Federal State of Novorossiya (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

There are still many editors who contest this move, and there has even been a post-move discussion, although I have waited awhile to take action on it. The discussion has gone quiet for awhile due to distractions from newly-created other articles, but I am sure those in opposition of the move will be ready to provide reasoning.Dustin (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close – The closing administrator was thorough in his analysis, even if I disagreed with his decision. He did nothing improper in his assessment of the debate. I would like to note to Dustin that move reviews do not exist to reargue the points of a debate. They exist to review the behaviour of the closing administrator. I don't think one can find any fault in this closure. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - Reading through the discussion and the analysis this clearly seems like a reasonable close. I also wonder exactly what the objections to the close is? Just saying that there are editors opposed etc. doesn't provide the reasoning. What mistakes did Xoloz make in this close? I don't see anything glaring from looking and without reasoning I don't see how we can do anything but endorse. It would have been better to have had the reasoning up front. I see post move discussion but the only talk I see on the closers page is a notice of this discussion, normally the closer should be approached with concerns about a close directly before coming here. Also given the recentness of everything, ( articles is less than a month old ) it might just be better to wait a bit to see what the trend will be in sources and and if their is any major shifts. The close itself still left a few questions unanswered and recommended a follow up on the "Federal State of" vs "Federal States of" prefix anyways. PaleAqua (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Procedural speedy endorse. I don't see a problem with the close. I don't see persuasive rationale for any problem, let alone an overturn, in the nomination here. I don't see any follow-up discussion with the closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Well within admin discretion. MRVs should be used for when you think the closing admin has gone against the instructions in WP:RMCI in some way, not when you simply disagree or wish to keep arguing your case. For what it's worth, I also would have closed that discussion as moved but was a bit apprehensive as it was obvious there would be a backlash whatever the result and I'm not as good at explaining my closures as some admins, e.g. Xoloz. Jenks24 (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I may have been misunderstanding. If so, then close this and we can mention this elsewhere. I was not really paying much attention, so if so, mistake on my part, and speedily close. Dustin (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The reason MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom should be moved to Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom is so then it can match the main article (Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy). Consensus was clear that the acronym was undesirable, which is why the acronym was expanded on the main page. --22:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Prcc27 (talk)

• Wrong venue - This is for reviewing closed move discussions that have already happened, not for requested new moves to happen. See WP:Requested moves for information about how to list the page, though if not controversial a bold move might be the first step. PaleAqua (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle main engine (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I'm seeking not the the re-opening of this discussion - because now I've lost all hope that it can turn into a proper discussion free of administrative doubts - but the completely outrageous and punitive 6-months move request ban. I think the best course now is to let it be for a month or two, and have a proper discussion when the administrative insecurity has dissipated.

• The original close was improper, as the closing editor had failed to observe the discussion had been de-listed for three weeks while verification of the RS-24 issue was pending.

• Perhaps I acted rashly, but I had just notified WP:ROCKETRY and WP:SPACEFLIGHT of the re-listing, and the discussion was closed while I was doing that. If I had re-listed first, and then notified the wikiprojects, we wouldn't be here. I proposed myself to procedurally close and submit to move review afterwards, to but as xoloz remarked in the discussion, the best thing to do in the circumstances was to let the discussion proceed naturally, and I agree that it the solution that would have produced the minimum amount of fuss under circumstances.

• However, here we are with a lot of needless fuss. Again, I want to stress I don't want a re-opening of the discussion, just the possibility to have a healthy discussion in a reasonable timeframe instead of the abortion we now have on our hands. ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/moratorium. Three move requests in three months, even if each is different and each is started by a different editor, is problematic. As are your actions as the nominator in reverting the close made by an admin. Honestly, you brought the moratorium on yourself. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I support a compromise solution here. User:Victor falk, have you contacted the closing admin? If you explained your reasoning behind reopening the debate to him, perhaps he would reduce the moratorium to three months (longer than your first choice, but shorter than his first choice)? After all, your revert of the closure wasn't irrational; you did it in response to a defect in process, and the discussion had been delisted while a tangential issue was resolved. I agree that your revert was a bad idea; but, it wasn't undertaken reflexively or out of pure self-interest. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse.

Jenk's original close was absolutely in no way improper. Non-ideal was Victor, as RM nominator and heavily involved, preforming relists. Relisting should be left to potential closers, and should preferably include a relist rationale (this should be documented somewhere). unambiguously improper was Victor's revert of the close.

That the "discussion had been de-listed for three weeks" (what bureaucratic fiction is that?) speaks to an ill-prepared RM proposal, and in no way limits a respected uninvolved admin closer from closing an old RM.

Yes, Victor acted rashly. Reverting the close. Listing this MR without a word of discussion to either Jenks or Mike. Mike as obviously set a 30 day hard minimum (very reasonable), and a soft ("should", aka negotiable) 6-month nominal moritorium. Coming immediately straight here shows continued lack of respect for closers. There is no failing to be applied to either closer. Instead, Victor deserves a WP:TROUT.

I recommend that Victor, as an over-involved participant, refrain from initiating another RM of this article for at least six months, leaving it to any other interested editor to negotiate with Mike for permission to make a fresh RM proposal within 1-6 months, and that any new proposal summarise the state of discussion in the preceding RMs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse moratorium ( also endorse close, but seems that is not what is contested here. ) Wikipedia does not have a deadline, regardless of which title the article has readers searching for it will find it at worse through redirects, I don't see a reason to rush this. Six months is the usual moratorium for cases which have had several recent move requests, and makes sense even without the close-revert/relist issue. If there is a good reason for the article to move chances are someone else will see it and will follow the suggestions given by SmokeyJoe above. As an aside I personally find the arguments for RS-25 to be strongish and I could have seen my self supporting the move. PaleAqua (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 'Original' closing admin here, I guess. My comment at the RM after my close was reverted was probably a bit narky, but it's frustrating when you take the time to go through and make closures of those RMs sitting in the backlog only to get reverted seemingly because the nominator doesn't like the result. If Victor had come and talked to me about it, I probably would have re-opened it myself as his explanation was actually reasonable. But no discussion with me and a simple edit summary of "I was going to relist" is not acceptable. It's also a bit disappointing to see that after that kerfuffle, when he has next disagreed with a close (this time by Mike Cline, who hasn't been notified of this discussion from what I can see) instead of discussing it with Mike he has taken it straight to MRV. We all make mistakes (I should know) and if anything positive comes out of this, I hope it's that Victor maybe discusses things more in the future – it makes things much more collegial and people are more likely to be swayed by your opinion if you take the time out to write a personal message. I always feel slightly uncomfortable taking an official 'endorse' opinion on an issue where I've had administrative involvement, so I will simply say that I think Mike was within his rights to enact a six month moratorium, but would not be against seeing it reduced to three per Xoloz's comment above. As a final aside, people should generally not be relisting discussions where they are the nominator, though it would probably be unfair to criticise Victor for this as I don't think this is officially enshrined anywhere. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24, I'like to present my apologies, as I understand it must be as frustrating to you to find to decision undone as it was to me to find it closed without the broader input needed in that discussion. Had I spent even a few minutes pondering the best course, I would either a) brought it to move review, pointing out the delisting, or b) taken it up on your talk page, having no reason you wouldn't be reasonable enough to re-consider your decision due to this oversight. It's easy enough to say what I should have done, and I'm the first to admit that, and I just want to have a move discussion that thoroughly considers the ramifications off the possible titles. ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I sincerely appreciate that. Jenks24 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles (album) (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

This move request was to move the article from this title to White Album. Despite the clear indications of our policies and guidelines, it was read by User:Xoloz as "no consensus". There are two fully compelling reasons to overturn.

First, White Album is, as has been amply demonstrated during the move (with multiple sources in favor and literally no sources against), the more common name. (Certain sources refer to the album by its official name, of course; however, none of them state that "The Beatles" is the common name, just the "correct" one.) Allow me to make some quotes from our policies and other important pages. (All emphasis is mine.)

• From WP:RMCI: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions."
• From the same: "If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority)."

• From WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
• From the same: "Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy."

• From WP:AT: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
• From the same: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

• From the nutshell summary of the essay WP:OFFICIALNAME: "Common names are generally preferred to official names as article names."

• And from the close of this move request: "It is absolutely correct that policy compels the usage of the common name, and no amount of protest should supersede that naming convention."
• But alas, from the same: "Because some have contended that the official name is quite common, the comments of those opposing this request merit due consideration."

Alas, no, sorry Xoloz. You cannot merely contend that something is the common name without making a reference to any sources whatsoever. An unsourced contention is clearly not enough to stop a move request in its tracks. (It was here--that's why I'm asking you all to overturn the closure.) The close specifically referenced the argument from Radiopathy, who avoided quoting from the policy at WP:UCN and extensively quoted from the non-consensus-based rewriting of that policy, WP:OFFICIALNAME. Again, the default at Wikipedia is to go with the common name. Yes, there are several reasons to go with common names, and not literally every single one applies. But our practice remains to go with the common name.

Nevertheless, this is actually not the best reason to overturn.

Reason number two: The close also cited Richhoncho, who said "to suggest it needs to be renamed to avoid disambiguation is tainted logic". Actually, no, Richhoncho's position is exactly the opposite of what WP:NATURAL says, which is, sigh, policy. Still. I quote: "There are generally three methods employed to avoid using an ambiguous title: #1. Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English". WP:NATURAL is a policy that was raised in the move request, and not once did any oppose !voter come up with a reason not to apply it. Yet our closer here simply ignored it. When a policy is mentioned that supports a move, and nobody brings up a compelling reason why it doesn't apply, then that means that it wins. (Hey, I even noted the "recognizable" part of WP:AT, which was actually seconded by multiple "oppose" !voters but again, was ignored in the close.) Did the closer just ignore it? Or not know what it was referring to? The closer says:

"You were asking whether I thought 'NATURALDIS' was a good argument for a Move Review. Personally, I don't think so. Move Review is about whether a closure is proper, and is not a forum for rearguing matters from the orginal debate. Even though no one used your exact phrasing, the point of 'NATURALDIS' was raised in the nomination and by Cuchullain. It wasn't what people chose to discuss for the most part (even though I wish they had.)"

Clearly the closer completely ignored WP:NATURAL (read the close again). And hey, you know why only the nominator and a supporter mentioned WP:NATURAL? Presumably because there is no possible argument to be made against it. Our policy on naming articles clearly says that if the best title would require a parenthetical disambiguator, we go with another title (so long as it's an acceptable title) to avoid that. That's policy, and Xoloz's outright omission of it in his closure is stunning. Remember: WP:NATURAL wasn't mentioned in an obscure comment near the end--this policy was mentioned in the proposal itself!

The closer has, with all due respect, ignored vast sections of our article naming policy and failed to analyze if arguments to policy were valid. He or she failed to recognize that supporters of the move cited sources that explicitly called "White Album" the common name, while no such sources were brought by those against the move. He or she ignored appeals to policy when those who were opposing the move request had no answer to that policy. Ultimately, the closer failed to, as WP:RMCI demands, determine consensus by giving consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. I would humbly ask you to overturn the closure. Red Slash 08:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to move. (Move requester's vote.) The discussion went on for a month, giving the community ample time to weigh in on the policy-based reasons given by the proposed move. In that month, the opposition failed to provide a clear rebuttal of the justification, instead going into first a misinterpretation of multiple guidelines and then a tangential series of votes on what the "proper name" of the album would be, with only a few votes addressing the policies in the proposal. The closer should be commended for willing to settle a messy move proposal, but unfortunately the numerical noise seemed to have overwhelmed the clear political reasons of the proposed move, and the political silence from the opposition. As stated in WP:RMCI#Determining consensus, "this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 12:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse myself. Clearly, the MR nominator wishes the closure had been different, and he does a good job outlining what that different closure would have looked like. Equally plainly, he is unhappy with me, and finds my decision insufficient. That's all fine by me. What the nominator isn't doing is addressing the whole of the actual discussion that took place in the RM. He picks and chooses the arguments he likes best, highlighting them. The closure he desires would essentially have amounted to supervote, which would have been quite alarming had it occurred.
• I think my closure speaks for itself. The arguments of those opposing the move request were in some ways misguided; but, they were not so fargone as to be discounted. A closer has a duty to examine the discussion that took place, not the ideal discussion that he wishes had happened. The simple fact is that, given the state of the discussion, the opposition succeeded in preventing the formation of consensus. While consensus discussions are not a vote, they also are not opportunities for closers to ignore large bodies of opinion merely because he disagrees with them. Opposers made valid points regarding the currency of the album name "the Beatles", and simply evaluated the objective evidence in a different way to support their contention.
• The discussion was muddled, and largely failed to address the point regarding WP:NATURAL. This is good point, one that we might wish had carried the day in an ideal world; but, it wasn't the focus of much discussion. For a closer to have used that as a determinative factor would have been a disservice to the community, because the participants in the discussion were arguing largely about other issues. Xoloz (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Xoloz closed this correctly, if not the way I think it should have gone. Once User:Red Slash had threatened to bring to this a move review irrespective of any deliberation by the closer there was no alternative. It also forced me into a similar position - to threaten to a move review if Red Slash had got the result he wanted. The fact that the nominator is not happy with no consensus is neither here nor there. I might add the Xoloz has since made it clear that he would have preferred a different result and has not closed the door on RM5 I find it hard to understand why there is a move review in the first place. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. It might not have been the close I would have made, but is a reasonable close. The closure appears to find strong arguments on both sides, which is a no consensus close. I would have found arguments about White Album to be ambiguous to be fairly strong per COMMONNAME for example and arrived at no consensus from another angle, and find some of the cited arguments by the close ( as mentioned in the move review nomination above ) to be a little weaker, still leading to a no consensus close. Also as implied above, a no consensus close does not prevent future RMs, though I would suggest waiting a short bit before launching a new one. PaleAqua (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this MR fails, my plan is starting a new move request 30 days after this closes, focusing on WP:NATURAL as well as emphasizing that renaming the article is not akin to choosing the name of the album, to hopefully ward off the official v. commonname mess of this move attempt. I'm rather puzzled why RM4 sidestepped WP:NATURAL. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that move reviews can't really entertain new reasons, only the close and stuff arguments from the RM. By arguing WP:NATURAL could counter some of the arguments against moving ( which is in part why I think some of the arguments were weaker than given credit for ), it might be best just to withdraw this review and then open a new RM eventually. PaleAqua (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. I think a closer should be given some latitude to evaluate arguments from a more visceral perspective than deep-dives into WP policy. To many of the opposers, I think that naming an album article after a nickname instead the actual name just seems wrong. For example, I've got 12 or 13 books on my shelf that contain lists or discographies of Beatles albums, and every single one of them uses The Beatles to list this record. Many of these works will then say it's commonly known as "The White Album", but none list it that way. But there's no WP policy for "just seems wrong". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Another detailed and well explained close by Xoloz that definitely falls within the bounds of admin discretion. Personally, I kept glancing through this RM while it sat in the backlog and wanted to close it as moved but couldn't figure out a way to do it that wouldn't have been a supervote. Maybe the fifth RM will be the charm. Jenks24 (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder, if you see something you want to close, but feel like they way you want to close would be a super vote. Instead of skipping it by, you could just add to the discussion. :) PaleAqua (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I thought about it but I try to avoid voting when I think my vote will make no difference to the outcome because it means I can't close it and we don't have a whole lot of RM closers at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I supported the move, but this is a reasonable close. Nothing about it is out of bounds of WP:RMCI or administrator discretion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was reasonable. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 20:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]