10 to 4 is a pretty big ratio to NOTAVOTE override for nearly anything, but in this case the closer overrode discussion that largely focused on WP:NOYEAR, which is noted in the guideline to actually be a judgement call (aka a vote). Closer also cited WP:TOOSOON (a notability essay unrelated to article titles) and a personal standard of sufficient enough for it to be recognisable to the readers who are not familiar with the subject area which is completely at odds with the policy at WP:CRITERIA, which states that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.VQuakr (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While the majority wanted the move, those opposing had better arguments: notably the policy laid out at WP:NCE, and the text at WP:NOYEAR itself. Those supporting functionally all supported per nom and didn't extend the argument out to say that the event has become so immediately notable that the year is no longer needed. Good NOTAVOTE close. SportingFlyerT·C 00:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NCE is a guideline, not policy, that defers to the majority. The relevant policy is also linked above. VQuakr (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOYEAR is a judgment call only if the "event is easily described without it," but the discussion argued for OVERPRECISION, not for historical perspective, which makes sense because it's a relatively fresh event, and because NCE clearly applies. NOYEAR isn't just a simple vote. SportingFlyerT·C 09:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > Tough but good call on the closer's part. Had I come to this I would not have closed; instead I would have opposed the page move. Clearly this is a reasonable closure in line with WP:RMCI. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 16:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as an univolved editor. This is an appropriate reading of consensus. In addition, contrary to the OP I'm not seeing a personal opinion expressed in the close. As far as I can tell, it merely summarized points made in the discussion. Ed[talk][OMT] 07:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) - There's really no ratio to "override" NOTAVOTE, but that's not really the point here. Moving on to the NOYEAR argument, we can surely look at the language which deems it a "judgement call", but more importantly it reads that a year is not necessary when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. Personally, I would imagine it to be quite difficult to determine how easily an event can be described without a year "in historic perspective" in an RM opened and closed within 20 days of the event. I do have to agree that the TOOSOON argument was probably not enough on its own (nor would I have been likely to consider had I come to close this), but the NOYEAR argument is sufficient on its own. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
TNA Wrestling – Overturned. Per below, there is a consensus that the RM should have been closed in favor of the spelled-out "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling", and that moving it to "TNA Wrestling" was an inappropriate use of the latitude given to closers regardless of who ended up moving it. The best place to determine a new common name is in a RM. However, in this rather unusual case I'm going to use my own latitude as a closer and not relist the discussion as the common name issue does not need to be coupled with the old RM that barely touched on common names. I would instead invite any editor to start a new common-name-focused RM at Talk:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling with a proper opening statement. Ed[talk][OMT] 23:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
(Mostly uninvolved) The closure is a bit funny because it was originally "looks like a clear consensus to move the page to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling", but then Amakuru argued that the more common title would be TNA Wrestling, whereupon the closer changed it to "looks like a clear consensus to move the page to TNA Wrestling". I would have rewritten the rest of the closing statement to explain that change.
...That being said, I don't really see a good reason given in the discussion for choosing the long name. This should be governed by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACROTITLE, under which this seems the correct outcome. The only reason I see given is that NFL, MLB, and so forth are spelled out, as though the proposed title had been TNA (which would be ambiguous and not currently a primary topic) rather than TNA Wrestling (unambiguous, concise, common). SilverLocust💬 06:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). The closer initially closed in favor of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, went to WP:RM/TR to have the move executed, got challenged by one editor (Special:Permalink/1195865077), and changed the closure to TNA Wrestling. The resulting closure gives conclusive weight to the one editor's views, which (while perfectly fair arguments to make) were not even part of the RM, and which participants had no opportunity to respond to at the RM. This was improper. (A "super proxy vote", I say in jest – I'm sure that's not what either the challenger or closer intended.) The overwhelming agreement of participants was to move to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. The closer did not have discretion (unlike WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE, which requires no consensus) to choose otherwise. New arguments can be made afterward at a new RM. The closure now should be overturned. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Let me be clear – the consensus of an RM discussion is determined by the arguments and evidence made in the discussion. It is not determined by arguments newly made in comments on another page (WP:RM/TR) that RM participants had no notice of or opportunity to respond to, nor by arguments newly made by the closer, nor by any other arguments newly made after the fact. Unfortunately this MRV is continuing to descend into litigating such arguments.If you ever come across an RM, and you think there are great points about evidence and policies that no one there has made yet, then your role is to get involved and make those points, and let the next people who arrive weigh their strength. If you think those great points and WP:NOTAVOTE are license to just shut down the RM, you are thinking the same way every supervoter ever has. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the points raised by Amakuru, it became evident that "TNA Wrestling" is the more commonly used and recognized name, aligning with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. It's essential to ensure consistency across related pages, and the prevalence of "TNA Wrestling" in the broader context supports its adoption for the main page.
acknowledge the concerns raised by SilverLocust regarding the RM close and the perceived lack of a strong rationale for choosing the longer name. However, the decision to prioritize "TNA Wrestling" over "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" is grounded in the understanding that it better aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines on common names and title conventions.
While I understand the call for an overturn based on the initial consensus for "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling," it's crucial to uphold the principles of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACROTITLE in determining the most appropriate title. Any further discussions or reconsideration can certainly take place in the appropriate venue, but the current closure aims to maintain consistency and reflect the widely recognized name for the subject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony(Talk) 07:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That argument makes absolutely no sense, as by that logic, the article for Ring of Honor should then actually be titled ROH, as that's the common branding most wrestling news sites use to refer to Ring of Honor. And, as it's been pointed out, that also means the articles for NFL, MLB, NBA, & any other organization that utilizes abbreviations for its common branding SHOULD then be titled using their common brandings (the abbreviation), as that's how most people would refer to those sports leagues & other organizations. I mean, there's a reason the article for Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, before the name change to Impact Wrestling, was titled Total Nonstop Action Wrestling instead of TNA or even TNA Wrestling, because, unless the company uses as its main branding an abbreviation, the article should be titled according to the brand's full name.
And as I even pointed out on the talk pages for both Amakuru & ZI Jony when oknazevad "approached" them about the improper article name move, there IS a Wikipedia policy that states it is possible, sometimes even necessary, to ignore Wikipedia's own policy/guidelines when adhering to them prevents an editor from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and that is WP:IGNORE.
So, I would submit that the editor who moved the article from Impact Wrestling to TNA Wrestling over what seemed to be the majority community consensus of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling acted improperly by overriding/defying what seemed to be the will of the community consensus concerning the name of the article. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does make sense. Note that TNA wrestling is not an acronym, whereas ROH is. Since there is ambiguity about the title ROH it is made into a disambiguation page. TNA wrestling is already an unambiguous title, hence there is no policy reason to expand, we go for the WP:COMMONNAME. Polyamorph (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it's part acronym & part something else (not sure what, though).
And, as far as arguing COMMONNAME, by that logic, you're arguing the articles for NFL, MLB, NBA, and any other organization that's COMMONLY-KNOWN by an acronym SHOULD then have their articles retitled with that acronym.
Either you apply your chosen standard CORRECTLY (as in consistently), or don't bother advocating it at all. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or relist. (involved in the post-close process) - as others have mentioned, I raised a concern with the initial close when it was requested at RM/TR, that the proposed name Total Nonstop Action Wrestling was not the best title according to WP:COMMONNAME. Sources overwhelmingly refer to it simply as TNA Wrestling, including most mentions on the org's own website. I pointed this out to the closer, and they concurred with that argument and amended the closer accordingly. The close is now not necessarily in line with the way the !votes lay, but that's compliant with the WP:NOTAVOTE convention, which states that WP:CONSENSUS on WP is determined through arguments and evidence, not through head counting. Given that the initial proposal on the RM was for TNA Wrestling, and it's clear that's the commonly-used name, it wasn't at all unreasonable for ZI Jony to close that way, and I'd recommend we stick with that. Failing that, if people feel there's too much of a mess here, then a relist might be in order. There's no case for moving to the fully spelled-out title without further discussion though. — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except it turned out, much as oknazevad even pointed out to you, that the editor who started the RM to change from Impact Wrestling to TNA Wrestling did eventually change their vote to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, and in going with TNA Wrestling instead, it would seem you ignored that change of vote for the article's name. And, honestly, it makes it even more irritating that you now justify your improper action based off the RM initiator's original decision instead of what they ended up changing it to. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I would point you to WP:RMCOMMENT. 2) As I pointed out in the other thread above, I believe WP:IGNORE applies to the end result of the requested move for the article for Impact Wrestling. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think that your action at RM/TR were improper (though not so bad as to require anything more than a WP:TROUT). ZI Jony had every right to close the discussion in such a way that required administrator intervention for technical reasons (i.e. the dreaded indef move protection). We have a process to question RM closures, and I do not believe RM/TR#AN is meant to be part of it. As Adumbrativus says, it feels like a "super proxy vote"; I'm going to create a thread at WT:RM later today to ask if it's proper to use RM/TR in this way. Sceptre (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was particularly improper... phase 1 of questioning a close is to discuss it with the closer, and that's what my RM/TR comment was doing. There isn't an obligation to have such a discussion at the user's own talk page. I probably expected the closer to relist the discussion, given that the policy issues I'd raised didn't match with the way the discussion evolved, but they decided instead to simply amend their close to reflect the policy situation and also the way the RM was initially proposed. That part of the process was not my decision, but I'm not unhappy about it, because either way the correct result for our readers has been achieved and WP:COMMONNAME is now being followed correctly. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RM/TR is a venue to ask admins to do technical work which a non-admin cannot. Once a closer has made a decision, then it ideally should be respected unless there is an objective reason to not do so. If you want to question the result, then go through the talk-to-review process; the mop doesn't give you special powers to effectively overturn a close in this regard. Sceptre (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a misconception here. Admins and page movers are under no obligation to unilaterally move pages at RM/TR. Since this move goes against policy, Amakuru was right to question it. Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "administrators needed" section of RMTR does – at least in spirit – carry an obligation to effect the outcome of a good-faith closure. Amakuru's actions were out-of-process; if he had opinions about the proper target, he should've contributed at the RM beforehand; if he had issues with the close, he should've brought it up on Jony's talk. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Amakuru first commented at the RM/TR entry that the discussion hadn't been closed. This demonstrates due diligence. Then when it was closed mentioned the inconsistency with policy to Jony in the same section at RM/TR, again demonstrating due diligence and keeping the discussion transparent in the same place. This is normal practice at RM/TR. Polyamorph (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing stopping Amakuru from closing the RM himself; he is unquestionably qualified to do so. Administrator tools were needed to effect the RM close (the page is indef-move-protected), which is probably why the request was filed pre-closure, but that's not a disqualifying mistake. That he didn't close the RM with a helpful "this isn't what the section is strictly for but I understand why you'd think it is" sort of message indicates, to me, that he thought his closure would be a SUPERVOTE. Sceptre (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made a lot of assumptions there. It is better to let Amakuru to speak on what they were or were not thinking but, once again, there is no obligation on anyone to close any given discussions or to move pages to targets against their better judgement and there is nothing wrong with contesting or questioning requests at RM/TR. Polyamorph (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the long run, with the requested move that was initiated by vjmhlds, the overall majority support plainly & clearly is on the side of renaming the article to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, rather than TNA Wrestling.
Again, to point out that the editor (vjmlhds) who initiated the requested move eventually changed his stance from supporting TNA Wrestling to supporting Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.
In that case, if Amakuru was to abide by the discussion launched by the requested move, the page should have been moved from Impact Wrestling to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.
And, as I'm now pointing out for a THIRD time: once in the past, back before I registered an account, there was an edit I wanted to make to a talk page to remove an unnecessary section. But, I wasn't sure if it was OK, so I contacted a registered editor & notified them about the situation. In the end, they referred me to WP:IGNORE, which plainly & clearly states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
So, I argue that IGNORE would dictate, in this situation, that the page be moved to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, as per the majority consensus achieved through vjmlhds's requested move. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved) per WP:COMMONNAME, "TNA Wrestling" is the overwhelmingly used name in sources. There was consensus to move, and this is the policy-based (and hence consensus-based) target. Polyamorph (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"per COMMONNAME" is an RM argument, not a MRV argument, especially when the issue of COMMONNAME wasn't brought up at RM. Additionally, even were the argument one that could be put forward at MRV, you would need to be able to back it up; if there is an overwhelmingly used common-name, it's arguably just "TNA". Sceptre (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enough
Are you replying to my comment. If so, did you read my entire comment? WP:COMMONNAME overrules any local preference. There was consensus to move, and the WP:COMMONNAME is the appropriate target. I don't see any point in un-doing what would normally be considered an uncontroversial move. Polyamorph (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read mine? First off: you didn’t back up your assertion that it is indeed the all-capitals COMMONNAME. As a closer, I would be uncomfortable with such a !vote without some justification why. Secondly, nobody brought up COMMONNAME in the discussion at the RM stage, most likely because we were provided a choice of acceptable commonly used names (after all, COMMONNAME is not an instruction to always use the most common name; it says it is preferable to use a commonly used name which fits with other considerations). As such, it bears no weight on the MRV. Sceptre (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A simple search reveals it to be the common name. As the initiator of this MRV it is not up to you to decide which comments have weight. Please refrain from making such statements. Polyamorph (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A simple search" also reveals that the common name is just "TNA", without the word "wrestling". Weakly evidenced "per COMMONNAME" are cancerous to the RM process. Of course, this is beside the point that your argument is still irrelevant; MRV is expressly not a place to bring up new arguments that could've/should've been brought up at the RM stage. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stick by my "irrelevant" endorsement of the close - the rationale could have been better explained, but ultimately in my opinion this is the correct outcome and so I see no reason to overturn the result. Polyamorph (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for admitting you'll even *ignore* (pardon the pun) something like WP:IGNORE because it instructs editors on here to disregard established Wikipedia policies when said policies prevent editors from maintaining or improving Wikipedia.
So, in a way, that itself proves your endorsement TRULY irrelevant, because IGNORE essentially states policies/guidelines can be, and even possibly/necessarily SHOULD be, disregarded when they come in conflict with making sure Wikipedia is held to its own quality & standards. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem intent on ignoring anything that doesn't support your stance. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and again, to reference your point about the consensus, the overall majority consensus from the RM was Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, NOT TNA Wrestling.
Why must you insist on yourself disregarding a Wikipedia policy that actually ALLOWS the disregard of other policies when they conflict with maintaining Wikipedia's quality & standards?
In the end, I still hold firm to the stance that ZI Jony's decision to move Impact Wrestling to TNA Wrestling over the RM's majority consensus of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling was improper. And, Amakuru's action that caused such a defiance of the community consensus was just as improper as well. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist(uninvolved) in order to allow new information to become part of the discussion and have participants in the discussion weigh this new information. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Do not relist. Apply moratorium for six months. The discussion was well attended. The “ Total Nonstop Action vs TNA” question got plenty of attention, with clear leaning towards TNA. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. < uninvolved > This close is a prime example of supervotes made both by the closer and one editor at WP:RMTR. There was clear consensus in the RM to use the spelled-out name, just as the closer initially respected. A supervote by the editor at RMTR turned the closer's actions into another supervote, which is not in line with WP:RMCI. Completely and totally an UNreasonable closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 17:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree that there was a clear consensus to use Total Nonstop Action Wrestling over TNA Wrestling. Both got a good mention, and few specifically addressed the choice, and where they did, it was lukewarm, not clear. A lot of strong support for Total Nonstop Action Wrestling I read as couched as relative to the prior title Impact Wrestling. Then, given that everything but the official source was using “TNA”, I find the close looks totally reasonable, with an arbitrary choice having been made over spelled out over abbreviated.
Given that there has just been a branding change, I think it is very sensible to wait six months to see which way new coverage goes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards the allegations of supervoting, it is explicitly stated in the RMCI that you link Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments. (My emphasis). Polyamorph (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME was effectively countered in the RM by editors. "TNA" is the common name for many of the events, and is being used in several recent RMs to rename those events from "Impact...". Since this RM was about the promotion itself, then the full name should be used as expressed by the editors' rationales in this RM. And the closer initially respected that. There is no attempt to overthrow community consensus in this case. The closure was in error, unreasonable, and not in accordance with WP:RMCI as already stated by several others. That clause in the closing instructions you quoted simply does not apply in this case. So we will have to agree to disagree. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn consensus at that discussion was clearly a name change to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Whether this is correct or not per COMMONNAME I have absolutely no idea especially given it's a relatively fresh change, but that is what the participants decided, and the close I would have made. SportingFlyerT·C 13:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). It seems silly to make it mandatory to discuss the close with the closer before opening a move review if the closer can't change their mind as a result of that conversation. Jessintime (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's to allow the closer to respond to a problem before spending community hours debating whether the close was correct or not. Why would you endorse the close? You haven't elaborated on why. SportingFlyerT·C 09:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there was a strong consensus to move the article away from its old title, I find a lot of the arguments about which new title should be used to be relatively weak (no discussion about our relevant article title policy, naming conventions, etc.) One of the only arguments made in favor of the longer title is that our articles like National Football League use the full name, but that seems irrelevant given that our article on WWE uses the acronym. (You could also argue that leagues like the NFL and NBA should use the short name too, but that's an issue for another day.) As pointed out, the more relevant policies and guidelines support using the shorter title and per WP:RMCI the relevant policies and guidelines are to be considered along with the arguments made at the move request. Jessintime (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). There was a very clear consensus in the discussion for the unabbreviated name so there is no justification for any outcome other than a move to that name. Using TNA was brought up in the discussion but the arguments did not convince basically any of the participants, let alone a consensus of them. If there are arguments that were not brought up in the discussion then the correct place to present them is in a new RM, not at RM/TR or MRV. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (uninvolved) - There was just blatantly no consensus as to whether or not to use the unabbreviated name. --estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The move discussion had been open for a month when Vanderwaalforces relisted it with the comment:
"The 'supporters' of the move have provided reasonable arguments for why it should be moved, while the 'opposers' have not provided reasonable arguments for why it should not be moved."
That in itself I found odd, since after a month such a finding should have resulted in closure. I was astounded when, 6 days after such a finding, Vanderwaalforces closed the move as "no consensus". The explanation left me even more perplexed: Vanderwaalforces now found that "the convention", which (as noted in the discussion) was rejected in an RfC two months ago, "countered" the WP:Article title policy and present naming convention. They also referred to the dissatisfaction of the opposers with the RfC result, among other dubious arguments.
Moreover, the closer's talk page and archive appear to be littered with complaints about their closures, with four such sections there now, including a case of participating in a move request after relisting it (WP:SUPERVOTE). Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I would very much appreciate if uninvolved editors could pay special attention to the interpretation of the WP:RECOGNISABILITY policy because this is a recurring issue. We are seeing some closers interpret it as recognizability to readers familiar with the subject (which is what WP:RECOGNISABILITY says), while others accept the interpretation that the title should define the article subject for those who are not familiar with the subject (the "household name" argument). Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea where people are getting this "not a household name" line from? I am not seeing this phrase anywhere on WP:RECOGNISABILITY. Perhaps its from a previous revision? Bensci54 (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). When the closer relisted this RM, they stated that no "reasonable arguments" had been provided to oppose the move. After that relist, the only new comments were from users criticizing the current guidance of NCROY (which is backed by recent RfC consensus). The fact that the closer then closed a "no consensus" suggests to me that the criticism of NCROY is what swung their opinion – but treating individual users' dislike of a consensus-backed guideline as sufficient reason to discount arguments based on that guideline is a contravention of WP:CONLEVEL. For that reason, I believe the close was erroneous. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn(uninvolved), not agreeing with the revised guideline has insufficient weight. It would have been different if the argument was that the revised guideline is not applicable for this case, but that is not what happened in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. < uninvolved > Agree with above arguments. This closure was not a reasonable outcome nor was it in accord with WP:RMCI. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 15:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the vote count was pretty much equal so I can understand a no consensus result, but reviewing the relevant policies, those proposing the move brought up a very clear guideline in WP:NCROY and this was not rebutted by any of those seeking to keep the name at its original title. SportingFlyerT·C 13:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Nicholas Fisk (author) – Endorsed. I think it was pretty universally agreed upon here that the closer intended their close to be taken as "not moved" (or rather "no consensus" to move). Most of the !votes seemed to feel relatively indifferent to the language of the close, so the endorse !votes came out ahead here. --estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. There were only three participants: 1 supported, and 2 opposed. We're not here to re-litigate the RM, a No consensus isn't an unreasonable result from that simple vote count. Also, there's no substantive difference between "No consensus" and "Not moved", so even if this RM close were to be overturned and re-closed as not moved, what's the point? Iffy★Chat -- 01:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While ultimately both "No consensus" and "Not moved" will result in the page not being moved, they are not the same thing. I'd argue that "No consensus" for a discussion where there is no support whatsoever for the proposal is indeed unreasonable. 162 etc. (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > The outcome was "not moved". The reason for not moving was "no consensus". To me, it seems obvious there was no consensus to move the article, which is what's implied by saying "no consensus". It's a waste of time to quibble about the words used when the outcome will be exactly the same. Anyone can read the very short discussion and decide for themselves whether there was "no consensus". Station1 (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "Not moved". < uninvolved > Judging by the discussion on the closer's talk page he acknowledged that he may have erred in this closure. I do think what he meant was "Not moved" rather than mere "no consensus". There is a difference between those two types of closures that pertains to the length of time suggested before another move request should be opened. So this mistake by the closer should be rectified by overturning the closure and clarifying that the article should not be moved. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 14:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If, hypothetically, some editor comes along in a week or a month with a better argument for moving, citing policy and sources, and other editors support that move, then the article should be moved, regardless of how this close might be worded. Station1 (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does happen sometimes. The wait times are suggestions based upon historical liklihood of success, everyone should know that. However, when there is consensus to not move, the closer should acknowledge that and should not label it a "no consensus" outcome, which in this case is clearly incorrect. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 11:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). 162 etc. and Paine Ellsworth are right that this was a consensus against a move. And they are right about WP:THREEOUTCOMES and the conventional meaning of "not moved" and "no consensus". Other reviewers are correct that it makes almost no practical difference in this case, but it's ok to still review the close if we want. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseuninvolved There is clearly no consensus to move the article, it serves no purpose to overturn. Polyamorph (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As editor SmokeyJoe points out on occasion, the purpose is that a "no consensus" closure would be confusing to posterity. Editors who read the RM in the future would go "'no consensus'??? That doesn't make any sense!" The correct outcome is "not moved", and that is what the RM should reflect to posterity. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 11:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but in my opinion, it serves no purpose to overturn the result. It was a poorly attended discussion, and there is no consensus to move. The article has not been moved. I simply don't see the point of overturning. Polyamorph (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reword. “No consensus to move”. <uninvolved> The close was not a no consensus, but was more like a non starter. The nomination was weak, and opposers immediately introduced new arguments. It should have been closed, as it was, but “no consensus” is not a good explanation. “Not moved” is also not a good explanation because it reads as a statement of tautology. The close was not quite a WP:BADNAC, but good NAC closes are better explained, get given much better explanations when questioned, and are self-reverted if there is a hint of a reasonable challenge. A NAC that results in a contested MRV is NOT a productive contribution. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not reflect the discussion and would still be very confusing to future editors who read the RM. The decision should have been Consensus to not move or simply Not moved, which is shown by THREEOUTCOMES to be significantly different from "No consensus" to move or not move. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 16:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THREEOUTCOMES was written by someone who likes shorthand. It’s not very good. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I read the two respondents as having rebuffed a poor nomination. I don’t read a “consenus to not move”, just a consensus to reject that weak nomination. I don’t think it warrants the default six months moratorium. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to not move would have been a correct close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or overturn This wasn't a good close even though it reflected the discussion - a 2-to-1 poorly attended move discussion that had only run for a week should probably have been kept open longer, but there indeed is no consensus, though not moved would be a better result. It really does not matter IMO. SportingFlyerT·C 13:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ferdinand VI of Spain – Endorsed. There is a fairly straightforward consensus that the closer followed both WP:RMCI and WP:NCROY correctly. However, based on the arguments of the opposers, it should be noted that there is no prejudice against stating another RfC on NCROY, to straighten out any perceived issues with the current guideline. – Hilst[talk] 21:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Even more lopsided than above. Move was very heavily opposed (8 against move, 3 for it). Closer User:Bensci54 initially (and correctly IMO) closed it as "No consensus" to move diff.
Then Surtscina went to closer's protest on his page citing that the newly-modified NCROY guidelines out-trumps all opposition expressed in the RM. After citing RCMI instructions, then Bensci54 reversed himself and moved page.
I pointed out that there was strong opposition and WP:IAR is also policy. Moreover, the closer misread the RCMI instructions in overriding the opposition: "unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." Notice that it doesn't say it should be closed and moved. The closer agreed with me, but was reluctant to reverse himself again and change it for a second time, and asked that it brought here to move review.
So I am here. There was clearly was no consensus to move this page, and ask that be overturned. Walrasiad (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the RM decision, that 'broke me'. If "of country" is going to be removed (via NCROY) from monarch bios, no matter how many editors (in each RM) oppose it? Then all hope is lost. -- GoodDay (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lie after lie. I did not cite the naming conventions at the closer's talk page; I cited policy and guideline in the move discussion, where Walrasiad should have done the same but did not. The closer does not agree with Walrasiad about the outcome of the discussion, having said on their talk page: I do still think a Move close was correct, because in general WP:RMCI indicates that arguments with policy behind them hold more weight in determining consensus than those that do not, and as you've pointed out and I agree with, none of those who opposed had policy-based arguments. The move was performed because all supporters cited policy and guideline while none of the opposers cited any policy or guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the commentator above (Surtscina) was the original proposer of the move request.
I did not say you cited it, I said the closer User:Bensci54 cited the RMCI instructions as the justification for revising his decision and reversing the original closure. He proceeded to quote the relevant RMCI section in full (diff). When I queried him, he again referred to the RMCI instructions (diff) to justify the weights he gave, why he completely ignored the volume of opposition to the move. When I pointed out that he misread the instructions (diff), that they do not say opposition to a move request should be ignored, that it actually recommended not moving as default, he agreed, but expressed reluctance to reverse his decision a second time and suggested it be brought to move review:("I suppose you are right. But, at this point, I've already revised my closing once. I don't really want to do it again. If it is a concern perhaps it can be taken to MR?" (diff)).
The question at hand is precisely the weight to be given in RMs to large opposition to moving long-standing article titles.
The controversially recently-changed NCROY may be a guideline, but WP:IAR is also policy. And opponents were bringing up considerations (e.g. ambiguity, helpfulness, etc.) which are also Wikipedia goals and policies. Are they just wasting their breath?
If RMs are to mean anything, if there is any reason to participate in one, it is the assumption that community feedback is relevant, and won't be simply ignored. A chapter-and-verse quote in some obscure guideline does not and should not trump vigorous and large opposition by the community to a move of a long-stable page. That would essentially mean all effort should therefore be placed on changing guidelines, and no effort expended on case-by-case RMs. Walrasiad (talk)
More misinformation. I, Surtsicna, was not the original proposer of the move. That was Векочел. Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. It is easy to mix up you two mass-movers. Walrasiad (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just us two either. But obviously it suits you to mix up facts. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The related-RfC decision at WP:NCROY is the determining factor, going forward. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recent change was carried narrowly and controversially against a long-standing 20-year-consensus. I was not aware of the RFC, otherwise I would have participated in it. The vast majority of the Wikipedia community did not participate in it. Which is why feedback from RMs is important to actually gather wider community opinion than just the handful who participated in an obscure RFC. That they somehow managed to ram through a change in a guideline should not be diktat that cancels out all community opinion in an RM. Walrasiad (talk)
The RfC at WP:NCROY lasted two months and involved dozens of editors. The closing editor, Siroxo, found "a strong consensus" for the change. You not liking the outcome does not make it controversial. Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "strong consensus" on this page was not to move. Walrasiad (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently not, or else you would not be here now. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer here. Just wanted to chime in and confirm that what Surtsicna says above in green is indeed my words and that I do stand by them. That said, I wanted to comment that I have no personal opinion on this (whether the country name should be included or not) and in closing the RM I was merely trying my best to follow the procedures at WP:RMCI. I do welcome this MR, though, as it will be a good learning experience to see if indeed my understanding of WP:RMCI is correct. For the benefit of the RM, I will walk through my decision-making process: Originally, I closed as "no consensus", because it appeared from the comments that Opposers were calling out WP:NCROY while supporters were calling out WP:SOVEREIGN. So since both sides were calling out guidelines and polices, and the discussion had gotten stale, I closed as no consensus. I must confess that at this point I did not actually read any of the guidelines/policies anyone had linked to (which is perhaps my largest mistake in this series of events). After being asked for a more detailed explanation by Surtsicna, I realized that WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:NCROY actually pointed to the same place! And reading it, it appeared that it was being correctly invoked by the side of the supporters rather than the opposers. I accordingly revised my position to Moved based on this. Bensci54 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don’t like this change, but it is the consensus of the community, and no argument was presented by those opposing the move as to why this article should be an exception from the broader guidelines - to not move this article would be a WP:LOCALCON violation. BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). Guidelines like NCROY reflect consensus, they do not dictate it. If it was the other way around, then we would never have moved any articles to the "shorter" versions while the old policy predominated, and yet they were at times (which was, to be clear, fine, and I'd even support it - stuff like Queen Victoria). Titles aren't like copyright infringement where 1 person being "right" beats 100 people being "wrong", they are much more a matter of sheer consensus with wide discretion for variance for specific articles. Closes like this essentially say that there's no room for variation within a guideline which is not how Wikipedia treats the issue of article titles. (This is not to say that LOCALCONSENSUSs can't exist and be properly discarded by the closer, but anyone paying attention to RM would know that this is not a topic with just a few zealots trying to do something non-standard.)
Also, if we're nitpicking, I think it's absolutely inarguable that the consensus at the discussion was not to move, re the above argument. I don't see how you could come to any other opinion. It is a valid opinion that this consensus should be set aside because the policy page says otherwise (although I highly disagree with it, especially for a recently changed guideline), but let's not say that the discussion favored a move when it obviously didn't.
As a side note, if this kind of imposition is really insisted on that the guideline page always wins and even a large number of good faith, long-term Wikipedians with differing opinions don't matter, this basically drains power from RM discussions and moves it to the policy pages. Which means that there should probably be an NCROY RFC round 2 sooner rather than later, which isn't great because arguing over the same topics is inefficient, but that would be the only option remaining. SnowFire (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, nobody says that guideline or policy always wins or that your input does not matter. If it were so, RMs would not exist. But you cannot expect a drive-by vote such as "per others - this is potentially ambiguous" to be given nearly as much weight as references to a project-wide consensus, especially when you decline to explain (upon request by me) what "potentially ambiguous" means and who the other Ferdinand VI might have been. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn both Ferdinand VI & Ferdinand VII pages. It's quite worrisome, when such a small (3) minority succeeds in getting a page re-named, against the opposition of a large (8) majority & please don't mention WP:VOTE. GoodDay (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - what a textbook example of a great Wikipedia close, assessing WP:CONSENSUS not according to how people voted, but by actually considering which votes followed policy and which didn't. In this case, both WP:NCROY and also more general policies such as WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:COMMONNAME favour the proposed name, so the closer was entirely correct to move as proposed, something which even some opposers grudgingly accepted. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia than the idea that votes should follow policy and that those that don't should be disregarded as if nobody has a right to disagree with guidelines or argue against their application. Srnec (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was moved to Elizabeth II back in 2010, that move was against what NCROY then stipulated. And just like in this case, a majority argued against what the NCROY guideline said. But the closer, Sandstein, noted that "since Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus is not established by numbers alone, but also by strength of argument". So they went and evaluated the strength of arguments and found that those opposing the application of the guideline had stronger arguments. That is to say that, yes, we do have a right to argue against the application of a guideline, but in that case we also have the obligation to present convincing reasons why the guideline should not be applied. The opposing side failed to do that here. Surtsicna (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). So far as I can tell, none of the opposes gave any reason to make an exception to the new WP:SOVEREIGN guideline; they just gave reasons to disagree with the new guideline. So while guidelines can have exceptions, none was indicated here. (I do prefer for the local consensus to be brought into line with community consensus through discussion, but there doesn't seem to be anything new to add, and two weeks is long enough for me.) SilverLocust💬 11:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But which community is "local"? This page has been stable for 20 years - never proposed to move. That is also an indicator of wider community consensus. The RfC slipped through on a 12-8 vote. This one was opposed on 8-3, that's a bigger margin. It seems to me anomalous that a small group can engineer and overturn a long-term wider community consensus by ramming through a change in an obscure guideline page, that affects a massive amount of pages, destabilizing Wikipedia and overriding long-standing community consensus. And the wider community's opinion is to be treated as irrelevant? Because it was not expressed in the right location and right time? Walrasiad (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC involved two dozen editors over two months on the talk page of a guideline followed by hundreds of editors (and which you did not use to denigrate when it said what you liked). The closer did not refer to any vote count margin when closing (because they are not supposed to). You are very much allowed to argue that the guideline should not be applied during RMs but either you will learn to present arguments or you will continue to waste everyone's time arguing that votes matter more. Merely saying "loads of Ferdinands out there", as if anyone proposed moving the article to merely Ferdinand, is not going to cut it anymore. Surtsicna (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twice as many watchers for Edward I of England and that month-long RM failed with 30 participants (by my count). Walrasiad did not !vote there. Srnec (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by a very narrow margin, with "no consensus to move"; and I did not run to Move review to dispute that, despite having been urged by Keivan.f, because I did not wish to beat a dead horse. But since it appears that we will be doing exactly that with these things, I have no reason not to jump on that bandwagon. Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > Yet another tough call welcome at this closure review. Must still agree that this close is in accord with WP:RMCI. Seems reasonable to me as RM closures go. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved; had no input in the original discussion > People tend to forget that RMs are not voting contests. It doesn't matter whether it was a close margin or not; as long as the opposing arguments have no roots in our policies and guidelines they are moot. If people have a problem with WP:NCROY or any other guideline/policy they should seek to alter them via seeking consensus. Reviewing a move that was clearly based on our existing guidelines simply because the result was not what you favored amounts to beating a dead horse. Keivan.fTalk 23:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think opposers have reasonably questioned the shelf-life and depth of support for the current NCROY rule. On paper I know this is an unusual thing to say about a recent RfC result (where I myself voted yes). But SnowFire is right that consensus can flow both directions. Trying to make the guideline reflect actual practice was one of the core pillars supporting the RfC itself. Also, for whatever reason (nothing improper on anyone's part), many of the routinely pro-"of country" voters on the ground weren't voters at the RfC. I welcome for those editors to be heard. I especially encourage editors to see if there is some middle ground, whose standards/factors for line-drawing are so far undetermined, that would go neither as far as the current NCROY rule nor the previous NCROY rule. Otherwise if someone just makes a straight do-over RfC I'm going to regret even suggesting anything. (Disclosure: not a participant in this RM, but participated in related past discussions such as the RfC.) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, clear consensus to keep the country in the title, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE. I think it is clear the recent changes at WP:NCROY don't have a very strong consensus (I wasn't aware of the RfC and wouldn't have supported it, and I am probably not the only one). Vpab15 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECOGNIZABLE says that titles should be such that readers who are familiar with the subject can recognize them. The opposers did not explain how people familiar with Ferdinand VI might not recognize that the article titled Ferdinand VI is about Ferdinand VI. If you disagree with the naming conventions, feel free to start an RfC to reverse November's strong consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with Spanish monarchs, but I have no idea if there is a Holy Roman Emperor with the name Ferdinand VI. According to King Ferdinand, there isn't one, but I didn't know that beforehand, so I couldn't possibly know if Ferdinand VI would direct me to a disambiguation page or not. It is absurd to expect readers to know all the monarchs of all the countries, which what you are implying. Vpab15 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you do not need to know if there is an emperor of the same name. You just need to know who Ferdinand VI is for that title to be recognizable. That is what WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says. Article titles are not supposed to disambiguate the subject from topics that do not exist, nor are they supposed to define the subject; that is why we do not have titles such as Feroz Khan Noon (prime minister of Pakistan) despite it being unlikely that readers know all the prime ministers of all the countries. Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monarch titles are different from other articles. It seems we now have a naming convention for monarchs in which the country may or may not be included in the title based on something totally unrelated to the topic itself. What kind of naming convention is that? Having the country makes the title more recognizable, whether you are familiar with the topic or not, and that is not something that can be argued against in good faith. Vpab15 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to treat biographies of monarchs treated differently has been presented either in this move request or in the RfC. Whether the country is included depends on whether it needs to be included for disambiguation purposes, just like in any other articles (e.g. John Smith (Victoria politician) but Frank Selleck, not Frank Selleck (Victoria politician)). And this is not the place have this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved), the change in the guideline was mentioned in the discussion and opposers did not provide arguments why the revised guideline would not be applicable in this particular case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved) follows the wider consensus inherent to the revised guideline. Polyamorph (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closer actually followed the very clear policy here, which was also brought up in the discussion, and no oppose votes cited any other policy. Perhaps an RfC on NCROY is coming considering how many people disagree with it. SportingFlyerT·C 13:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) – Procedural close. The correct procedure when a page move is challenged is usually to revert the move. Whether or not the page move is reverted, a requested move discussion should be started on the article's talk page. Move review is for formal RM discussion closures that are brought here to be reviewed. There is no closure here to review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 04:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I move this page from Saint Francis University to current title but Naraht rejected the page move based on importance. His evidence is
"Given the difference in the number of Links in mainspace to Saint Francis University and Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) (almost 500) vs. the number to Caritas Institute of Higher Education (about 110). The one in Pennsylvania *is* the Primary topic. As such it should remain at Saint Francis University and once the Caritas Institute gets renamed it should get a disambiguation term like Saint Francis University (Hong Kong)." (copied from User talk:Leeyc0).
I have no rejection, but the page has extra edit histories (by another user) after the move (therefore cannot be undone). Therefore I request a review and ask for community consensus, and ask for administrator to revert the move if the consensus is keep this page at "Saint Francis University".
--Leeyc0(Talk) 23:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany – Decision endorsed. Consensus is that closer showed good understanding of the main points of the discussion and existing naming conventions without imposing their own views. SilkTork (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was a multi-page move, proposing to remove the term "Grand Duke of Tuscany" and other peer titles from a series of articles (e.g. move "Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany" to simply "Cosimo III de' Medici", etc.) Five editors objected, some strongly (including myself). Four supported, one semi-supported. The closer nonetheless claimed he found "a consensus to move". Naturally, given the majority against it, this surprises me.
I am perplexed how this "consensus to move" was discovered. I asked the closer User:EggRoll97, for clarification and he specifically said he relied on two policies. He said the policy cited in against the move (WP:NCPEER) only applied to British dukes, and not Italian dukes. But this is clearly contradicted in the policy page ("Treat other European nobility like British nobility above, adapting for local circumstances; thus Philippe II, Duke of Orléans."). And he also cited also the recently-changed WP:SOVEREIGN policy, on the belief these dukes were sovereign (these dukes are not sovereign, but vassals of the Holy Roman Empire, and moreover some of the people moved are not grand dukes at all). It seems to me the closer allowed himself to be misled by inaccurate and misleading statements of those policies in the discussion.
I presented this to the closer, but he insisted he somehow found a "consensus to move" regardless. Frankly this seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I would like the move reviewed.
Given that the move has contested in majority, and vigorously so, it would have meant at the very least "no consensus", and by RM criteria would have left the pages where they are (i.e. where they have been stable for the past 15 years.) Walrasiad (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two things to note here. Firstly, WP:NCPEER is not a policy. It is a guideline. (More specifically, it is an obscure guideline crafted by two guys 15 years ago without community input.) Secondly, move discussions are not polls in which votes are counted. Each of those in favor of the moves cited policy: OP (I) cited WP:PRECISE, then one cited WP:CONCISE, another WP:COMMONNAME, yet another WP:Article titles in general, and WP:CONCISE again. Such input weighs more than "strongly oppose" on the basis of the said obscure guideline or "strongly oppose" with no explanation at all. See WP:RMNOMIN for information on how consensus in move discussions is determined. Lastly, if the above stated understanding of the cited guideline is correct, then the guideline contravenes policy and needs to be amended. That will be discussed next. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: the commentator above (User:Surtsicna) is the the editor who proposed the multi-page move. Walrasiad (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is customary to note in move reviews if you're involved or not. Walrasiad (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I did note it. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I am afraid I don't see self-identification in your comment above. It helps other commentators here to know who is and who is not involved. Walrasiad (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read more carefully then. I identified myself as OP. Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah :>) in all fairness I also did a double take. At first glance I read your "(I)" as a one. T'were me, I'd have probably used "(myself)" oslt. It's all good. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: If you want to trash NCPEER be my guest, but you rely heavily on the NCROY guideline in these RMs. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rely on the part of NCROY that is the result of community consensus, reached after the recent two-month-long RfC discussion, and specifically intended to be in line with the article titling policy. It is not the same sauce as something that was written 15 years ago without community input or regard for the article titling policy. Surtsicna (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You haven't placed a notice on the talk page about the move review as is required by step 4, nor did you add the template to my talk page per step 3 to notify me that you had indeed gone ahead with the move review. No harm, no foul, though. I've added the notification above the closed RM and you may consider me notified for the purposes of this discussion. As for my response as the closer, I stand by my comments made on my talk page, and I believe I have remained in compliance with the closing instructions. EggRoll97(talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). NCPEER is the more relevant guideline than SOVEREIGN, although I don't particularly like either. (My !vote in the RM was based on neither.) Srnec (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The current status of WP:NCROY is the deciding factor & there's nothing can be done to change that. Regrettably, it's created inconsistency across multiple monarch bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These Tuscan dukes are not sovereigns. WP:NCPEER is the guideline here. Walrasiad (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - now that I'm aware of WP:NCPEER. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCPEER was never supposed to apply to rulers but to peers. WP:SOVEREIGN applies. Also, NCPEER has no community legitimacy, whereas WP:SOVEREIGN has "strong consensus" according to the recent RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (uninvolved). Grand duke is a monarchical title. That's why it's listed within WP:SOVEREIGN. The grand duke was the sovereign of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. It doesn't matter whether a monarch was called a "king", "prince", "doge", or "grand duke". If you're above everyone else in your state, you aren't a peer. Some editors here may be confusing a grand duke with, say, a British duke. SilverLocust💬 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this comment, but I take the point below that their sovereignty varied over time. SilverLocust💬 23:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > Reasonable closure and in accord with WP:RMCI, though perhaps a tough call. As for NCPEER, 15 years is adequate time to become a full community consensus; however, would agree that in this case SOVEREIGN rules – ahem. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 21:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The individual who brought this to MR asserted that they are not sovereign because at this point in history, Tuscany was nominally a fief of the Holy Roman Empire. I do think this was at best only a nominal assertion, though. Looking at the Holy Roman Empire page, it appears that Italian territories start being left off of maps of the HRE by the 16th century. Bensci54 (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Duchy of Tuscany was de jure a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire, de facto a vassal of Spain. In either case, not sovereign.
Holy Roman Emperor was sovereign over Tuscany, by definition - judicial cases could be appealed up to Emperor, dukes were invested imperial vicariates (and could be revoked), they owed taxes and troops to the Emperor through to the end. It was more sovereign over Tuscany than the United States is sovereign over Puerto Rico. Walrasiad (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They very fact we are talking about retaining family names to disambiguate is a pretty good indication we are not talking about European sovereigns. After all, why not go the whole way to Cosimo III like in the other RMs? Srnec (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereigns can have family names. Even some modern monarchs do. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is addressed specifically at WP:SOVEREIGN #8, which indicates "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. The exception holds, for example, for Italian Renaissance dynasts." This is an Italian renaissance dynast, so per the example listed in the guideline, the family name should remain as an exception to the rule.
Also as I think more about this, I am beginning to become uncertain that "top-level" sovereignty is what WP:SOVEREIGN is really concerned with. I think the difference between the applicability of WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:NCPEER is whether they were an actual ruler, as opposed to a noble in title only as part of peerage. It doesn't matter if they had an overlord; I think WP:SOVEREIGN should apply even for rulers of sub-realms. That's how the guideline comes across to me, anyway. Bensci54 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Bensci54; WP:SOVEREIGN lists, under point #5, "European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes)" and names Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria as an example of an ambiguously named ruler. Maximilian was a contemporary of Cosimo and, like him, a ruler within the Holy Roman Empire. That is to say, rulers regardless of rank were always intended to be covered by WP:SOVEREIGN. Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now we've left the territory "settled" by the recent RFC, haven't we? Does the "Italian Renaissance dynast" exception have more support than NCPEER? It was added with this edit back in 2007. Seems to have first been suggested by John K back in 2005 in Archive 13, although he explicitly saw the title remaining, as he said: So Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, not Cosimo de' Medici (the current location) or Cosimo I of Tuscany (what current practice would suggest we should do).Srnec (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While numbers were close, I think this was a perfectly fine reading of the discussion and policy by the closer, especially considering the primary guideline presented to oppose the move deals with a country these people were not from. SportingFlyerT·C 13:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. The NC:PEER guideline most certainly and explicitly states it applies to European nobility, not merely British (see quotation above). Walrasiad (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the entire guideline when endorsing. The quotation is technically outside the guideline's heading, so I support the conclusion that it's technically British only - even accepting your point, I think it's valid to conclude WP:AT and WP:CONCISE outweigh this small sub-point based on the nature of that discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 19:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The close is a fair read of the consensus, especially as a couple of the opposes were weakly founded. While I might advise people to start a conversation at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) to clean up the wording of WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:NCPEER (so that it's crystal clear when they apply), I think it's already clear that the former applies in this instance. Ed[talk][OMT] 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per OMT and also agree NCPEER needs to be adjusted to be better in line with WP:AT like NCROY is now. —В²C☎ 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cosimo de' Medici and Cosimo I de' Medici are two articles about different people. Cosimo I redirects to Cosimo I de' Medici. What is the justification for retaining the "de' Medici" in the article title when (a) the numeral 1 refers to Tuscany, not the Medici family and (b) he is supposedly primary for the shorter title? What guidelines are being applied here? Srnec (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, WP:SOVEREIGN #8 "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. The exception holds, for example, for Italian Renaissance dynasts." (emphasis mine). Bensci54 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We went over this already above, but that exception is misplaced since Italian Renaissance dynasts were not generally sovereigns. In fact, that is why the exception exists. Because they are not treated in RS the same way as sovereigns. Moreover, all the arguments for the change to NCROY support a change here as well. Why make this exception when Cosimo III is just as clear (supposedyl) as, e.g., Isabella II? Srnec (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per SportingFlyer and The ed17. – Hilst[talk] 23:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
