'm sorry right back to ya because a discussion with only one !vote is a consensus – even a page moved without discussion is a consensus until challenged. But wait! that's not the case is it. This consensus is the result of a formal move request. And now, after two weeks of complacency, one other editor opens an MRV? That may be enough for some, but it is not enough for me. This RM close should stand on its own as viable for now. ymmv. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me. An AfD with one participant is soft closed. I don't see why a RM should be treated any differently. And an RM by a user that's now topic banned shouldn't carry any weight at all. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry if my words seem cryptic to you. Like SJ below, and as I said before, I am not against what appears to be the probable outcome and consensus of this review. Perhaps there should be further immediate discussion? The close was good, and yet maybe you and others here are onto something. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A few points in reply:

(1) WP:SILENCE for two weeks isn't a stable consensus, just a "presumed" consensus. See, for example, WP:SOFTDELETE. It would be aberrant if that counted as a stable consensus only in RMs (in contrast to content editing, deletion, and bold moves).

(2) If the closer had seen the previous RM with opposition, I would consider it unreasonable to close the move as "uncontested" without the participants in the previous RM having been pinged. (And even if the closer wasn't aware of the previous RM, that would still be a reason to reopen under the second bulletpoint of WP:IMR.)

(3) There is no reason to wait several months to continue a minimally-attended discussion. If that were an actual requirement, it would be all the more reason to reopen this RM. SilverLocust 💬 00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. Close was good and should be endorsed. This consensus at a formal move request was to move to the proposed article title. The longer editors wait to open a fresh RM, the better their chance of success. Recommended wait time is minimum one year – I cut that in half to six months to give the nom the benefit of the doubt. Good close. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Although I lean to preferring the current title, per the balance of statements on that talk page after stripping the blocked user’s statements, restoring the old title on the basis of the March RM being too soon after the November RM, is nit unreasonable. However, noting the blocked user was all over the November RM, I would call this a “no concensus” situation and recommend a fresh RM at two months. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Relist / Reopen / Allow an immediate fresh RM. Nothing wrong with the close, but the nom has reasonable points that weren’t discussed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

move back to the old title, and discourage a fresh RM for two months. No criticism of the close, but with ArbCom being involved, a central editor now topic banned, another sock-blocked, it’s a mess and a pause would be helpful. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reopen. (Uninvolved, though I closed an earlier RM on this article.) I'm normally a big proponent of WP:RMNOMIN, but in this case, the proposed move almost exactly duplicated an RM that was rejected by consensus just a few months ago. Consensus can change, true, but if nobody but the nominator has commented then I don't think we have enough evidence to determine whether consensus has changed on this topic. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Allow immediate renomination [Move to the previous name per the rest of this discussion.12:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)]. Editors who would have seen the nomination and would find no reason to object (and did not !vote, presumably) under a premise that the rationale, based on the equivalencies drawn, seems fine, were not introduced to the facts properly, because, indeed, the Venezuelan government =/= Chavismo. Calling anyone who opposes the current government as anti-Chavista implies an essentialized notion of the government as embodying Chavismo, which is obviously questionable. It is actually original research. Under these circumstances it can't be said with sufficient certainty that the decision reached was a good decision. RMs exist to provide the community with time and structure to reach a good decision. The process does not exist for the sake of process. The nominating statement in the reviewed RM is probably not conducive to making the best decision. Therefore, instead of reopening, allow an interested editor to start a brand new RM that is not based on questionable equivalencies.—Alalch E. 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Please note that the nominator of this review has been blocked indefinitely. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  That was unexpected. I still think allowing immediate renomination might make sense considering the new discussion on the talk page and the fact this is or was at ArbCom. SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked by User:Primefac with the allegation that he used multiple accounts abusively. Primefac might have a helpful comment, but my leaning is to note that WMrapids (talk · contribs) is the sole driver for reopening/ relisting, others merely supporting, and so for practical reasons at least this should be closed, with the standard moratorium of six months before a fresh RM, unless another editor in good standing speaks up soon and want to pick up the nom’s cause. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe, I think enough editors have spoken for relist/reopen for that to speak for itself. This discussion should be assessed on its merits, not who started it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Noting also that this RM was started a little over 3 months after the previous one. TarnishedPath^talk 02:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  A relist or reopen needs at least one person who will champion the new arguments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  others merely supporting that's... kind of how nominations work? If there was unanimous opposition to this proposal, sure, close it and let someone else re-file down the line, but "procedurally closed because people are agreeing with a now-blocked user" is one of the weirdest takes I've seen in a while. Primefac (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  To attempt to clarify, and speaking for myself, I supported the MRV nom because he had new arguments. But I am not personally persuaded by the arguments. And noting now that he began by arguing editor behavioural problems, and is now blocked for “abusive” sockpuppetry, this MRV is severely tainted. Unless someone really believes the nom’s 2nd paragraph arguments and is prepared to argue them in the reopened RM, I don’t think the RM should be reopened.

  Further, talk page progress, at Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#New title "Opposition to Chavismo" + LEDE language, does not to support a return to the prior title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  The initiator of the conversation you linked even noted they would have likely opposed the name change. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  User:WMrapids consistently opposed the move. Do I misunderstand your point? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  In fact both participants in that thread have indicated that they are not fans of the move. TarnishedPath^talk 01:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  That is not a good argument. It was started out of process. TarnishedPath^talk 13:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Relist / Reopen Move to previous article name (uninvolved) Given the severe lack of involvement in the RM and how soon that it was barely over 3 months it was after the previous RM which did have more involvement and which arrived at a completely different close it would be best to reopen to allow a more fuller consensus to form the RM was completely out of process and the result should be overturned. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you discount the contributions from the now blocked abusive sockpuppeteer, the prior RM, Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#Requested move 22 November 2023, reads very differently. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could read that RM as resulting in a move even without WMRapids. TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. I support restoring the old title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise. I should have stated move to previous name to start with given the RM was out of process. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Opening a new RM was not "out of process". There isn't some automatic WP:MORATORIUM created every time a requested move is closed with a consensus, particularly not one that lasts for four months, which was the amount of time between these two RMs. And the nominator plausibly asserted a change in circumstances. SilverLocust 💬 17:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Here at MRV if a RM that resulted in a clear moved or not moved outcome is followed in less than a year by another RM, it is considered out of process unless there are significant new arguments or old arguments have been strengthened. With no consensus decisions an RM is out of process if it begins less than three months after the decision. Waiting times are pretty arbitrary and based on past experience of successes or failures of the new RMs. "Out of process" is just a description – nothing's etched in stone. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

While you have previously called these out of process RMs a number of times, that shouldn't be conflated with what "is considered out of process" by MRV commenters generally (or ^{[by whom?]}). As you know, RMCI includes an observation that successful re-requests generally take place at least 3 months after the previous one, but that is just a description of likelihood of success, not a procedural waiting period (however flexible) for a re-request to be a valid RM process. Re-requests are often quickly rejected by commenters and WP:SNOW closed as having very little chance of getting a different outcome, but they shouldn't be procedurally closed as invalid process absent an express moratorium (or a consensus to change that observation into a procedural waiting period). SilverLocust 💬 08:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of your disagreement on the term "out of process", NoonIcarus listing an RM barely three months after they'd had the previous RM that they'd listed not moved would be considered by many to be disruptive. It's not a stretch to call it "out of process". TarnishedPath^talk 12:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)