Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (User talk:DannyS712#Cape Canaveral)

I closed this discussion as consensus to move the pages. One move was reverted out of process by Garuda28. I explained this to them on my talk page, but Garuda28 refused to revert themselves. Rather than move war I submit my closure for community review. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist (To be clear, position is to retain the title as Cape Canaveral Air Force Station) There are next to no official sources that indicate that it has been renamed to Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and a plethora that say that it has not including its official website (https://www.patrick.af.mil/). Most recent announcements from the base have been that renaming has been delayed, with no additional releases since (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2020/03/24/coronavirus-space-force-name-change-hold-space-coast/2906937001/). I was involved in the previous move discussion and was the last one to comment. This was the only portion of the move I contested, and no one responded to it before the move was closed. For full disclosure, I misread the move request as the user who initiated being the same who closed it, which I interpreted against guidelines and having no consensus on the close. I was wrong and apologize for my misunderstanding. Garuda28 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. (uninvolved) Let him argue it out in the RM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ping the other four participants.

  Soumyabrata

  Ortizesp

  Crazydaemon1

  HAL333

  Garuda28 made a late comment, it is not fair to assume that the earlier participants ignoring of that comment means that they didn't agree. They can say here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the place to rehash or continue the RM. This is to determine if the close of the RM was correct. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The question for them is: Was it correct for the closer to assume that their non-response to the late comment by Garuda28 was because they didn’t agree with him? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Or: Was it correct for the closer to evaluate only the arguments that had been presented? Either way, pinging the participants to come and provide those responses here that should have been in the RM is incorrect, because that's an RM, not a move review. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If they say Garuda28 needed a response, then we know the discussion should have been relisted with pings to the earlier participants due to his new information. If they do not, then we know Danny was correct to close and then insist on standing by his close. I have my suspicions, but the clearest answer comes from those I pinged. One has answered. A non-answer should be taken as silent consent to upholding the close. If the close is endorsed, I think Garuda28 should abide by the standard 6 month moratorium on revisiting the question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and restore move. (uninvolved) RM has been done with a Support (not a contested portion) from Garuda28; "let him argue it out in the RM" can be done as a subsequent RM if Garuda28 wants to initiate it for that page. Bad form to allow a participant to unilaterally undo a consensus move because they !voted for it on a misunderstanding. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @JHunterJ: I would like to note that I brought this specific point up in the comment section, so it was brought up in the requested move. Garuda28 (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you did. And the !votes were unanimous in support, so the close was absolutely correct. Unilaterally reverting it once you realized you had misread the proposal and so hadn't made your objection clear is bad form and should have been self-reverted when asked. A subsequent RM for that single move could be opened immediately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. You are also correct, I did misunderstand and it was bad form. I will open a RM for that page immediately. Garuda28 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Garuda28, no, do not. Not immediately. One thing at a time. Let this play out. There is no emergency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe: In that case I will not. I will totally admit, this is one area of Wikipedia I have not had to navigate before. Garuda28 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain the article title as it is per above. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 13:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Arguments saying the !voters erred, rather than the closer (which Garuda28 appears to be making), are not valid at move review. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved), and I note that Garuda28 did revert his move at 01:54 29 April, after this review was opened, so title is now Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in accordance with the RM. The close of the multi-move request, after 7 days and more than 24 hours after the final comment, was entirely correct considering 5 comments unanimously in favor, with only one of those indicating a caveat regarding only one of the articles. The RM should not be relisted. However, because Cape Canaveral Space Force Station is fundamentally different from the others in the RM, a new RM should be allowed at Talk:Cape Canaveral Space Force Station if anyone thinks it's worthwhile to delay that article's title change. Station1 (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Conway (disambiguation) (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The rough vote count is 2 support vs. 3 oppose. The Closer's rationale seems to be his own evaluation of "application of both criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" rather than an accurate summary of the discussion, which may indicate a WP:SUPERVOTE. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:NOTVOTE (and if trying to lobby for a simple vote, remember to count the OP in with the supports). And please re-read WP:SUPERVOTE, which these were not. The supports had the backing of policy and guidelines, as mentioned in the closes. Investigating the claims made and describing how reality bore them out is not introducing new arguments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not always true that the OP is automatically a support, and since the burden is on those proposing a change, the status quo can be seen as a counter to OP. I cited the rough vote count, and even including OP, this is a draw. Likewise, the burden is on you as closer in this discussion to explain how and why you weighted the votes in the way you did to reach your conclusion. -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: @Netoholic: I wanted to hear more about your views so that I could refine my argument to address your specific points of contention. I was honestly quite surprised that you didn't consider the second president to be the primary topic of John Adams, so I made a further inquiry at 20:26, 15 April 2020, for you to clarify your views, but I never heard back from you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (ec) as the Supporters made clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments for both prongs (I !voted Support per the well-reasoned nom), and while the Opposers claimed to argue against long term significance, they either weren't well supported or were actually arguments against having primary topics at all (something not supported by the wider Wikipedia readership). Even if you found those arguments somewhat persuasive, there's enough discretion given to RM closes here to make Endorsing the only reasonable outcome here. Iffy★Chat -- 21:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). Closer's read of the discussion is reasonable, and the mathematician is frequently referred to as just "John Conway" without his middle name. Netoholic's point in the RM that "long-term significance holds weight" is a potentially reasonable counter-argument, but that's never followed up on - so who are these more important John Conways other than The John Conway, then? Why are they long-term important? Just because there are a lot of names on the disambiguation page doesn't mean that any of them in particular are "important", so I think there needed to be a more specific case here for that argument to hold weight if we're discarding page views. (Disclaimer: I personally am in the target audience for "knows who John Conway is," so selling me on his importance is already done.) SnowFire (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I am more sympathetic to subjective arguments about long-term significance when things are in different categories, like Apple vs. Apple Inc. When all the contenders are of the same category, such as pop culture items (songs, albums, films, TV shows) more than 2-3 years old (to avoid WP:RECENTISM bias), or celebrities, or academics (as is the case here for the three biggest John Conways), we should fall back on cold, hard numbers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Having multiple "contenders are of the same category" is exactly why they should ALL be disambiguated and that there be WP:NOPRIMARY because popular primary names (especially among similar topics) tend to accumulate bad incoming links. We should want everyone linking to John Conway to be exceptionally careful that they are linking to the right person from among so many possibilities. When a DAB page is at that primary, we have bots to notify when people link to it (rather than a specific, disambiguated topic) and we can also use the WhatLinksHere to cleanup any incoming links that haven't been addressed. For this case, its far better that a reader clicking a link to John Conway directly see the DAB page than potentially being delivered to the wrong academic and not be aware that there is any problem (WP:ASTONISH). -- Netoholic @ 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But you agree that the numbers matter, at some point, I'm sure? What if there's a historian called Stephen Hawking (historian) who barely scrapes by WP:NPROF? Do we really need to disambiguate Stephen Hawking, who would probably receive more than 100x the number of views of the historian? Assuming you agree, then it's a matter of setting a threshold. I believe that 85% of all pageviews, while not as overwhelming as my hypothetical Stephen Hawking example, is sufficient. This means that he outpolls by 5-6x not just his nearest competitor, but every other John Conway combined. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Using your massviews link and taking out irrelevances, I get a number of 79% pageviews, not 85%. I also see him as 1 out of 16 possibilities on that list, and specifically 1 out of 4 academicians, and 1 of 2 mathematicians (and the other mathematician is 3rd on the list by pageviews). So sure, numbers matter... but you're looking at only one scope of numbers (raw pageviews in aggregate). This move just has SO LITTLE benefit... because we know that the vast majority of views come here via search engines which work via keywords and context and deliver views directly to the article (not any redirect). Had your RM been about whether to move the article itself to primary, the overall pageviews would matter more. But as it is, we must consider that this redirect impacts editors FAR more than readers, and that we will accumulate bad wikilinks as long as the DAB is not at primary. -- Netoholic @ 21:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My intention is to move John Horton Conway to John Conway. However, there are people who might object on the basis of whether he is primary, and also people who might believe he is primary but should remain under his full name. Instead of conflating the two issues, it is better to do it step by step, especially since the second proposal is moot if the first one fails. The number of possibilities doesn't matter; John Adams (disambiguation) has over 50. And you can go on believing John Adams shouldn't be primary all you want, but almost no one will agree with you. (By the way, I didn't count Jon Conway because that's a misspelling of his name, that's probably the cause of our discrepancy.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse neither the existence of other individuals with the same name nor a WP:VAGUEWAVE to "long-term significance" is enough to overcome the reasoned arguments made in support of the move. Calidum 15:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Calidum: - All 3 opposes made multi-sentence justifications. It is the 2 supports that made 1-sentence WAVEs to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with little backing evidence. I am shocked you can fairly look at those and come to the conclusion you did. -- Netoholic @ 09:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - perfectly reasonable reading of the linked discussion. Opposers failed to show that the British mathematician failed to meet either primary topic criterion. By the way, with all due respect, we do not count votes at Wikipedia; even if we did, please remember that the nominator counts as a "support" voter. Red Slash 17:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madman (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The rough vote count is 1 support vs. 2 oppose. The Closer seems to have given a rational which introduces a brand new argument to the discussion not raised by any participant. This indicates a WP:SUPERVOTE. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:NOTVOTE (and if trying to lobby for a simple vote, remember to count the OP in with the supports). And please re-read WP:SUPERVOTE, which these were not. The supports had the backing of policy and guidelines, as mentioned in the closes. Investigating the claims made and describing how reality bore them out is not introducing new arguments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not always true that the OP is automatically a support, and since the burden is on those proposing a change, the status quo can be seen as a counter to OP. I cited the rough vote count, and even including OP, this is a draw. Likewise, the burden is on you as closer in this discussion to explain how and why you weighted the votes in the way you did to reach your conclusion. -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The burden on me is not to weigh the !votes but the arguments. I met my burden with my closing comment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). While the voting is a bit light (2 to 2), there was plenty of time for you (or others) to contest my argument if you did not think it was valid. I have laid out very clearly why a reader who searches or clicks on a link to Madman is unlikely to want to read about Insanity, and if the closer sees that it was left unanswered then he can only assume that you have no answer to it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The discussion could use further input. I don't really see any consensus either way and it had only been open for a week (with all votes coming within the first 24 hours). I'm also not a fan of closers injecting new arguments into their closing statements. We can debate whether this case counts as a WP:SUPERVOTE or not, but relisting was the correct choice regardless. Calidum 15:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Both the proposer and King of Hearts presented the argument that a reader searching for "Madman" would be unlikely to be served by landing on Insanity. In assessing that argument, I looked at the article Insanity to see what service it provided to a reader searching for "Madman". Finding none, I mentioned that the article text supported their (not my) argument. I could have left that transparency out of the close, but I've also found that there are editors who are not fans of closers closing contentious discussions without explaining why the arguments presented led to the close. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - perfectly reasonable close Red Slash 17:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If I came across this, I would personally have leaned towards relisting, but I think JHunterJ's close is defensible. The arguments for the move are stronger than the ones against. Zxcvbnm's comment only attempts to rebut a minor piece of the nominator's rationale (the idea that the term is "outdated"). Netoholic's oppose introduces some important new data seemingly supporting the status quo, but then Uanfala replies with a deeper analysis of that data which actually points to the opposite conclusion. The supporting arguments have a good basis in policy, and were never substantially countered. Colin M (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not a exemplar RM and close. It is close to a borderline SUPERVOTE, with the closer's point that the redirect target did not mention the title, I'm not sure whether that is a super!vote point or a statement of policy. Here, it matters that the closer is a very experienced and respected RM closer, and as an admin they enjoy the privilege of "admin discretion" in closing discussions on their judgement of where the rough consensus is pointing. Also, there is the notion that in cases of no consensus, there is no PrimaryTopic; ambiguous titles going to DAB pages hurts no reader to any degree of any substance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The rough vote count is 2 support vs. 2 oppose. The Closer seems to have given a rationale which cites a support argument, but also misconstrues an oppose argument in a way opposite of that which was given. Neither support nor the requestor has cited a guideline or policy as justification, and actually gives an argument counter to WP:RPURPOSE. This makes the support side too weak to overcome the opposes. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in this discussion and while I think Netoholic's analysis of the arguments given is quite innacurate, I completely agree that the discussion could use more input from other editors and warrants a relisting, as Buidhe tried to do. Edit: it's probably worth mentioning that I favor relisting even though the (premature) move is what I supported. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How was it premature? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist as there was no consensus at close time and the discussion could use more input. buidhe 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see WP:NOTVOTE (and if trying to lobby for a simple vote, remember to count the OP in with the supports). And please re-read WP:SUPERVOTE, which these were not. The supports had the backing of policy and guidelines, as mentioned in the closes. Investigating the claims made and describing how reality bore them out is not introducing new arguments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The discussion could have definitely done with more input, but as it stood at the time it's really difficult to see how it could have been closed any other way. Yes, there were two editors opposing and three supporting (don't forget to count the OP), but one of the two opposes was an unsubstantiated opinion, and the other one adduced two pieces of evidence, which both contradicted their vote: incoming links (I don't know how many there were at the time of the discussion, but there are 20 now, and only in three of them is perfection the intended meaning), and a dictionary entry for "perfect" as a noun (which lists two meanings that are unrelated to perfection). – Uanfala (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesey relist. RM could probably have used a bit more input than just a week, sure. If relisted and nobody else speaks up, though, think the existing "move" closure would be valid. SnowFire (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ? "just" a week is just the expected RM duration, so this one was just closed normally. The supports were compelling, and the opposes were unsubstantiated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If they're so compelling, they'll still be compelling given an additional week, right? Harmless to let it run a little longer for a low-turnout RM. SnowFire (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Equally harmless for every RM. And yet "just" one week is the policy. The amount of turnout isn't an indicator that more time is needed. You're right, they'd be just as compelling in another week, and conversely, they were just as compelling when the appropriate time was up as they would have been in another week or three. So there was no need to wait, and closing it improved the encyclopedia (and the administrative load). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy cuts two ways. Yes, it's fine to close the discussion and to improve Wikipedia. But one week isn't some holy amount handed down from Mount Sinai. If an editor requests more time for a loosely traffic'd RM and feels strongly enough to contact the closer, just believe them. Whatever, let it have two weeks. If your reading of the situation was right, nothing changes, and the extra week doesn't matter because there's no deadline. If the consensus shifts, then the extra week was useful. There have been RMs in the past with no opposes and 1-2 supports that succeeded, the Wikiproject / interested parties noticed only after links started getting updated, and a reopened or reversal RM is defeated soundly. This "Perfect" RM had two good faith opposes, so if we're willing to acknowledge that a no-oppose reopen can be valid, then surely a some-oppose reopen for more time can be valid. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  When requests come in for more time because of low traffic, I do. When they come in with inappropriate vote counting, accusations of Supervoting, and general assumptions of bad faith, less so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and at this point, maybe a trout is in order. We do not overrule closures based on vote counts. Again, we do not overrule closures based on vote counts. Red Slash 17:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A very close call, "no consensus" versus "rough consensus to move", but I am again from the camp that says "no consensus" support for a PrimaryTopic or PrimaryRedirect should default to the DAB page at the basename. When readers jump to ambiguous titles, sending them to one probably guess is to misinform that the title is associated with only one topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]