Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 January

< 2017 December	Move review archives	2018 February >

2018 January

Magic (paranormal) – There is consensus to endorse the RM's closure; there is no consensus about the suggested opening of a new immediate RM, and anyone wishing to follow that path would be wise to carefully read the arguments for and against the idea expressed in this MRV. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closing administrator believed that no consensus had been achieved. Conversely, consensus had been achieved. Although my initial suggestion, that "Magic (paranormal)" be moved to "Magic (study of religion)", found little support, there was very clear majority support for Trovatore's suggestion that "Magic (paranormal)" be moved to "Magic". Eight editors supported the 'alternative move' from "Magic (paranormal)" to "Magic" (CookieMonster755, Necrothesp, Rreagan007, Randy Kryn, Zxcvbnm, Katolophyromai, Trovatore, and myself). Only two editors opposed the suggestion (SMcCandlish and SnowFire); another expressed neutrality on the issue (power~enwiki). Eight versus two is a pretty clear general consensus. I have briefly discussed this issue with the closing administrator () before bringing the issue here; they felt that the issue of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC had not been sufficiently addressed in the discussion, but (in my view) that is not a sufficient rationale for ignoring consensus or for the discussion to be closed; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could have been discussed further had it been left open for further dialogue to take place. Midnightblueowl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Endorse for what it is worth, I would have closed as consensus to move, no consensus to title, move to Magic (supernatural) with the possibility of a new RM being opened immediately. as allowed by WP:RMCI, but I also think the current close is fine and well within discretion. If there is a new RM at some point in the future, I'd recommend it be on the primary topic question (without taking a stance on that myself). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have probably moved to Magic (supernatural) as at least a marginal improvement that didn't get much explicit challenge. And yeah, I have no problem with starting another RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus for Magic (supernatural). Such a close would have been a supervote, and contrary to WP:TITLECHANGES. There was no imperative for some rename, as sometimes occurs and justifies a closer picking the least bad. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Closer's statement. I took the suggestion of moving to the base name Magic into account, but did not find consensus for such a move. Almost none of the !votes supporting that suggestion engaged with the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue - namely, that supernatural magic is more significant than all other the other topics of the same name combined (Magic (illusion), magic in fiction, Magic: The Gathering, Orlando Magic, the many songs and albums of the name, etc.). Indeed, two participants opposed the suggestion on those grounds. Overall I didn't find a local consensus in favor of the move to Magic strong enough to override the primary topic issue, which would have involved moving a long-existing dab page as well as this article. I have no problem with immediately starting another RM dedicated specifically to the primary topic move, I think that'll bring more clarity to the issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm more than happy to go down the route of kicking off a new RfC, this time more specifically tailored to the issue of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Do your tailoring carefully. A bad cut can’t always be altered later. Take care with terminology. There is no need for an RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Endorse close as being well within the closer's discretion. While a clear majority of editors were in favor of Magic (paranormal) as the primary topic, no actual evidence was introduced as to whether that was the case or not. Since these discussions are not votes, a majority is not necessarily sufficient to establish consensus. Endorse opening new RM to specifically discuss and reach consensus on that issue.--Aervanath (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Endorse. Good close. Not a terrible discussion, but not a good one. Some participant moved position, others did not, a variety of opinions remain. The notional consensus move was not the one nominated, and that is always a stretch, only justified with very clear support. An immediate new RM is a Bad idea. Having got the proposal wrong once, the Nominator should reflect some, and carefully prepare a better nomination. Take a breath. A week at least, not immediate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Endorse. Good decision at the close. The 2nd choice of title was a bit borderline; however, it (or a more suitable qualifier) might be passable after a brief waiting period. In my opinion, making the paranormal magic page the PTOPIC is a bit of a stretch. Looks like Magic Johnson comes closer, but still isn't quite the PTOPIC. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 19:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:More citations needed – Endorse.Though, there appears to be a rational sentiment that the discussion ought to have been more-widely advertised there isn't any other major problem.A new RM may be initiated but not before the passage of six months from this date of closure. Winged Blades^Godric 15:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

It wasn't broken; why did we need to fix it? "Refimprove" was the name of the template for more than 10 years, and IT WORKED. "More citations needed" would work better as a redirect to the "additional citation needed" inline template. KMF (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:SMcCandlish and User:Timrollpickering. KMF (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Re-open and advertise with an RFC on VP/Proposals as per the request. In the meantime, leave it where it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
On what basis? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to speak for SmokeyJoe, but the effect of this name change is to focus the template on the mere volume of sources, rather than on the quality. "Ref improve" could have been interpreted either way: improve by using a higher quality of refs, or improve by having a larger volume of refs. Other related templates, such as {{Unreliable sources}}, do not have that kind of ambiguity in their titles, but the ambiguity might have been a feature rather than a bug. "What do we actually mean when we slap this template on the page?" is something that could probably be profitably discussed by more than three of the 127,972 editors who made an edit here during the the last month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe it has been "needs additional citations for verification" not "needs to higher quality references" for years. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is a template about an insufficient number, not quality, of citations. If WhatamIdoing thinks otherwise, they may have been misusing the template when they really intended {{Unreliable sources}} or one of its variants ({{Self-published}}, {{Third-party}}, {{Primary sources}}, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"On what basis?" asks  User:SMcCandlish? On the basis of a reasonable request mainly that it was a lightly attended discussion, by numbers. If, as you clearly presume, the right decision was made, an extended discussion better advertised will result in a clearer consensus. Less harm doing that, something the closing admin might have done on a direct request, than to leave this MRV discussion going for weeks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
MR is concerned with whether the process was abused, or whether the close was clearly faulty in some way. Neither is the case. If a week-long RM on a major template attracts little commentary, it's because people generally don't care. You being unhappy about this is like being unhappy that so many people neglect to vote in political elections; it is the process we have, and people declining to participate in it is their own choice. The rationales belatedly raised here aren't even valid ones (e.g.: because the name was old, because the template is frequently used, because KATMAKROFAN would rather that "More citations needed" (plural) point confusingly to a template with singular output). And we're airing them anyway, now. Why should we re-open an RM to air them again? Are they magically going to make more sense tomorrow than they do today? Most MRs lead to endorsement, because this process isn't a wikilawyering and canvassing farm, but intended to be used to review moves that were genuinely faulty, not just "I don't like it" matters, otherwise every non-snowball RM would be re-litigated here ad nauseam. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
No, MR is not limited to abuse. MR is a forum to discover even process limitations. "Review" is the operative word. There is some merit to the complaint that an important thing got moved with too little advertising and participation. Not a whole lot, but some. The belatedly raised rationales, it would be better to have them raised in an re-opened discussion on the template talk page than here. I said "speedy", as in, re-open discussion on the template talk page before anyone else posts here. Too late? OK. This MRV should be closed with an "Endorse", and if KMF really wants to be heard, he can wait six months than open a fresh RM to move template back. Far less ideal than re-opening to let his belated rationales get discussed immediately. On the part of KMF, I think he should have posted on the closer's tak page, User talk:Timrollpickering, and asked for a re-open. His failure to do that is the biggest failure I see here. Timrollpickering's close was quite reasonable. Should you, the RM nominator have advertised more widely? That might go to a future WT:RM discussion. I think your responses, both in the RM and here are MR are overly combative. You are involved, so stop dominating the discussion please. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Endorse, and leave exactly as it is. The RM ran its full course, and nothing was wrong with the close. KATMAKROFAN's belated complaint doesn't make any sense: the vague, ambiguous {{Refimprove}} still works just fine, and we would not use {{More citations needed}} as a redirect to {{additional citation needed}}, because the latter seeks one additional citation while {{More citations needed}} seeks more citations, plural. How old a name is or how frequently a page is used has nothing to do with whether it gets renamed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC); revised: 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC).

{{additional citation needed}}'s documentation: "... used inline in the article where a claim requires one or more additional sources." (Emphasis added by me.) Also, your "but teh noobz wont kno wat teh templaet iz 4!!1" defense won't work, as most Wikipedians will still use the "refimprove" name anyway. KMF (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Just fix the template documentation to match the template, obviously. Ignoring your straw man. The fact that {{Refimprove}} will continue to work is fine; that what shortcuts are for. No one has taken {{cn}} and {{fact}} to WP:RFD, have they? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd actually use "more citations needed"; if twinkle and the page curation tool were changed most tags would be with "more citations needed" Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

An inline template for "more citations [plural] needed" doesn't make sense. Per WP:OVERCITE, we do not want a stack-up of citations for each point. We only have {{additional citation needed}} for the odd case that a single statement really does need multiple citations (e.g. "1929–2006^[1]" where the source is a 2005 book that provides the birth date and we have no source yet for the death date). If a whole block of material needs additional citations, that's why we have block citation cleanup templates like {{More citations needed}}. But all of this is academic; the move has broken nothing, was a proper RM, and closed properly, so there is nothing for MR to do here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Endorse RM was fine, it isn’t a broken process, and we rename plenty of highly used templates using it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have already changed all references to "more citations needed" (including the Wikidata interlanguage link) back to "refimprove". KMF (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

KATMAKROFAN on what basis..? Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:POINT and WP:FAITACCOMPLI, arguably block-worthy as unrepentantly disruptive and a harbinger of further disruption to come. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Endorse as closer Templates are renamed all the time, including some high use ones, and the discussion was pretty clear cut. The objection is an argument not made in the discussion rather than to an improper close. Timrollpickering 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Just deprecate the template. We have section and inline templates which narrow the problem down to a particular part of an article, making it easier to solve; there are also templates like {{one source}} and {{refexample}} that are more specific about exactly what the problem is. We can do without the more citations needed (formerly refimprove (formerly citations missing (formerly cleanup-verify))) template. KMF (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy reopen. This was a lightly trafficed discussion on a heavily used template. No harm in letting discussion continue a bit more. SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Endorse close. This was an entirely reasonable close. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any criticism here of the closure itself. If this is something which needed wider exposure, then an RFC would be the way to go.--Aervanath (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Substitution splice – Procedural close - stale. The RM mentioned was more than two years ago, so it's too late for a move review now. @Joortje1: if you think the article should be at a different title, please open a new requested move, following the instructions at WP:RM. — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

IN SHORT: I argue that: 1 - the term "substitution splice" is less common, 2 - the term is not as precise or correct (splicing can be part of the process, but is not the deciding factor and can probably be left out. And: editing still STOPS the action) 3 - the term is a relatively new academic fabrication and has not been widely recognised outside academic circles. "Substitution stop trick" would be a more precise and unique term. Although it is far less common, it could arguably be considered as the next move.

EXPLANATION: The term "stop trick" is still much more common and has been in use much longer than the term "substitution splice" (check Google Books for instance). The term "substitution splice" is a modern academic term first suggested by Tom Gunning in 1989 and seems to have had considerable following in academic circles. The argument in favor of this new term is that much (?) of the effect was established by careful editing (SPLICING), rather than by STOPPING the camera. However, editing (SPLICING) can be a part of the process (and possibly in rare occasions the only technique applied), the main feature of the effect is STOPPING the action (either by STOPPING the film transport in the editing room, or in camera), then change something in the scene while keeping a match in the framing of the picture (either by keeping the camera unchanged - and very probably inactive - during the change, or in the editing room by finding a matching shot with the desired change) and then starting a new matching shot of the changed scene. The evidence that at least Mélies (the most famous practitioner of the technique) carefully edited these transformations doesn't mean he (and other practitioners) did not stop the camera (and/or the action in front of the camera) between the desired shots. It would usually be a costly and unnecessary waste to keep the camera rolling in between the shots. Editing could merely be used to clean up some undesired frames of film (for instance those that remained when the camera slowed down and started up again, or those that did not show the scene in the desired state). Although the seamlessness of a splice probably influences much of the effectiveness of the effect, it still seems a technical polish of what is mainly achieved by a change between shots with enough unicity of the enframing and mise-en-scene. In almost all examples editing simply can't have been the main part of the process: it would be almost impossible to find and edit matching shots if this wasn't planned during shooting. Furthermore: in most accounts of the discovery of the effect (Blackton, Mélies) it has been stated that it was accidentally discovered by STOPPING the camera between shots of the same scene and noticing interesting effects. It is hard to imagine that the effect was discovered in the editing room. I intend to also clean up the content of the page to reflect this argument: it now has way too much emphasis on the editing as cause of the effect and states that the idea that the camera was stopped is incorrect. Joortje1 (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Joortje1

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

British School of Osteopathy – Overturn and Relist.The closer has already agreed to relisting the debate, as proposed by the sole participant and there is little point in keeping this MRV open. Winged Blades^Godric 07:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There was a change legal status in 2017 and became the University College of Osteopathy, as the original request stated. House1090 (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was IMHO not move per WP:OFFICIAL if you read it, it basically says, just because its official name doesnt mean its the right name for an article Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I read no consensus was reached and more users opted for the move. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Best, House1090 (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The closing instructions clearly state that discussions can be closed at anytime after being relisted, and since MOS guidelines clearly state that moving it would also be wrong, I opted to close like Ive already mentioned. I also will note that more users opted to AFTER the move discussion was closed by myself. Therefore that doesnt count towards determining consensus. unless more support here or another RM request is done, I make no plans on overturning my closure. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Relist - the standard of argument on both sides of this RM looks poor to me. Support arguments use WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and a change of official name *may* mean that the WP:COMMONNAME (which is the important thing here) has also changed. However, we do need more evidence than just the signs on the building itself having changed. On the other hand, the oppose !vote is not very convincing either, as it doesn't attempt to assess whether the common name has indeed changed since the official name change. This RM should be relisted so that we can determine whether the common name really has changed or not. Finally, to the closer, if you close an RM which is not "clear cut", i.e. there isn't a very obvious consensus, then you really must give an explanation as part of your close, to indicate which arguments you assessed and their application to policy. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood, I did not realize that was a requirement, but now that I have reread page mover instructions it does appear it is encouraged. Thanks for correcting me, I am willing to Relist this discussion upon this newly found info, if that is decided to do so. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

UAE Arabian Gulf League – Overturn.Clear consensus to move. Winged Blades^Godric 05:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Per Wikipedia's standards and consensus on the talk page, the article should be moved to its unsponsored name - UAE Pro-League - for consistency with other unsponsored competition names such as the League of Ireland Premier Division and the EFL Cup in WP:FOOTY. This source shows renewable sponsorship for the naming of the league with Arabian Gulf Development for 70 million AED, and this source shows the renewal of the partnership. Bijanii (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the template. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment:Please see also Talk:UAE Arabian Gulf League#Unsponsored name discussion, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Also see also WT:FOOTY#Consistency of using unsponsored names. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Overturn to move I think there was a pretty clear consensus (and evidence) that the move was appropriate. The closing rationale stated that The current name may be a sponsored name, but there is no source given for the assertion, despite the fact that the second comment on the move (by Bijanii at 03:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)) contained a fairly clear source (i.e. this). I therefore have my doubts that the closer read the debate properly. Number 5 7 12:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Overturn to move per N57. Giant Snowman 20:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: UAE League Cup and UAE Super Cup should also be moved back per source.--Bijanii (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bijanii: This is a move review, not a requested move and we only comment on this requested move. But, I think it is better to open a requested move on those articles after this move review is closed. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright.--Bijanii (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: There are accusations and evidence of canvassing on both sides of this discussion, which made it difficult to determine whether the community has actually arrived at a consensus. Also, the main assertion was that the name was a sponsored name, but the sources clearly state that the league was renamed several months before the sponsorship deal was announced. These two factors led me to close this as "no consensus", without prejudice against having a fresh discussion, without canvassing. Brad v 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bradv: As stated in the discussions, there is unequivocal evidence and consensus for the sponsorship of the name. The source clearly shows sponsorship for the name, and WP:FOOTY articles don't use sponsored names.--Bijanii (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Re-open and relist: I think that, given the canvassing, the closer was perfectly within their rights to make a "no consensus" close. However, by saying that there was no source at all for the sponsorship claim, it is easy to call into question the thoroughness with which the closer reviewed the discussion. Given that, I think the discussion should be re-opened, given another week for input, and then closed by an uninvolved editor.--Aervanath (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Aervanath: The name of the league changed in May 2013. The sponsorship deal was not announced until September. We can infer that the name is sponsored and they just delayed announcing it for some reason, but it's not as cut-and-dried as some people are making it out to be. Brad v 18:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Bradv:, you are correct that it is an unclear situation; that is why I would otherwise support the "no consensus" conclusion, especially with the canvassing accusations and the borderline civility issues in the discussion. However, I think your wording in the closing statement was unfortunate; instead of saying "the source is not clear evidence", or something similar, you mistakenly said "there is no source". This may not have been what you were thinking when you wrote it, but that's what got posted as the closing statement. We all make mistakes; I definitely don't mean this as an attack on you as an editor or closer, but I think it would be better in this case to have someone else close the discussion. All respect,--Aervanath (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
What I wrote was "The current name may be a sponsored name, but there is no source given for the assertion, which makes it less convincing." I'm not sure how that is a mistake — there is still no source for the assertion that this is a sponsored name. This is an inference that some editors are willing to make, but others oppose based on the timing — hence, no consensus. Either way, I would still suggest, as I did in my original close, that a new RM is the right approach, without canvassing. Brad v 20:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Overturn to move - I don't feel like the closer read the arguments properly - there clearly was evidence that the league was renamed to match a new sponsor, even if there was a gap of a few months before the sponsorship was officially announced. I very much doubt that it was simple coincidence that they renamed the league and then found a sponsor with a similar name. – Pee Jay 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Overturn to move per User:Number_57. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
‘’’Endorse close’’’ the sources are clear that it the name itself was changed several months before the sponsorship. It’s also the UAE so it’s perfectly possible the sponsor came on after the name change, or indeed was told to. Either way ‘very much doubting’ ought to be trumped by a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.102.234 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018‎ --Aervanath (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders – Closure is endorsed, without prejudice to another, fresh RM in at least 2 months or so from now. SkyWarrior 03:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The initial move consensus on the talk page started on 12 December but was closed on and was closed on 13 December not enough time to form a good consensus. So then I requested a move review and on 30 December @TonyBallioni: speedy relisted the request back up for consideration but then again less than 5 days later it has been closed. The closer, @Paine Ellsworth: said it had been 24 days but I she is mistaken because the request was reopened and she was going off of the original date. I request that a new move consensus be formed and allow people at least 10 days to comment. The is only a 5 vote difference with 2 neutral votes. I think that this deserves more time to be considered than less than 6 days. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand your chagrin; and yet, it is difficult to see how a few more hours would make a difference. Do you really think it would? Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 04:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think having more than 5 days for the Press Secretary of the United States is important, yes. I think that with less than 6 votes difference and less than 6 day to be considered that it should be relisted an reconsidered. I mean no disrespect. I just think that its really close and too significant to make a rush to judgement. 24 days versus 6 days is a big difference. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this was open for a total of about 6 days and garnered a clear consensus to not move the page during that time; however, since you have in good faith again brought this to MR, I will be happy to abide by whatever the closing admin decides. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 04:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I ask the admin to consider a few things. 1. This is the Press Secretary of the United States and it deserves reasonable consideration as such. 2. This move consensus was only 6 days. 3. There are only 5 votes between yes and no and people were still commenting. 4. During all part of the consensus period, we had a major U.S. Holiday 5. Also, as a part of the consensus it was closed after 3 days intially then reopened four more days. It is reasonable to request at least a week all together to gather community input. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Since MR is in place to consider the close of the debate itself rather than the merits of the move discussion, it should also be noted that there had been no overt notice that the debate had been anything other than "relisted". WP:RM#Relisting is specific in regard to: When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Endorse close. The consensus was clearly not in favor of the move.--Aervanath (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Endorse. The closer made the right call. Brad v 17:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Endorse. The close was policy based, specifically WP:COMMONNAME. ToThAc (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Endorse, allow a fresh RM after 2 months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
A WP:MINNOW for User:Paine Ellsworth for closing early without the NAC template, but a WP:TROUT for User:TonyBallioni for his ""Speedy relist" of Wikipedia:Move_review#Sarah_Huckabee_Sanders_(closed), where he actually reverted the previous close and reopened the old discussion, which set up the tempting error. A disputed RM discussion cannot be relisted three weeks later. It should have been a fresh discussion. Procedurally, this is a mess. People should take more care to do things right if the processes are to be respected. The nominator may feel an immediate fresh RM is required, but I think the existing discussions are clearly not supporting a move, and it is not reasonable to ask the many participants back again immediately. I recommend a two-month moratorium following the close of the review before a fresh RM may be entertained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I do deserve to be minnowed, and yet in my defense, I generally research these thoroughly before closing and had no reason to think that it was anything other than a relisted discussion. While I agree that a fresh discussion would have been better than a relisting, I would have given it another day if there had been some notification of the previous MR noted within the discussion. The MRT template had been removed, and had it been left in the discussion, we probably wouldn't be here. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 01:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

🙂 It took some effort to discover the little error on your part. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my close of the previous MRV. Despite your negative views on relisting it is a common procedure and with opposition raised at a move review the called for it to be reopened, a speedy relisting of a bad SNOW close was the obvious call. I have no opinion on this discussion, but my previous close of the MRV was good. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

☹️ Don't confuse decisive with stubborn. This has nothing to do the the procedurally pointless comment-free relistings of ongoing discussions, which I criticise. The close of the MRV was fine, it was the associated action that was a mistake, as demonstrated by what subsequently happened. You re-opened a weeks-closed discussion, instead of a fresh relist at MR. You may have missed this thread? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That thread is 5 years old and relisting is still a possible outcome. A small discussion 5 years ago does not consensus make. I explained my reasoning for why I thought relisting an old discussion was preferable. I still think it was, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. I also get why some might have preferred a new one. This is a good faith disagreement, and there are positives and negatives to either way of handling it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The relisted/reopened version looks like a 28-day old discussion. It lacks a back-reference to the MR discussion. There is confusion as to whether relist means renomiate or reopen. I'd suggest that it would be better to have used a resist template, dividing the discussion into pre- and post-MR, to ~~strickout~~ the old close, and to note that the discussion was re-opened per the MR discussion. Personally, I think a fresh RM makes for a more transparent chronology, but if you must re-open, explaining the circumstances of the re-opening is important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that I found the discussion when it was listed as one of the oldest open RM discussions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions/Table (sorted by reverse days open). I note that the reopening of the long closed discussion caused it to be incorrectly reported as open for 28 days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Since clearly the policies were not followed and the time frame was extremely short my recommendation would be to scrap and start fresh. Allow the users enough time to give their opinion. See thread, WP:MINNOW, and WP:TROUT. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In fully engaged wikispeak, I would say policies were followed, but there were some process irregularities. There was a clear lack of consensus for the move. I already suggested two months as "enough time to give their opinion", and clarified this at the top of my !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have left a closer's note that is in tune with SmokeyJoe's recommendation. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 01:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Endorse close. Overwhelming case of WP:COMMONNAME. That may change in a year. I wouldn't revisit this before at least 6 months have passed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Endorse close, allow a fresh RM in 2 months In the previous MRV I supported a re-opening over the hasty speedy close. Challenges to speedy closes happen all the time and are a legitimate outcome of MRV. However the result was messy as the discussion wasn't properly structured to show that this was what had happened, creating the impression the debate had been opened for a longer period than it actually was. Re-openings need to be more explicit. All that said the weight of further contributions has strengthened the not moved and at this stage there's such a mess that it's best to write a line under the whole RM and come back later rather than have this particular discussion further prolonged. Timrollpickering 12:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.