Franco-German border (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Co-nominating Austro-Italian border, which shares the same RM messages, the same RM editors, and the same RM closer. Both discussions were 2-1 in favor of the move, featuring the nominator, a support, and an oppose (me). The question at hand was whether to rename these articles from the noun form (France–Germany border) to the adjective form (Franco-German border). I believe the close was premature, should have been relisted, did not properly weigh the arguments made, and rests on an inaccurate representation of a 2022 RfC. Reviewers should know that the 2022 RfC is central to the dispute, because it is used to dismiss the argument of the oppose vote (I'm sorry, but I think the RFC result trumps the opinion of one user). I find the close problematic for the following reasons: (1) The closer's dismissal of the oppose argument is based on the 2022 RfC, whose scope was limited to bilateral relations articles (i.e. Italy–Spain relations). Here we are discussing border articles, and the RM closer acknowledges this limitation in the close. (2) The 2022 RfC closer was pinged and asked on their talk page to contribute to the discussion to solve two conflicting interpretations of the close. This clarification never happened, probably due to the hasty close. (3) The closer of the RM wrote that a recent RFC (last year) [this year] failed to establish consensus that such a consistent naming convention exists, which is either incorrect or a poor rewording of the RfC. The RfC concluded that editors achieved no consensus to establish either Option A or Option B as the subject-specific naming convention. There was no disagreement, however, about the titles within Category:Bilateral relations by country being consistently in the noun form before, during, and after the RfC. (4) The closer wrote that One user apparently feels that, nevertheless, there is a consistent naming convention applicable here, despite the finding of the RFC, favoring the current title, and CONSISTENT should still apply. I'm sorry, but I think the RFC result trumps the opinion of one user. Beyond the fact that I made no such claim regarding a "naming convention" (a naming convention is a guideline vetted by the community; here, I argued that the titles of Category:International borders should remain consistent with one another), the idea that a no-consensus RfC could prevent an editor in an unrelated WP:AT discussion from making a CONSISTENCY-weighted argument in an RfC is beyond me. The RfC states quite the opposite regarding future WP:AT discussions: As I noted on my talk page, I really can't give specific guidance on how arguments involving consistency should be weighed across all bilateral relations, since the discussion really didn't reach a consensus on that. Consistency is a part of the WP:AT and still matters [...]) (5) I find another point of divergence between what one support editor states (diff) and the closer upon explanation of their close on their talk page (It is true that the RFC "does not contain an explicit or implicit prohibition against making use of consistency arguments"). While the wording of the first makes me think they believe the RfC impedes one from making such an argument, the closer disagrees. Both, however, state that CONSISTENCY cannot be the sole argument used, because there is a lack of consensus on the matter. One can also infer the reverse, that a lack of consensus of the matter does not deny CONSISTENCY from being the sole argument used (the trap of "gaps in consensus" is that they can be used to argue anything). At any rate, the relevant policy on the matter, as argued because of the scope and the disclaimers from the RfC close itself, is WP:CRITERIA, which is much more kind on where to give weight when the AT criteria ("goals") are in conflict: However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others.

In conclusion, we have a RM close based on an RfC which is out of scope, where the RfC closer couldn't participate, which closed as no consensus, whose rephrasing was misleading, whose authority is misconstrued, and whose recommendation is, essentially, to follow WP:AT. I'll leave you pondering on why another editor has called a similar move by the same RM closer a supervote, and why the RM closer chose to self-revert there but not here. Pilaz (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). In general a RM with two editors in favour of a move and a strong WP:COMMONNAME argument is going to find a consensus for a move when only one editor has opposed with their sole argument being WP:CONSISTENT, even without considering how the RfC affects the weight of the CONSISTENT argument. This is also the difference between these RM's and the one the closer withdrew their close; here, 66% of editors supported the move, there 60% of editors opposed it.

However, regarding that RfC, I would note a few things. First, you brought it into the discussion; you can't both believe it is relevant enough to mention, and not relevant enough for the closer not to consider. Second, you asked the closer for clarification a week ago; closing now is not hasty. Third, the RfC found no consensus that one pattern across all bilateral relations article currently exists on Wikipedia that is so dominant that it is the be-all-end-all in every discussion on naming bilateral relations articles. This leads to the issue with your argument, in that it was entirely based on WP:CONSISTENT, rather than arguing that CONSISTENT was one of multiple reasons in favour of the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that NAC-ers should always revert on request, even if the request is by an involved person, because it is far less costlier for the NAC-er to !vote their close (post revert of the close) and let another close it the same way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted on my talk page, I readily revert my own closes, but draw the line when it’s requested only by an involved editor whose position “lost”. Otherwise sore losers can take advantage in a disruptive way. Not sure why we’re in an MR so quickly when all that was needed for a revert/relist was a request from someone uninvolved. —В²C ☎ 14:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This would essentially force all closes of contentious discussions to be done by an admin, which... I mean, have you seen the backlog we have even though we still have NACs performing 90% of closes? Imagine if admins had to do all those! Red Slash 00:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder how many closes over each of the past 6 months have been mine. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both agree and disagree. My own long-developed opinion is to be readily flexible when it comes to no-consensus outcomes and quite inflexible when I have sensed a consensus, as was the case here. Although as editor В²C points out, it's always a good idea to give serious consideration to 2nd and 3rd opinions if and when they're expressed, which I do even if they are from editors who were involved in the RM. That's just me; however, this opinion and way of doing things has served me pretty well, and still does. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - I think given the discussion at hand, the close was reasonable and I wouldn't fault that. Certainly if there is an obvious and demonstrated WP:COMMONNAME then that trumps WP:CONSISTENT, as per the policy at WP:AT - "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly" (emphasis mine). However, I personally don't really think this topic was given a full enough airing with the low number of participants and the lack of a prior relist, and I think the closer probably should have granted a relist in this instance upon request. In particular, I think the evidence for WP:COMMONNAME does not fully explore the usage in sources. A simple Google search (which seems to more or less cover all the usages, as it bolds all the terms France/French/Franco etc.) suggests that the majority use "French-" rather than "Franco-" for example. Personally I would oppose this move request if relisted, because I think a name which uses the simple commonly-recognized names of the countries concerned is preferable to the slightly arcane "Franco-", but I might be open to other options, for example "French-German border".  — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Amakuru. While it's usually reasonable to close underattended RMs in favor of majority, Pilaz has expressed a well-reasoned and detailed oppose that should have been honored, and such a "landmark" move (potentially useful as a precedent) should have had a much stronger consensus. No such user (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist given the impending no-consensus/not-moving in the similar Germany–Poland border RM, another RM where I interfered to ask Born2cycle to reopen since I had suspected his earlier close to be a supervote. I would also like @Amakuru to vote in the reopened discussion as well so his opinion doesn't get lost to onlookers. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or simply restore stable title France–Germany border. Why start a war over border titles? A close like this to a new title contrary to stable title and without consensus support needs either an admin or a proven non-controversial RM closer. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't borders the whole point of starting wars? I'll see myself out...- UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One of your better jokes, nicely done IIO Red Slash 00:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist seems to be the best option. I offer no opinion on the close's merits. I would however assert that the same person should not have closed both because closing one makes you WP:INVOLVED Red Slash 00:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I had considered that, but decided these related proposals could easily have been combined into one, and arguably should have, and certainly there would be no issue with one editor deciding the consensus of each separately in that situation. For all intents and purposes, what’s the difference? —В²C ☎ 08:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, tough question. I would've avoided double closing out of an abundance of caution. Red Slash 21:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - the close states that the "RFC (last year) failed to establish consensus that such a consistent naming convention exists for precisely the articles in question here". There is no need for an RFC: the 253 articles in Category:International borders are all self-evidently consistent (Foo-Boo) apart from 'Franco-German' and 'Austro-Italian'. (Words such as 'Austro', 'Franco', 'Sino' are surely archaic anyway. Demonyms are bad enough without having to master another even more obscure list.) Oculi (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wish that point had been made in the discussion so I could have considered it. This is not an area of titles with which I was personally familiar, so I was going only by what was presented in the discussion. --В²C ☎ 15:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, because the point was made that the demonyms were the COMMONNAME in sources. We go by sources, not by our POV opinions about usage of demonyms nor anything else. Your closures were sound and reasonable. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both. <uninvolved> Wait a year at least and try to garner consensus for other titles. These closures were reasonable and should be sustained, at least for now. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or overturn to no consensus. Considering the the discussion at Talk:Germany–Poland border#Requested move 15 October 2022, there is a strong consensus to keep border articles consistent and use the country names. Most participants in the move review also share that view (the fact that a lot of the editors in both discussions are the same doesn't mean the consensus is any less strong). The small participation at Talk:Austro-Italian border and Talk:Franco-German border is not enough to override that consensus. Vpab15 (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, in my opinion there is now strong evidence the consensus to move is not there. That might have not been so clear when the discussions were closed. However, User:Pilaz did oppose both move requests and I don't think their arguments were given enough weight. The support was far from overwhelming. Vpab15 (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for European professors (many individual categories, no main link) (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (Discussion with closer)

Closure requested.

Low-participation disruption of long-standing consensus to use "X faculty" on biographical articles about professors at institutions named X, everywhere except for UK/commonwealth universities, where UK-English proponents insist on "Academics of X". No consensus evident in discussion. The close chooses a path not among the ones actually proposed, with unclear support. It makes our naming system for people associated with universities even more inconsistent in two ways. First, now we would use both the "Academics of X" and "X alumni" word order for some universities, "Academics of X" and "Alumni of X" for UK universities, and "X faculty" and "X alumni" for some universities, giving a three-way inconsistency in place of the status-quo two-way inconsistency. And second, there is no obvious rhyme or reason to which universities would use one naming scheme vs another. Many of the opinions in support of this move violate WP:ENGVAR by pushing a change from American-English wording (where "academics of X" is wrong because "academics" means "academic activities", in reference to other university activities like sports, and the more specific "academic personnel" is overly broad for these categories) to English-English wording (where "X faculty" is wrong because "faculty" means an organizational subunit, not a person) for topics that have no close national ties to either. The discussion also confused two issues that should have been kept separate, namely what word do we use for professors and do we put that word before or after the name of the university. Closer has put the moves on hold for the discussion but otherwise refused to reconsider the decision. Should have been no consensus, no move. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (As closer) I set out the rationale for my close briefly in the CFD, having justified this at greater length on my talk page as linked above. With 14 participants, this CFD discussion rather well-attended by current standards. As already discussed on my talk page, there will only temporarily be a three-way inconsistency between alumni and academics categories; where a university will have "Academics of X" and "X alumni" after this CFD, it is envisaged that the alumni categories will be nominated for renaming to "Alumni of X", restoring the status-quo two-way inconsistency. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Faculty" meaning "organizational subunit" is used well outside the Commonwealth, e.g., University of Tokyo, University of Iceland, Chulalongkorn University, Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Cairo University, University of Turku, University of Belgrade, University of Zurich, Semmelweis University, etc. While the singular "faculty of X University" or "X University faculty" wouldn't make a lot of sense with the organizational interpretation, it is still potentially confusing and likely not a term a lot of editors outside the US would anticipate when searching for categories. On the other hand, "academics" also sort of gets into the same trouble, so that might also be non-ideal. I think a larger RfC in a better-attended venue than a move request would help resolve these issues. 100% cross-category consistency should really be an end goal, too. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I definitely wouldn't mind a solution that is not too jargon-laden and can be accurate across all varieties of English, but finding one is difficult, even disregarding word order:

  • "Academics" means "academic activities" in American English, so it doesn't work for US universities.
  • "Academic personnel" is somewhat cumbersome and jargony, somewhat unclear to whom it refers (is a graduate teaching assistant academic personnel? an undergraduate grader?), and may be more American than British
  • "Academic staff" has the same issues, but may be more British than American. (In US universities, "staff" generally refers to employees who are not faculty members, such as secretaries, department managers, and the like.)
  • "Faculty" means an organizational subunit in English English, and in some other countries
  • "Faculty members" may be unambiguous, but is cumbersome and I'm not sure of its geographic distribution
  • "Professors" may sometimes mean only full professors (in both British and American usage), more specific than we want

  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, "faculty members" also encompasses TAs/GAs in a lot of schools, so is it really unambiguous? I doubt there's a single word that fits all our inclusion and exclusion criteria... "Academic professionals" suffers from some unwieldiness too but probably does a better job at restricting members to professors and other academics conducting independent research/teaching as a career at the university. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and partly relist. As a participant I cannot see a consensus for the rename. I am particularly concerned to find myself listed as a supporter of the 6th or 7th alternative rename first proposed on 20 Sept when my last comment was on 18 Sept. Also the close has not taken into account the previous consensus for a completely different rename (using 'academic personnel': 2022 June 3#Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland). In my opinion a close in favour of a rename introduced towards the end of a cfd discussion should require explicit support from those who commented earlier. The nomination is flawed in that UK/Ireland categories (227 of them, all of the form 'Academics of XXX') are bundled together with the rest of Europe, all of form 'XXX faculty'. I would suggest:
  1. Keep all the UK/Ireland categories (there is consensus to keep these at 'Academics of');
  2. Relist the others with various options, including 'XXX academics'.

I certainly oppose the (double) change 'XXX faculty' to 'Academics of XXX'. Oculi (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that there is consensus for UK/Ireland being "Academics of". I thought the RfC didn't change these? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did take into account the June discussion about Finland, and its initial follow-up for national parent categories Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_4#Academic_personnel, as it was clear that this close would overrule both of those. Indeed, the Finland CFD was a precedent for renaming from "faculty" to something else; it ended with "academic personnel", which was a valid closure given the content of that discussion, but which was later clearly rejected in the present better-attended CFD.

I don't find any flaw in the nomination, which would have harmonised both old patterns in Europe following that Finland CFD.

I see nothing unusual or irregular about changing both word choice and word order in a single CFD.

I am confused by your opposition, Oculi. As you stated on 17 Sept that you greatly prefer 'academics of' to 'academic personnel of',[1] it is strange to find you "concerned" when that wording was then taken up by others and found majority support. It was not clear that you only intended this comment to refer to UK & Ireland.

If there is to be a relisting, I oppose excluding UK & Ireland, in case there will be consensus for a new wording that should also apply to them. – Fayenatic London 09:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't intend to comment in this MRV - Though I did leave some comments on the closer's talk page. Just thought I would add a few dictionary links for "academic/academics", in case it is helpful. - jc37 07:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • wiktionary
  • merriam-webster
  • collins
  • dictionary.com
  • oxford
  • cambridge
  • britannica

  - jc37 07:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As nominator, I would suggest starting a fresh discussion. There is a clear consensus for "academics" (which wasn't according to the nomination, by the way), but the issue of "academics of X university" versus "X university academics" has not thoroughly been discussed. A new option A vs option B nomination will resolve that issue more clearly than when the current discussion would be relisted. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would seem an excellent idea (omitting the UK/Ireland ones). Oculi (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse tough and well-reasoned close which produced a reasonable way forward. There was strong consensus to move away from "faculty", the word that is at best ambiguous and at worst misleading for everyone in Western Hemisphere, not just Britons and Irish. Among the !votes, the "academics" formulation was favored as the best alternative. I see "Academics of X" vs "X academics" as a secondary issue, but a significant portion of posters included explicit preference for the former, so I don't see a big deal with either. No prejudice against a fresh nomination of "Academics of X" -> "X academics" but I see it as a coin-toss issue that should be judged mainly on terms of WP:CONSISTENCY. No such user (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am willing to make a procedural nomination to reopen this, to choose between "Academics of Foo University" and "Foo University academics". To minimise work I suggest leaving the existing CFD templates in place on the category pages, and adding a link under the heading of the old CFD discussion to the new one. I do not see any justification for excluding the UK and Ireland from this Europe-wide discussion, so I would revert the removal of CFD templates from those countries, as well as the countries beginning with A (which I had already processed before this review). – Fayenatic London 13:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that we have apples - the UK/Ireland categories, all named 'Academics of XXX' without any objections or inconsistencies since 2006 (see 2006 December 21#Academics of UK Universities) - and oranges - the rest of Europe, now more or less consistently named 'XXX faculty'. Those who think that the word order doesn't matter (coin toss) have not been paying attention at cfd: UK editors (mostly) say 'Academics of' is much better and non-UK editors (mostly) say that 'XXX academics' is shorter, perfectly grammatical and just as clear. In any case there is a consensus for keeping 'academics of' for the UK/Ireland and I can't see any point in relisting these. At least relist them as a separate nom. There were endless and contentious arguments about 'Alumni of YYY' versus 'YYY alumni' and the UK after a great struggle managed to retain 'Alumni of' - these are huge cans of vigorous worms, best kept securely lidded. Why is it so important to have complete consistency for the whole of Europe? As Marcocapelle (I think) has pointed out it is US-English that is taught in much of Europe. Oculi (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel obliged to note that there was absolutely no "long-standing consensus" to begin with - what we have is an organic hodgepodge that has been disputed over a long time, but the mechanics of categorization change processes are apparently so oppressive that there is no new compromise possible. The term "academic personnel" has been in main space for three years now following a very simple change, but we can't seem to be able to muster the collective composure to make something like that happen in category space. All of these processes are supposed to be helping WP:CONS, but it's just not happening... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Academic personnel is a negligible stub with 2 sources, both for India, and should be deleted. Oculi (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Your dismissal of that merely continues to contribute to the fact that it's so easy to obstruct any progress in these kinds of discussions, and that there is no long-standing consensus. I'm going to restrain myself from further comments. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. <uninvolved> This was a good call and a reasonable closure made by an experienced and trusted admin, and officially challenged by another experienced and trusted admin. After reading it all, these category page renames appear to be a step in the right direction. Sometimes change is the hardest thing to accept; sometimes that is what we must do anyway. Nobody here is really right nor wrong, no winners nor losers. We're all here to improve Wikipedia, so let's see how these fly and get on with it! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with exception for UK-based universities. I don't see any consensus in the discussion, and the arguments on ENGVAR apply only convincingly to the UK, not the rest of Europe. While Peterkingiron did make an argument on "what is the terminology actually used in Europe", David Eppstein has shown evidence here that "faculty" does indeed appear to be a term in use in Europe on better grounds, even if belated (and I can't fault him for not bringing it up immediately at the CFD, since it is very surprising the CFD closed the way it did). Additionally, even if the argument is taken seriously, that does not change the problem that the new "Academics of" terminology (how did this happen rather than the proposed Academic personnel?!) is unacceptably vague and also a scope change. We already sometimes have exceptions to ENGVAR either if there are opportunities for commonality, or if one of the AmEn/BrEn terms has a large chance of potential confusion. "Academics of University X" would presumably include people such as people with a title "researcher" (e.g. Research fellows), graduate students, and post-docs; "faculty" is much more specifically professors. Being consistent in what a category means is good, especially as subcategories of a larger structure. Allow renomination on a country-by-country basis with the expectation that the nominator shows evidence that the "faculty" term is overwhelmingly in the minority in that country - Santasa99 brought up that Croatia / Serbia might be such a case, for example. (As a side note, I'd potentially be in favor of overturning the earlier CFDs in the series as well, but I'll refrain from comment having not looked closely - maybe there's a case for Finland, but it'd have to be specific.) SnowFire (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2011 military intervention in Libya (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

Waiving the closer discussion requirement, since I was the original closer. Originally, I closed it in favour of moving as I believed there was consensus to add "NATO-led" to the title. However, Amakuru opposed the move while it was sitting in RM/TR and requested reopening. I could not reopen it at the time as I had fallen asleep. XTheBedrockX proceeded to non-admin-vacate the closure before I could wake up. I would like to ask for further input on whether the RM should stay reopened or the original close should stand. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you have reopened the case had you not fallen asleep? I infer from your wording that you would have, but then why are you asking? So I'm guessing not. Or maybe you'd at least have had a conversation and made a decision from there. This was not the best close, but self-reporting is good. I'd say leave it open for a few days and see what happens. At the least, this will prevent any hard feelings. At the worst, the RM will garner enough discussion to become a mess. *wink* Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An oppose vote appeared after the reopening, so I will let the reopening stand. Self-closing the review. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am an uninvolved editor who just saw this page has been moved. There was no consensus to move the page from Gautama Buddha to The Buddha. All of the detailed and rich comments were made by those who opposed the move while those supporting the move offered nothing much. Even a simple !vote count shows that there was no consensus for the page move. If we were to think that "who is more popular" with the last name, then Barack Obama should be moved to Obama but I don't see if that is going to happen and that is also why it makes no sense to move "Gautama Buddha" to "The Buddha".--Yoonadue (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved comment - It would have been nice if you had attempted to discuss it with the closer before opening this, but regardless I'm having a hard time following your read of the discussion. Are you suggesting that Mathglot's very extensive analysis of the sources is "nothing much"? What opposing comment, if any, discredits or rebuts that data? What "detailed and rich comments" are you referring to in any of the oppose comments? The ones that boiled down to "there's other Buddhas", which isn't an issue per WP:COMMONNAME (and are an argument against Buddha rather than The Buddha)? Or is it the ones that argue that it's been discussed before, ignoring WP:CCC? Or are you referring to the few that cited WP:THE, which ignore the fact that sources overwhelmingly use "The" when describing the subject and thus per WP:THE is a supported title? Which comment, exactly, made a persuasive argument that the article's prior (then-current) title was the WP:COMMONNAME and that the proposed (now-current) title is not? Given that consensus is viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the supporting comments largely leaned on such whereas the opposing comments are mostly "there are many Buddhas" (which again is not an issue, there are none that are The Buddha except this article's subject), where are you getting a lack of consensus from? Half of the oppose comments weren't even opposing the right thing, they were opposing a move to Buddha because of the number of Buddhas, which was not the proposed move target. Also the Obama and Buddha comparison is (1) you trying to make an argument for or against the move, which is not the purpose of move review, and (2) isn't even a valid comparison; Buddha is not a last name. - Aoidh (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The closer thinks the page itself should begin with "Gautama Buddha", not "The Buddha", because, to quote the edit summary, actually, despite the article being moved, the starting title in the lead should usually be the formal name, e.g. Bill Clinton, where the lead starts "William Jefferson Clinton", and Slim Pickens, which starts with his formal name. So the Obama comparison seems apt by the closer's own standards. Sources overwhelmingly use "the" before "United States", but it isn't in the article title. Srnec (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I mentioned the Obama comparison because the nom seems to suggest that the article's subject is named "Gautama Buddha" as their first and last name and that the article's title should consider the full name, and that's not the case; Gautama (which is actually the "last name" of Siddartha Gautama) is a qualifier for which Buddha is being discussed when qualifiers are given. Regardless, your comment is an argument against the move that would belong in the RM itself, not an issue with the close. If we're going to make comparisons to other articles, see Bono for what was being referred to; how the lede starts is not incompatible with the article's current title any more than the article for Bono is an issue. The lede sentence and the article's title are determined in different ways, and that's not a reason to bring an article to a move review. - Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: The closer gave no opinion on what the formal name should be, stating in this elaboration on their talk page: "I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know whether Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha is the correct formal name ..." - so no prejudice either way. Biographically speaking it is 'Siddartha Gautama'. Also, while the closer did not reference WP:THE, they clearly alluded to it and explained why 'The Buddha' was preferable over just 'Buddha' in the circumstances, including the point about past RM rejection of 'Buddha' alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a "formal name" at all, then Mathglot's data is irrelevant. We do not and never have bothered to check if Obama beats out Barack Obama (or pick any other example). That's the point. If the article should not start with "The Buddha", that right there is an argument that it's title shouldn't be "The Buddha". Srnec (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: This fall under the preserve of WP:SINGLENAME, where there are examples of both single name titled pages beginning with a biographical name, e.g.: Livy and Hirohito, and single names, e.g.: Charlemagne and Fibonacci. It would appear there is no clear order preference between single common names and biographical names. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse <uninvolved>. I think Amakuru did a fine job closing this. There's clearly a consensus, amply supported by evidence, that Buddha/The Buddha is the common name (very few editors disputed that), and the precision-based opposers didn't have a strong reply to the argument that, at minimum, "the Buddha" almost always refers to the subject of the article. Further, some (not all, certainly, but quite a few) of the opposes had no apparent basis in our policies and guidelines, and the closer correctly gave them little or no weight. The WP:THE element here is tricky, but the nominator made a fair argument that the definite article is integral to the title, and regardless WP:NOGOODOPTIONS gives the closer some leeway when there are multiple options presented and there's consensus against the status quo. Ultimately, the closure seems well within discretion—no complaints from me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse <involved, opposed move> per EW. Dangit man, you said it better than I could. Further, the distinction between article titles and opening lede usage is the best way to distinguish formality vs commonness. Further, Yoonadue should have engaged in discussion with the closer prior to opening this MRV, regardless of previous discussions. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment - <sigh>. I deliberately wrote a lengthy summary at my close, which I hoped those in favour or in opposition would agree to, and would avoid the need for an MRV. It's also disappointing that the instruction to discuss with the closer was not followed. There had been some discussion on my talk page, with three out of four commenters agreeing in principle with the close, including one who had !voted against. But the OP who opened this MRV didn't raise any queries with me at all. I won't add too much else here, I think Extraordinary Writ and Aoidh above have already made much the same points as I would make. Finally, on the Buddha vs The Buddha issue, as I said in the close, that issue could yet be resolved differently in the future with a fresh RM. I didn't see enough consensus to move that way this time, but equally there wasn't consensus against Buddha. Per Aoidh, there is no policy reason why "The" shouldn't be on the front of the title since it can be demonstrated that it's commonly referred to that way in sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse <involved, supported move> The close relied primarily on the analysis of the evidence confirming Buddha/The Buddha as the WP:COMMONNAME. Combined with the subsequent tweaking and streamlining of the introduction, the flow of the article is now so much clearer and natural..., to an extent that even goes beyond my expectations when I voted. Good, sensible, decision. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse <uninvolved> Reasonable reading of the discussion. Per EW and others. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse <involved, nominator> The move review OP incorrectly characterizes the support/oppose arguments. Also, this discussion was also never going to be a simple !vote count. No claim of an incorrect approach to policy or a procedural breach have been asserted, and it seems fair to assume that the reason for this is that there were none - all in all, a very sound close. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn <involved> The closer overruled a 19–10 !vote on grounds of "consensus" based, it would seem, largely on Mathglot's data, which was posted after a relisting that Mathglot requested and after the discussion had petered out. The whole procedure is extremely annoying. First, an RM for Buddha fails in September 2021. Then, an RM for Siddhartha Gautama fails in April 2022. Finally, the same user who thought Siddhartha Gautama was a better title proposed The Buddha this month. The closer thinks the article should begin with "Gautama Buddha" and the user who provided most of the data supporting the move thinks it should be "Siddhartha Gautama". And of course, we have no idea how many of the 19 who opposed the move would prefer Buddha over The Buddha or even Siddhartha Gautama over The Buddha. Just a bad process all around, if you ask me. Srnec (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the bad process? This unflattering take gives the closer zero credit for using common sense. Many oppose votes were based on either no policy or openly stated their contempt for policy, hence why simple !vote counts miss the point and are particularly misleading here. Mathglot's extraordinary data meanwhile deserves to be credited. Why the data was already there in simpler form, the additions by Mathglot (including this entire source page!) are detailed in the extreme and stand in contrast to the complete absence of data provided in the oppose arguments. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru: Did you read Talk:The Buddha/Tertiary sources? If so, could you summarize your interpretation of it. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Srnec: no, I didn't read the page in full, but its results were summed up at the bottom of the main discussion, and were part of the overall picture that Buddha or The Buddha are the common name for this subject, a notion that was presented throughout the discussion, including by the nominator and others. And that central issue that Buddha or The Buddha is the common name was never really refuted by anyone in Opposition. What inference are you thinking I should have drawn from the linked page? Just to expand further on a few points you've raised, your own argument in the RM discussion centred not around refuting the common name argument, but in saying that there was potential confusion with other Buddhas. Yet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is clear that where the long-term significance and usage of a subject is sufficiently ahead of others with a similar name, we title it that way. London could be confused with London, Ontario, but few call for further disambiguation there. As for not using his full name (the other point you made in your "oppose" !vote) that again comes down to common usage and sourcing. You mention Obama, and while he obviously does have recognition as a single name, and that would be used in headlines and such, reliable sources would always use his first name on first introduction ("Barack Obama acknowledged Democrats can be “a buzzkill”..." while generally they wouldn't use the Buddha's first name, even on first mention - "... declaring that if Buddha returned to this world ...". In that sense it's like Adele, where the overwhelming use of a single name even on first mention means we break from our usual custom of including first name and surname. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To answer your question... Instead of counting headwords (as Mathglot did), let's look at how the articles titled "Buddha" in §Encyclopedias begin:

The word Buddha is a general term meaning one who is enlightened

Title adopted by Gautama Siddhartha

The Buddha is the typical title given to Siddartha Gautama

usual title given to the founder of Buddhism

Buddhism began in India in the 6th century B.C. with the birth of the founder, Siddartha Gautama. The term Buddha does not appear in the quoted excerpt.

According to the Buddhist theory, a "Buddha" appears from time to time in the world and preaches the true doctrine

original name Gautama, also called Siddārtha

'enlightened one'. Title of Prince Gautama Siddhārta

Etymologically, the Sanskrit/Pali word buddha means "one who has awakened"

Gautama, the Buddha, (Pāli Gotama), the founder of the Buddhist faith

The founder of Buddhism

The Buddha (ca. 560-480 B.C.) was an Indian philosopher, religious teacher

(in Sanskrit, literally :the Enlightened One"), according to the Buddhist religion, a being who has attained highest sanctity

orig. Siddharta Gautama (fl.c.6th–4th cent. B.C.) Indian spiritual leader

is the title given to the founder of Buddhism

To me, this is evidence in favour of the status quo. To explain why, let me explain why I think you misunderstand the argument I made in the RMs. I said that the old title was an aid to the reader in this regard and no different from preferring full names in other cases. It had nothing to do with potential confusion with other Buddhas. Nor did I misunderstand that Gautama was a family name and Buddha a title (as my Gandhi analogy shows). The point I have made re: Obama is that we frequently ignore a strict interpretation of COMMONNAME in favour of full names. We do it all the time. We also sometimes don't. See Adele and Madonna. We also sometimes mix a family name and an honorific (Gandhi's case, although I'm certain plain Gandhi is more common than Mahatma Gandhi). Doing something exactly like that for the Buddha makes sense for the reasons I laid out briefly in both RMs. And I think the encyclopedia entries gathered by Mathglot buttress my point. Only one treats Buddha more or less as if it were a name and jumps right in without explaining it or giving his actual name. The actual headword is irrelevant when comparing legacy encyclopedias to WP in this case, since we have PRIMARYREDIRECT.
Since this is getting longwinded and perhaps off-topic, feel free to respond on my talk page if you care. Srnec (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse <involved>. This was always going to be a controversial move, but the closer did the right thing here. The supporters gave very strong policy-based reasons and evidence for why this article should be moved, while the opposers did not. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close! <uninvolved> Closure of this RM is reasonable. Especially don't care for the nom not discussing this first with the closer. MRVs should be procedurally closed when discussion with the closer does not take place before subjecting a closure to a move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 12:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closure was an accurate reading of policy-based consensus. No one really addressed the extremely well-evidenced COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC arguments; !votes that were premised on "there are multiple buddhas" should've been discarded outright per PRIMARYTOPIC, and no one supporting the Gautama Buddha title actually provided evidence that that is the primary name in English-language RS. This RM also definitely suffered from off-topic bloviating. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I think I am fairly sympathetic to the view that the English Wikipedia has a language bias for subjects related to the Anglosphere, but in this case the policies are on one side here. Yes, Buddha for non-English speakers is ambiguous, yes, we dont title Jesus as Christ, despite the redirect, yes such and such Lord of blah is given its full name in the title. But in English "the Buddha" is both not ambiguous and the clear common English language name for the subject. And our policies say thats what count, and the arguments in favor are grounded in those policies while the arguments opposed, while totally rational and Id say probably better grounded overall, are outside those policies. Argue for a policy change in that case, that or IAR them here, but based on which argument was showed greater fidelity to our naming conventions, the minority by the numbers was, and it isnt even that close. nableezy - 21:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closer either did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI or was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion. While the previous move discussion is mentioned, none of the relevant policies or points raised in that discussion are addressed in the new move request. There is a pile-on to one interpretation of one policy; however, that interpretation is reached by ignoring all the points and additional policies raised in the previous move discussion which contradict it. The discussion should be reopened and relisted. Darker Dreams (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved): I think the vast majority of experienced closers would have come to the same conclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• closer comment I have no issue with having the discussion reopened and relisted if it is the outcome of the MRV. As per conversed with @Darker Dreams, there will be other RMs/moves that may have to be reversed or looked at if so. :– robertsky (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved): When all of the supporters (and there were no objecters) cited the same policy, is there really a need for the closer to cite the policy? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern is not that the closer didn't cite MOS:ISMCAPS. My concern is that @FULBERT and @Midnightblueowl had provided WP:RELIABLE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP arguments for why MOS:ISMCAPS had been interpreted the way it was, which remained the stable definition for years, then an argument was made (based on cherry-picking from the article) for a different reading of MOS:ISMCAPS without addressing the arguments that had produced the stable status quo. I acknowledge people piled on to that interpretation, and none of the original participants addressed the issue during the discussion window, but none of the comments that were made provide substantially more actual information than the original request to address. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither of them participated in the discussion. WP:RMCI does not say to look at previous move requests when weighing the strength of the arguments presented in the discussion. It says to weigh them wrt Wikipedia consensus as outlined by policy, guidelines, and naming conventions. This seems to be a loophole in WP:RMCI, that if there are previous RMs, the closer is not instructed to pay them any mind. Had the policy said to do so, then this MRV would have a leg to stand on. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). I don't see any basis to challenge this closure. The vote in the discussion was unanimous, so no other closure would have even been appropriate in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse without prejudice to a new RM (uninvolved). The closure correctly reflects the consensus from the discussion. It's true that "significant additional information" is a reason for reopening, but with the RM having taken place almost two months ago, I think that's a long enough time ago that it has to stand. If you have new evidence to present that was not previously considered, you can open a new discussion instead. Not that you need move review's permission to start a new discussion. (While there may be an intuition that new discussions started soon after a previous discussion on the same topic are likely to be unsuccessful, that's generally because of low-effort nominations or no new rationale, leading to rehashing of the same points already argued by both sides. On the other hand, if you have evidence that was genuinely not considered in the preceding discussion, then calls for a speedy or procedural close would be unmerited in such a case.) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist on the basis of three different editors, one here two appending the RM box, who want to add arguments against. No criticism of the closer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. <uninvolved> Agree with SmokeyJoe. No criticism of the closure itself as I would have likely made the same decision. In retrospect it appears that there is more to the pie than just the crust. This one against all odds needs more time. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 03:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist on the basis of important pertinent information not being considered in the original proposal. Editors piled in to vote without having been made aware of all the facts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved) Support for moving was unanimous; I completely fail to see a convincing argument to vacate it months later, and both late oppose arguments are mere specialized/common-style fallacies * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that we're supposed to be digging into the actual arguments, just that there were arguments that weren't made during the original listing that reasonably should be addressed. Ironically, the fact you're making cases against them seems to indicate that you think they need rebutted. So, since you are making a case against the late arguments we'll prove the point that this is a debate that should be/should have been addressed.

  Let's be clear that the capitalization standards you're arguing against are provided by policy; WP:RELIABLE sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Since you're dipping into essays rather than policy to reject the arguments that I'm saying should considered, I'm going to argue that assumptions these are fallacies rings of WP:BIAS. This is because the arguments provided in policy and previous discussion provide for for capitalization of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc but end in insisting that Paganism should be identified with a lower-case p because... it's different. To describe Paganism as "a religious movement rather than a religion" is to ignore that it falls squarely in the same frame as Hinduism^ without justifying diminishing it. This isn't a "movement" inside a larger religion- offshoots of an existing religion like evangelicalism and fundamentalism or even Pentecostal and Calvinist. If the argument is that Paganism is this sort of offshoot I would point out that religion should be identifiable, and likely worthy of its own page. Otherwise, we're just voting for religious winners and losers based on our own WP:WORLDVIEW. Darker Dreams (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, missed information by both editors and the closer should have further review. The RM was up for only five days, so a full discussion was not provided. (uninvolved). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of the clean Wehrmacht (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Genuinely the most questionable close I've ever seen an admin make in my entire wikipedia career. They completely disregarded everyone else and just did whatever the hell they wanted to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put it more clearly: A move request was opened. Two editors objected, the OP responded to one of them to argue in favor of the move. The request went for a week with no further commentary. That's not consensus for any kind of move, but UtherSRG moved it anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they however did not agree with OP, they actually dismissed their entire argument which was based on NDESC "I don't find either format more or less in keeping with NDESC, so that doesn't apply." Also the response from OP comes in between the two comments, not after them (important because it means that the second commenter's opinion was informed by OP's original argument and their response to the first commenter, who is me... This is weird to write). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - nobody supported it but the proposer, at most relist. nableezy - 19:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn close. Having reviewed this close I think it should be overturned, the closer's argument for their close appears to have been to argue a WP:SUPERVOTE which violates WP:COMMON and common sense. I was not involved in the dispute but I must concur that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and whataboutism argument is rarely persuasive on Wikipedia. The proposer appears to have conceded the substantial policy grounds of the WP:COMMON objection but instead makes an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument because they think that somehow the common framing's construction is more than what it is. Andre🚐 22:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as an unambiguous supervote close. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to me that there is plenty consensus to undo the move. I'll let the closing admin know. The close was so out of process that I don't think there will be many editors supporting that decision, but I also think that we shouldn't spend so much time and firepower on something that can be easily handled--and has broad consensus. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closure requested

The closing editor acknowledged that the "discussion and arguments seem fairly balanced in number" but nevertheless closed the request as "Move." They said that this decision was made partially because "none of those that oppose have ever edited the article." (As a side note, this is not true, u:Tritomex in fact has a few edits). I believe that this closure does not represent the consensus - or rather the lack of consensus in favour of the move. I also think that this reasoning runs counter to the spirit of move requests which are supposed to attract editors who have a fresh perspective. Alaexis_¿question? 12:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing editor comment - As I said on my talk (see "Discussion with closer" above) I noted that the article in question is limited by an Arbitration result which limits who can edit the article. Since this doesn't limit who can edit the Talk page, and therefor weigh in on the move request, I used this Arbitration result to de-weigh those who had not made edits to the article. (I suppose I could have checked all of the non-edit users who were weighing in to see if the Arbitration result would apply to them before de-weighing them, but I didn't. Would that have changed things? I don't know.) From there it was clear to see that the support far out weighed the opposition. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (Involved) The unsubstantiated claims of POV should be given no weight. In my view there is a clear consensus based on our policies for the move. Claims of POV without a single source supporting them should be thrown out wholesale. Other votes made completely bogus claims that were repeatedly refuted with reliable sources, and no sources were provided in support of them. This wasnt even a close call in my view, there was only side of the discussion that provided any policy and source based reasoning for their position. Garbage arguments like "WP:NPOV issue" with no substantiation, "biased towards the Palestinian narrative, very non-neutral", with no substantiation, "exodus" is NPOV. "expulsion and flight" is not." with no substantiation, should be thrown out entirely. There is also the obvious canvassing taking place across a number of ARBPIA discussions, largely as a result of socks of יניב הורון emailing editors to participate, but even without the canvassing the strength of argument is so clearly on one side here that the only you can dispute it is to argue that bare assertions of POV count for as much as reliable source and policy based arguments. And they do not. I dont disagree with those finding some fault with the closing rationale, but there is no reading of the discussion in which the strength of arguments by the oppose side comes anywhere close to the support side. nableezy - 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorsed (involved): This RM played host to some of the most atrociously unsupported and unjustified oppose voting I have ever seen, with, as noted by the closer, a great many editors that had never engaged with the subject matter making drive-by votes accompanied by a combination of bare assertions of POV, ill-informed opinion and logical non sequiturs - a general travesty of competence. When asked to clarify their positions, many voters in this camp simply declined to respond altogether. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While I supported the move, the closer's rationale for moving the article (discounting !votes of editors who had not edited the article) is not an acceptable method of determining the result of an RM. Number 57 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn just because I may not have edited that article my opinion should not be negated. I view many articles and edit as well, but that doesn't mean I must edit an article where I have an opinion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not saying that this is what happened here but discounting the views of people who have never edited a page often means discounting the viewpoints of the most objective participants in a discussion. Especially on niche or controversial topics editors can work themselves into a bit of a bubble and outside eyes can be incredibly helpful in enforcing broader community standards (my understanding is that this is one of the core reasons we have these sort of formalized requests for comments and whatnot in the first place). That is not to say that all editors who participate in discussions without editing the page are objective, far from it but to tar all with the same brush just doesn't pass the sniff test. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate and reclose, imo the premise is debatable but not the conclusion, the closer assumed correctly that the arguments against the move were not the best, stating "those who support the move have a better understanding of the article and what its title should be". Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate. While the premise of ignoring the votes of editors not eligible to edit a page is intriguing, there were in fact no such participants here. These were all experienced editors, and in such a well-attended discussion, their votes should not be discarded just because they have never edited the page before. In fact, it is generally agreed that participation from persons not normally involved with a page leads to better, more representative outcomes than confining discussions to the immediately interested. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus without prejudice to further discussion. Perhaps the article should have been moved but the new proposed title that was accepted did not have consensus. I was involved and opposed the move. Andre🚐 22:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (involved) as everyone seems to agree the closer's rationale was not policy-based. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate <uninvolved>. Clearly it isn't right to discount the !votes of people because they aren't involved: the whole purpose of a consensus-building discussion like an RM is to solicit outside opinions. (Striking non-extended-confirmed users' !votes is of course fine, but there were none of those in this discussion.) I'd prefer to vacate and allow reclosure by someone else—in cases like this one, it's generally more efficient than having each MR !voter assess consensus individually. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Largely agree with all parts of this. Think it can be done by consensus at this point tbh. nableezy - 20:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate and reclose <uninvolved>. Regardless of the merits of the close, the precedent of this close rationale can't be allowed to stand. The bureaucratic cost of re-closure is worth it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. <uninvolved> That is to say that I did not participate in this move request. I did however close the previous request on 8 September 2022, so this request was a little out-of-process; however, the proposed title in this RM was a little different than the one in the previous RM. This is a case of an experienced and trusted admin who closed this RM with the WP:ARBCOM remedies in mind, and that mindset was clearly implicit in the closing statement. In addition, there is merit in Nableezy's and Iskandar323's arguments above. I see good rebuttals to the oppose rationales, so I would have closed this the same way editor UtherSRG did. Probably would have specifically mentioned the usually stronger support args, which would also offset the essentially even !vote count. Definitely a more-than-reasonable closure! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate<uninvolved> on procedural grounds. I often !vote on things that I have not been previously involved in (including this one that I just stumbled upon) as I view that I have a responsibility to help determine consensus. That does not mean that I do not give it proper consideration. Gusfriend (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate - I have heard of closing because someone's arguments are better, but never because the editors in question haven't edited a topic before. We aren't talking SPAs, are we? Red Slash 18:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's rare, because Arbcom sanctions and remedies are relatively rare, but it does happen, and admins are trusted with the knowledge and tools to make decisions and closures based upon those rare times when it's an issue. Not for anything, but the MRV closer should disregard all "vacates" and "overturns" in this discussion, because the closing admin's decision was spot on! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus<uninvolved>. I've read over the discussion, and while I personally think the new title is a better alternative, I don't see a consensus for the move in the discussion. And discounting the votes of editors who have not personally edited an article is a dangerous precedent to be setting. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - discounting the views of those who have not edited the article is outrageous. (I have not edited the article.) Oculi (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close but not the reasoning - I do think there was a consensus to move, albeit that this is obviously a very controversial issue. The core issue is whether "exodus" or "expulsion and flight" is the more neutral terminology, and I think the case made by those in support, when also viewed in tandem with the prior RM, makes a strong case that "expulsion and flight", which covers both voluntary and involuntary departure, rather than "exodus" which suggests only a voluntary departure, is the more neutral terminology. So I would also have closed this as "move". However, as noted above, it is clearly not correct to say in the closing statement that certain editors are barred from opposing because they haven't edited this article before. That's not how Wikipedia works, and in fact WP:OWN urges us to treat things the opposite way. Regular editors don't enjoy much in the way of privilege over outsiders. So we could vacate the close and reclose, as suggested above, but I don't think that's necessary, we have the right outcome just for the wrong reasons. And certainly we must not simply reclose as "no consensus", because that doesn't accurately reflect the discussion when viewed through the lens of policy. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Nigerian general election (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

I requested this move as the current title indicates that there is one central election on one day (like 2018 Pakistani and 2019 British election pages); however, there are dozens of different elections in Nigeria throughout 2023 (from February to at least November) making this page more comparable to the 2020 United States elections (especially as they are both presidential systems with a large number of disparate elections throughout the year). Also, as the component elections in this page already have unique pages, it is no longer like the 2019 page where there was no separate election page. In accordance with other like pages, such as the 2022 Nigerian elections, 2023 Nigerian elections is more accurate. When a user first moved the page to its current name, it was clear that the user was not at all familiar with the content; when I requested it be moved back to its stable "2023 Nigerian elections", a different opponent pivoted to a content discussion before refusing to engage so the discussion was closed. This cycle of ghosting discussion continued a dozen more times over months to avoid justifying the move. After RFCs, it was suggested to open this new move request, the RFCs were 2-1 in favor of the move and 3-1 against the opposing page split proposal; the RM was then 2-3 but the discussion was ongoing as I had just gone to an opponent's talk page to solicit a response. This RM never should have been closed as both sides agree that the status quo is incorrect as the title does not fit the page's content, some sort of change has to happen and it can't happen if closers continue to end discussion before anything gets resolved. And if it is closed, it obviously is not "no move" as the argument against the move has been opposed 3 to 1. Watercheetah99 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. <uninvolved closer of a previous RM> Closure of this move request was reasonable. Understand the nom's frustration under the circumstances; however, at some point we editors and our ideas are subject to consensus. No matter how strongly we feel about the necessity of a certain outcome, if consensus is against change, then no change should occur. Since consensus itself can change, it is suggested that the nom move on from this issue and wait a year or two before making a new request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What I don't understand is how this is allowed. One user moves the title without reason, then a user refuses to justify the move and stalls for months so the discussion is closed in a clear attempt to force others to accede to their demands for a new page. How can one side block change (on a page that all agree needs it) based on demands for an entirely new page; not to mention the fact that they refuse to make the new page or even open a page split discussion. The elections are in a few months, so the page absolutely needs to be split or renamed soon and every time closers fold to the obvious ghostings, it's another step backwards. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You bring it on yourself my friend by writing things like "One user moves the title without reason...", seemingly to get people to think that the title was moved away from your proposed title first. The move logs show that you were the first to rename this article away from its stable title that it had since December 2020. You moved it from [2023 Nigerian general election] to [2023 Nigerian elections] in January of this year. Then you did it again after being reverted. When I closed the RM you opened last April, there was no consensus and the stable title was the current title. You waited about 26 days and opened a new RM with no new rationale. Again, no consensus was found. Then you waited about two months, opened a third RM, this one, which closed as consensus to not move. What I don't understand is how you could possibly be surprised??? You really must read Wikipedia:Consensus again and again until those words start sinking in! This encyclopedia is a community effort of staggering proportions. You have decided to join this community, and if you stay, and I hope you do, you need to learn all you can about how Wikipedia works! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can see exactly why I did that, I even said it in the edit summary - it went from being a practical stub to having links and info on all of the year's elections, ofc the name needed to change. I put "One user moves the title without reason" because look at the sorry excuse for reasoning given: here, read what Panam said and tell me that a concrete rationale was explained there. I opened the second RM because the first one ended without the other side responding to key points; even if that is an issue, the third RM was clearly justified, it was literally called for in the RFC. And none of these address the key point - why can one side block change (on a page that all agree needs it) based on demands for an entirely new page that they refuse to make or even open a page split discussion on? Watercheetah99 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please respond to the question? Watercheetah99 (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) I don't see how the discussion could have otherwise been closed. I will also repeat my comments from the RM that the endless dead horse flogging/forum shopping by the OP (so far we've had three RMs, an RFC and this MR, as well as relentless badgering of closing admins and opponents) needs to be put to an end – can we have some kind of moratorium on this for a while? Number 57 14:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Go make your new page. Finally end this, go make your page that you apparently want so bad. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Number 57: Per the closing instructions (WP:RMCI): (Successful move re-requests [following a no-consensus close] generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one. An exception is when the no-consensus move discussion suggests a clear, new course of action.) Because [it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change)], it is almost always unnecessary to place a moratorium on future move requests, and doing so can frequently be counterproductive (emphasis original). I think any future RMs that violate the spirit and intent of the WP:RMCI section quoted above can be taken to WP:Closure requests for a speedy close, citing the above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate and relist. There is an underlying behavioral problem here making it difficult to read the consensus. There is a conflict between the current title of the article and its content. Watercheetah99 has been trying to rectify this the simple way: by moving the article to the correct title. Number 57 has repeatedly opposed this, saying the article should instead be split, but has made no effort either to do so or to explain how he proposes to do so and why a split would be beneficial. Understandably, Watercheetah99 is quite frustrated (I would be, too). Meanwhile, Panam2014 seems incapable of forming thoughts longer than a sentence, so I'm questioning his competence and would've discarded his vote. Plus SMcCandlish supported and Nightstallion opposed, so we're two and two on this. Given that the only person making coherent arguments is Watercheetah99, I probably would have found a consensus to move. But I do think this discussion could benefit from an actual discussion, hence my opinion that we should relist. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Compassionate727 and Number 57: Watercheetah99 have insulted others as "liars". He should be blocked for this. And my vote is clear. I will not repeat my arguments every week. It is the 3 RfM with the same arguments. Elections are officially called general elections, matching general and gubernoral elections is an WP:OR Panam2014 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Elections are officially called general elections" - no they aren't, and you've never demonstrated that they are. There is nowhere (official or unofficial, administrative or reported) that groups together all federal, state, and local elections under the title of "general elections." If there was somewhere that did that, you would’ve sent that months ago and yet you have nothing.

  2. "matching general and gubernoral elections is an WP:OR" - what "original research" lol? Is the OR noting that these elections are happening in the same year? It is clear that you pick any random negative practice without even bothering to read about what that practice is and then accuse others of that.

  3. As said above, you have chosen not to express your opinions in any statement that's coherent and/or longer than a sentence. Meaningful discussion is needed. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another important thing to note is that an RFC on the question of splitting the page was held, and it was opposed 3 to 1. Number 57 didn't even bother to properly argue their case in it. Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (and I was on the opposing side in the RM). A consensus for the proposed new name clearly was not reached.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This MR was not to change the determination to "move," it was to reopen discussion as a conclusion must be reached in this issue. Either the name must change or the page must be split, all sides agree that the status quo isn't even an option. Meaningful discussion is needed and cannot be held if one side doesn't engage until the discussion is closed. Watercheetah99 (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That simply isn't the case. Nothing is going to break if the status quo remains as it is for a while. One party, namely you, is badgering and bludgeoning so much you probably need to be topic-banned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The status quo has remained how it is for months and the opposing side has no intention of reaching any conclusion. A conclusion must be reached, the name must change or the page must be split, all sides agree on that and attempting to actualize that isn't badgering. Something has to happen now or it will never change. Watercheetah99 (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved) This MRV is largely a relitigation of the original requested move rather than a coherent argument that the closure assessed consensus incorrectly, and the few parts that do discuss the closure itself are not convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]