Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 June

FC Steaua București (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The previous discussion was closed prematurely, furthermore it had more support than opposed, so why someone keeps closing the discussion when it's clearly not concluded? Tag should stay till consensus is reached, however long it may be Abcmaxx (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse – The move request from May 13 was closed appropriately, with a detailed reading of the community's discussion, and a six-month moratorium was recommended. Opening a new RM on May 26, with no new arguments, shows disrespect for the process, and is a waste of time for all editors involved. Opening a move review into the summary close of that inappropriate request is more of the same. Please let it go and come back in November. — JFG ^talk 22:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. (uninvolved – closed one of last year's requests) Since the closer suggested a move review "if you have a problem with this or the previous close", I respect the nom's intent here; however, I agree with JFG in everything else written in the initial endorsement. "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" might also apply in this case. Painius  ^put'r there  00:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse Per above. Hhkohh (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse the Talk:FC_Steaua_București#Requested_move_26_May_2018 speedy close for sure.
  The following is a consideration of the preceding Talk:FC_Steaua_București#Requested_move_13_May_2018 close ^{amended 01:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)}.
  Though I wish closers would state “no consensus” for “no consensus”. Two months standard moratorium before trying again. (The two months will help you compose a better opening rationale). Comment to the change advocate: in an encyclopaedia, history is more important than what is technically correct this week going forward. Also, cite changes in independent sources, not what is “correct”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn the Talk:FC_Steaua_București#Requested_move_13_May_2018 closer’s 6 month moratorium as overreach, unjustified, given the change in mood with time. The excessive verbosity of the close, not speaking to a summary of the discussions, pushes me towards saying BADNAC. The standard 2 month moratorium is more reasonable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    • 6th RM in one year, all of them explicitly "consensus not to move" (not no consensus), and 6 months waiting is excessive? 6 months is standard for not moved. I was too verbose, but I did summarize the discussion in the middle paragraph, with an explanation of why it was not moved, not no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The “Not moved” closing statement style is really poor and needs fixing. It does not say what is meant. I read the discussion as “no consensus”, not “consensus to not move”. Looking at just the April and May 2018 RMs, there is a huge change. A six month moratorium following the May 2018 no consensus is excessive. “6 months is standard for not moved”? That is not even standard English. Imposing a six month moratorium on a particular individual, aka a six month topic ban, that is more defendable. Sorry, but your middle paragraph was as much a Supervote as a summary. The closer does not get to invoke a policy argument as a Supervote where it was not raised in discussion, let alone where participants referred to the policy application with different interpretation. Your “Not Moved” is unclear, if it means “consensus”, then “Overturn (to no consensus)”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
      • of course, much of what you said in closing the 13 May discussion is correct, in particular the last things. I note that formally this is a review of the 26 May close, and that close is to be Endorsed. I question the 13 May close, with regard to no consensus vs consensus and the duration of the moratorium. I also thing that it was too controversial for an NAC. An NAC should not be closing against !votes of very experience RM admins such as User:Cuchullain. SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

        What exactly was the huge change between April and May? There was no new evidence with respect to WP:COMMONNAME presented, just more of the same arguments from the April one. If anything the May request should have been speedy closed and the six-month moratorium placed immediately, given the recentness of the April request. As I said below, the moratorium can and should be overridden if strong new evidence regarding English-language sources comes to light, but until that happens it's pointless to allow repeated requests on the same arguments.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

        The huge change was the SNOW opposition becoming a more complicated discussion. I think we can quickly agree on a common position, no new RM without strong new evidence regarding English-language sources. I would reword the moratorium statement, based upon it being too long if read as absolutely binding at 6 months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

        Well, it was somewhat more complicated in that one or two of the supports actually mentioned some real evidence of common name usage, but when it was analysed that was found to be at best inconclusive, and as stated in the close, half the supports were ruled out because they even admitted that common name in foreign sources remained with the old name. Cuchullain presented a couple of news links, but with no accompanying evidence as to how that showed a change in trends, and also failed to include the much more common variant of "Steaua Bucharest". I raised those points in the "discussion" section, with Andrewa involved in the chat too, but in the end there wasn't time to discuss them further before the RM was closed. On the six-month issue, I guess you're right really, that figure is largely irrelevant because if the evidence becomes much stronger before that elapses, we could clearly move to another RM, whereas if the evidence doesn't become stronger, then a speedy close is encouraged even after the six month moratorium elapses. I suppose having a time period gives a bit more certainty to people that they really should reconsider though, and gave a very solid grounds for speedy closing the latest RM...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse. There is a moratorium in place. Even the previous RM was filed just a month after the previous one, which is why the moratorium was imposed. This is becoming disruptive, and the nom needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other things.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment With summer transfer window is coming, would the nominator watching out the usage of FCSB or Steaua in ESPN, Sky Sports, the Guardian, BBC Sport, the Independent (or other reliable English secondary source) as evidence , or keep on start a voting game without proper conclusion of wide general usage of FCSB as English common name? Matthew_hk tc 08:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  I think if someone went to the talk page and presented clear and solid evidence of the form you mention, such there could no longer be doubt as to the English WP:COMMONNAME, then it might be legitimate to reopen the request before the moratorium is up. However, the move request we're discussing here in this review did nothing of the sort, it was simply an attempt to rehash the previous several failed RMs, with no evidence at all that the real-world situation has changed. RMs of that nature can be speedy closed even after the six-month moratorium is up, per the closing note on the last one.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, I put that note so we don't have an RM precisely on November 13th saying "The romanian court decision.." and spend another week discussing that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse, and I suggest we also endorse and make explicit that no further RM should be raised affecting this article for a period of six months (two months has been suggested above but IMO that's unlikely to be long enough considering the time already spent discussing this). Keep it simple, and move on. In a sense nothing is set in concrete, but that's not a blank cheque. Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Thought I'd point out that the community has never come to consensus on any "standard" length to wait for a new RM after either "no consensus" or "moved/not moved". So no two-month standard moratorium exists for no consensus and no six-month moratorium exists for moved/not moved. Only when a specific period of moratorium is mentioned is there any specific period of waiting time.  Painius  ^put'r there  00:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Moratoria for revisiting the same question: 2 months following no consensus; 6 month following consensus.
  There is consensus this standard moratoria. It just lags in the documentation. It was there many years unwritten in 2009.^User:PBS All evidence I can find says there is no difference on this between XfD and RM, and I documented it at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. I consider the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_28#Default_moratoria_on_repeat_RMs to have ratified that the same consensus is held for RMs. We differed only on the little question of how much verbiage it deserved on the main RM page, and I stepped back hoping to see what User:SMcCandlish might do, I believe that he writes better than I do.
  There also an under developed essay at Wikipedia:Moratoria.
  On the current question at hand, I don't think there is reason to doubt long standing broad support for moratoria, but I question whether Talk:FC_Steaua_București#Requested_move_13_May_2018 was "consensus" or "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I was just gently reminding that there is no firm standard mentioned in the closing instructions, with 3 months suggested after a no-consensus outcome. We should be careful when we sound as if the community has come to consensus on any other waiting periods, especially those from a conversation by a few editors from more than two years ago that has not altered the closing instructions.  Painius  ^put'r there  02:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Meta-commentary on waiting periods: This sounds worth RfCing at WP:VPPOL. I'm not opposed to the idea of default waiting periods, and there is a wishy-washy community sense that doing another RM, XfD, or whatever "too soon" after the last one is at least discouraged and sometimes disruptive or shopping-ish, but we're not being very specific about what "too soon" is. So, why not be specific? My point below was more of a process point; non-admins shouldn't write closes they can't enforce or don't have authority to impose on others, basically. If we had a codified waiting period, it'd be a different matter. To get to a default one, we'd need considerations like "what if the underlying facts have changed?", "what if evidence presented in the last RM/XfD was falsified?", etc., taken into account. WP isn't a legal system.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• You talk of enforcement as if an admin can enforce a moratorium, standard or otherwise? However, no consensus as to this power of enforcement for admins but not non-admins has been garnered, has it? So if there were an RfC, what then would you propose as a fair result for anyone who breaches a moratorium? And I might also point out that, thus far, any waiting period for a new RM should presently be "suggested" and not stringently imposed nor enforced either by an admin or a non-admin, isn't that correct?  Painius  ^put'r there  15:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• @User:SmokeyJoe you wrote "The standard 2 month moratorium is more reasonable". Three examples of where I have been involved in RM closures that have been linked on this page to RM moratoria (moratoriums) over a 13 year period. I can dig up more, but I think that is proof enough that there is a custom more than a decade old for 6 month moratoria. Please present some examples of 2 month moratoria for RMs (not RfDXfDs which are a different process) to show it is a "standard". -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi PBS. I’ve quoted and pinged you many times, but I think this is the first time you’ve answered. I would trust your memory over whatever I said. 6 months is that standard, I thought for post-consensus reattempts, but when the close is no consensus I thought it was less though much less standard. I have suggested harmonising these things between XfD and RM, see WP:RENOM. Since then, 2 months for revisiting following no consensus has been pretty much only agreed with. One or two pushed for one month. The WT:RM discussion I linked featured no disagreement. 2 month moratoria for no consensus has little history compared to 6 months for a consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• So you do not have any evidence that a 2 month moratorium is standard for the RM process but are extrapolating from XfDs. --PBS (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think there are cases, “evidence”, but they are recent, probably due to my influence, following that WT:RM discussion, so the extrapolating has happened, some. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Then we can harmonise XfD to RM and only have one 6 month period ;-) or we can accept that they are different processes with very different outcomes. As I point out elsewhere in this discussions the problem is not generally new RMs soon after there has been a discussion with an obvious consensus, but new RMs when there is no consensus. -- PBS (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• We can, I fully agree with you. My strong opinion is that there needs to be some moratorium following no consensus, because there is a history of immediate renominations, and these were disruptive and disrespectful to the previous closes. I think for no consensus, 2 months is enough, are you suggesting it should normally be longer? I also hold the soft opinion that an admin closer may impose any reasonable moratorium depending on the case and history, and an NAC can lock in a moratorium agreed by the participants. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse the decision. This is clear-cut case of WP:COMMONNAME versus WP:OFFICIALNAME, and we all know how that turns out. I don't endorse the moratorium, which is an administrative discretionary action not available to NACs. (WP:EDITING and WP:CCC policies doesn't provide for random editor A telling random editors B and C that they're forbidden to propose something.) Someone could close a WP:NOTGETTINGIT re-opening of the dispute as WP:GAMING (I've made such NACs myself), and take the matter to ANI as disruptive if it recurs. That's post hoc not prescriptive. If an admin wants to reclose it with a moratorium, I'd have no objection, but this MR is probably itself sufficient to speedily close another RM any time soon, as a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I am here because of User:SMcCandlish's mention of my name. Here is an example of the custom of six month moratorium from even earlier: Talk:Orange (colour)/Archived move request October 2005. For a number of years I followed RMs closely (indeed I mentioned it in my RfA). For anyone who follows RM debates it becomes obvious quickly that discussion on some article titles are a massive time sink (because there is a lot of debate and there is unlikely to be a consensus in the near future -- indeed this section is an example of such a time-sink). Hence the reason that moratoriums are sometimes a useful tool to stop disruption. The length of the moratorium is I see being debated here. Actually if there is a consensus, it usually deters those who disagree with the consensus from putting in another RM in the near future unless they are very passionate about the issue or Wikipedia inexperienced (because experienced users, unless passion overcomes caution, are not going to want to run the risk of an ANI for disruption as they may end up getting topic banned from a subject they passionate about). I was one who pressed for the original sentence in the WP:AT policy that is now covered by WP:NAMECHANGES (5 January 2012), and that is one of the major justifications for altering article titles. However it take a few months to be able to prove that a new name is now the "common name", so there is no contradiction between a moratorium and the at policy. The six month moratorium is more useful for debates that close with no consensus, because a re-opener may in good faith think it is justified and defend the action on the grounds that "I am merely seeking a consensus", and it is these cases that become such a time sink. For example I imposed a six month moratorium of RMs on ISIL which was followed up Rfc community imposed moratorium of 12 months. The moratorium was imposed after there were 10 move requests (and other talk discussions about the title) in 13 months. Since then, the article title issue has not dominated the ISIL talk pages, although I predict that the article title will eventually change. An infamous case is the great Yogurt debate where the article titles after a move and eight requested moves eventually ended up back at its original name (as a case of original author'a name), because there was no consensus on what is the most common spelling. Both of these demonstrate why moratorium of six moths are useful for stopping disruption. -- PBS (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  I don't dispute any of that. It's just not within the scope of an NAC to impose a moratorium. It's either an admin action, or we need the closing instructions/rules/whatever changed with moratorium-related instructions and default periods the community agrees on; more detail in a reply further up the page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  Personally I think that User:Galobtter, would have done better not to close another RM on the same talk page as (s)he is inviting suggestions that (s)he has an undisclosed agenda about the topic. In this case I think (s)he would have done better to ask an admin to speedily close the RM that is subject to this review (as this would de-facto addressed SMcCandlish concerns about no-admins imposing a moratorium). -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, whether a non-admin should impose a moratorium on moves is something I think needs further thought. However I think it is reasonable that an "move review" can endorse, overturn a moratorium proposed by a non-admin, or in some cases impose a moratorium. Currently the 6 month moratorium is customary (I think 2 months is too short for a consensus to change and I am not convinced that it is customary for RM discussion -- RM is a very different process to RfDXfD as it is not a binary decision and it can easily be overturned with yet another RM so by its nature is more flexible). I am leery of including explicit wording of a moratorium option in the RM instructions without a lot of discussion under a Rfc WT:AT. I think it could easily become a bureaucrat set of rules (and subject to gaming the system -- paradox of the heap arguments). However I would be interested in participating such a discussion if it is held and would support it if wording could be found to allay my worries.-- PBS (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  Regarding the first point, perhaps, yeah. I'd point out though, that Dekimasu, an admin, has endorsed the moratorium. (see the discussion below the first RM I closed) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  @PBS: Re, "it is reasonable that ..." – Yes, to all of that, because it's a consensus discussion. Just like ANI can impose bans, blocks, or even a site ban. It's community action, not unilateral diktat. We don't even let admins do that unless WP:AC/DS applies (or something else like WP:CSD or WP:VANDAL permits a specific kind of unilateral decision about something), and even those have limits. NAC doesn't authorize it, only assessment of consensus, and warns against NACs on controversial cases. It's a WP:Process is important thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  If anyone's still unclear on why this matters: How would you feel if I declared that henceforth I'm not going to participate in RMs any longer, only close them. Every time I see an RM discussion that concludes, as it should, with a consensus to do what the applicable policies and guidelines actually say and mean, I'm going to close with a decision to that effect plus a 20-year moratorium on trying the move the article again unless the applicable rules or the real-world facts about the subject have changed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment How can this requested move be marked only as "not moved" as it is clear that there was "no consensus"? How can one user such easily impose his personal agenda and decide an arbitrary 6 months moratorium? Furtermore Wikipedia policy gives greater weight to sources published after the name change. All such arguments and sources were ignored and not one proof was presented that the commonname stayed at "Steaua București". And they call that consensus not to move? Linhart (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  It does not matter. Fact it was "not moved" because in the opinion of the closing uninvolved editor there was no consensus. As to the change in reliable sources, that was not pressed by many editors who took part in the debate, and was not presented as the primary reason for making the request. Besides if it it is so then in six months time it will be easy to show that such a change in usage has taken place. This is an encyclopaedia and the name change does not have to be done as if it were a news-blog. Useful examples to study, because they involved lots of editors over a number of requests are Ivory Coast and Myanmar -- PBS (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  Of course it matters, consensus not to move and no consensus are two different things. Two useful examples for you to study are FC Akhmat Grozny and FC VSS Košice. Linhart (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  I do not see any WP:RM discussion on the talk pages either of those articles. -- PBS (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  Exactly. Linhart (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  @User:Linhart I do not understand the point you are trying to make with articles that have no RM requests on their talk page. This particular Move Review is about a speedy close because of a moratorium, but in the preceding RM the closer stated that (s)he was not moving the article, hence "Not moved" is a fact. In general the reason why depends on the the interpretation of the debate by the closer. It may be because the closer interprets the debate as a consensus not to move, or it may be because the closer considers there to be no consensus to move, this to a certain extent is /subjective/open to interpretation/ (hence the reason for this review process). In this case the closer stated that the "overall consensus" was that "english-language sources have [not] changed" -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  But exactly that is not true. After the final and official name change all english-language sources have changed to FCSB, club's webpage, social media, football federations and associations and all english-language media articles (those located in Romania and also those elsewere like Reuters). I presenterd that evidence, while the other side presented not one proof that the usage after the name change has stayed at "FC Steaua București". The decision not to move the page is a disgrace for wikipedia community and it's policies. The user who closed the discussion should be at least be so fair to list it as "no consensus". I mentioned other clubs just to show, how after the name change the articles were moved without discussion and there was no controversy. Linhart (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse good close, clear consensus not to move. GiantSnowman 11:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse as I did preemptively here. The earlier discussion was not closed prematurely. It was appropriate to speedily close the newer discussion, and really, the temporary moratorium in place is appropriate. This doesn't mean the title should not be, or will never be, changed. It means that the process has been exhausted for now, editors should return to other productive ways to use their time, and the issue can be revisited if necessary when some time has passed. Dekimasuよ! 20:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn there should have a new "Steaua Bucharest" team as FCSB was forced to renamed. There will have conflict for the future in press. Currently using "Steaua" is only because it was the well-known history. However, UEFA Champions League is always being called "European Cup" even until now, so why we used "UEFA Champions League"? Official name is the only reason. KyleRGiggs (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Although there were 11 13 supporters and six opponents of the proposed move, the closer ruled "no consensus to move" citing a "parallel" RM. This argument was mentioned by one editor in the RM and refuted by another, who correctly cited WP:OTHERSTUFF. Do we want users and closers to dig up precedents and argue over them like common law lawyers? A proper close must follow the relevant guideline, or at least explain any inconsistency. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC) I was a supporter in the RM. I recommend Overturn and move. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse, The close was not just the one reason you mention above, the closer also says "per the discussion below". And that discussion shows that this was the correct close. Your summarizing sentence in your introduction above is incorrect because you print one part of it and leave out the most important finding, "per the discussion below", and might want to add that if something like this comes up again. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and move – The closer's note "per discussion" was a bit vague, so that I asked for clarification on their talk page. Their explanation was essentially "no consensus emerged after 10 days", plus mentioning a parallel multi-move request closed two days earlier with no consensus. That is still no explanation: the closer is essentially saying: "I conclude there is no consensus because there is no consensus." Per our RM closing instructions, the closer must provide a reading of the discussion in light of policy. Except in the most obvious slam-dunk cases nearing unanimity, the arguments of the support and oppose sides should be analyzed by the closer, and this did not happen here. Consequently, let me propose a more detailed reading of the discussion.

1. Numeric count is 13 editors supporting the move and 6 opposing (OP here has erroneously counted only 11 supports); this already shows twice as much support as opposition, but of course a simple count is not enough to carry the day.
2. Now let's take a look at the arguments presented. Supporting editors mostly endorse the nomination based on the MOS:CAPS and WP:JOBTITLES guidelines, mentioning that a title in the plural form should not be capitalized because it refers to several individuals who have held that title. Opposing editors contend that by virtue of being the formal title of a head of state, "President" should always be capitalized. Several editors mention sources, contending that "most sources use the capitalized version" if opposing, and "it's very often not capitalized" if supporting the move. The book search presented by Dicklyon clearly shows that capitalization is evenly mixed among sources, with the gap between "of Presidents" and "of presidents" having narrowed in recent years compared with the 1960s, and even more dramatically since the 1930s. Therefore, any opposition to the move based on preponderance of the capitalized version in sources must be discounted: this nullifies at least two of the oppose !votes.
3. When sources do not overwhelmingly use one form of capitalization over the next, Wikipedia defers to the house style, and our MOS:JOBTITLES guideline specifically outlines only three cases when formal titles can be capitalized, including When a formal title for a specific entity is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier, and is not a reworded description (emphasis mine). The title "President" here is used in the plural form, so must not be capitalized.
4. Other oppose arguments were based on a simple dislike ("This is ridiculous", "Unnecessary and redundant", "The de-capitalization of that VP article noted above, and any other related articles is incorrect and should be rectified immediately, per BOLD and IAR, no RM or consensus required"); they should carry less weight than comments citing a sourcing or policy reason.
5. Finally, the oppose !vote by עם ישראל חי looks like it was meant as a support !vote, because they say "per reasons stated on Talk:Living_presidents_and_vice_presidents_of_the_United_States", and on that page they had endorsed a rename to a non-capitalized version of the title. A clarification from this editor would be welcome. This editor has confirmed that he meant "Oppose". Striking #5. — JFG ^talk 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

For all these reasons, I read the discussion as a clear consensus to move the article title to the "List of presidents…" uncapitalized version. — JFG ^talk 10:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• It would've looked quite silly, to have the article-in-question moved to List of presidents of the United States, while the other 'main' related article-in-question remained at List of Vice Presidents of the United States. What should've happened, is that all aforementioned articles should been placed in one RM. GoodDay (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned in the move request under review here, the parallel request for a mass-move of dozens of articles was probably too much to swallow, and it did not include this specific article. This review must consider this close on its own merits. — JFG ^talk 12:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I disagree with this. The cases have to be treated together, otherwise we end up with a glaring lack of WP:CONSISTENCY. Also, on your "is not plural" point, that line was added only in October last year, and on the basis of a confusing RFC which barely discussed the plural issue at all. I think it's highly questionable whether it should be in the MOS in that format, because it clearly makes no sense for some examples. Would we really have List of dalai lamas? "President of the United States" is treated as a proper noun in the article President of the United States and its list form should be too, as it has been for years according to well established convention. There is really no good reason to move this list.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Two remarks: 1. Move Review is not the place to discuss MOS guidelines; we should only assess whether the closer accurately reflected the balance of the discussion under review. 2. You are pointing to the wrong RfC. The RfC that resulted in the MOS update to include "is not plural" gathered unanimous support of all participants for this exact wording, and was closed on 22 October 2017 with a "clear consensus to revise the third bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES as proposed." If you disagree, you should open a new RfC and assert reasons why this particular consensus should change. — JFG ^talk 09:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: OK, but it remains the case that the plural point was not specifically debated by any participant in the RFC, rather they were presented with a fait accompli, and most participants grudgingly supported it as the best compromise rather than giving it a ringing endorsement. Also the rewording suggested in that article does not mention anything about decapping list article titles. And the only example given in that RFC suggests we should be using American presidents rather than "presidents of the United States". The move would actually be a lot more acceptable if it were to List of American presidents, because then it's no longer the job title as a proper noun but a concise descriptive title. And yes, MOS guidelines should be discussed here, because it's relevant to interpreting the close. The move request here and the one at the vice president pages show clearly that when push comes to shove the community is not supportive of that change to the MOS, at least as it pertains to page titles, however much you may celebrate a "unanimous" passing of the RFC.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Part of what many people are missing here is that JOBTITLES also has us capitalize such a title when the subject is the title/role/position itself, but this is not every context in which the same text string appears. E.g., we have Lord Mayor of London, but it's not capitalized when used in a plural or genericized sense as a classifier, thus List of lord mayors of London. See also the opening sentence of the former: "The Lord Mayor of London is the City of London's mayor ..." with "mayor" not "Mayor". [And "City of London" here is a proper name for the legal entity; by contrast, there is no such thing as "the City of San Francisco"; there's the city of San Francisco, a place where people live, and the City and County of San Francisco, the legal entity (a fused municipal and county government).] In short, whether something's a proper noun (or proper-noun phrase) or a common one is context- and construction-dependent. "I want to always capitalize job titles and always capitalize 'city of"' is a crude, Procrustean, and rather middle-school idea; it produces poor, amateurish writing that lacks nuance or even a clear logical understanding of the topic at hand.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:JFG you wrote above "3. When sources do not overwhelmingly ...." please show me to where in the WP:AT policy is state it has to be overwhelming. -- PBS (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about AT policy, which is not a style policy (otherwise MoS would not exist, and AT and its naming-conventions side guidelines wouldn't ever defer to it even if it did – yet it does and they do). The wording you're looking for in AT is "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources", at COMMONNAME; this is about picking between two names (e.g. David Johansen versus Buster Poindexter), not two stylizations of the same name. Even then it's only about picking the first choice to test against the actual WP:CRITERIA; there is no guarantee the commonest name will actually be used. But it really amounts to the same criterion anyway; MoS, from MOS:CAPS to MOS:TM, wants to see consistent use of the style in modern, independent, English-language, reliable sources. We don't have that here. More and more of them lower-case such constructions, including the major style guides on which our MoS is based. We don't apply capitalization or other stylization unless it's the overwhelmingly dominant current-English RS usage (or unless there's a MOS:ENGVAR matter in play; e.g. whilst is permissible despite while being far more common and clearly understood cross-dialect, because the longer and more archaic form remains dominant [allegedly – this actually needs to be looked at] in some national-scale dialects).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (by involved editor) - I agree with GoodDay. The issues under discussion at the “Presidents” RM were identical to those at the “Vice Presidents” RM (as were the arguments for and against the move). The two should have been combined into one RM, as both were active at the same time. It makes sense that the closer combined them when closing. Acknowledging that the two RMs are connected was the right call. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you see any problem with the fact that the MOS calls for lower casing, but this RM has resulted in upper casing? Should the guideline be rewritten? If so, what should it say? I can't think of any phrasing that would accommodate the RM and not sound ridiculous: "Show some respect and upper case all references to U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • • Nope... no problem at all. The MOS itself says that there will be occasional exceptions. If you think of the MOS as a flexible set of good guidance, and not a firm set of “rules”, it helps.Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This is not a rearguing of the issue, if it was then MOS calls for the most familiar use of the term, which is upper-case. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Are we looking at the same MOS? My version says, "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" (MOS:CAPS). The MOS lists various dictionaries we can refer to. Check one and see how this word should be capitalized. The MOS does not mention ngrams. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and move – There was a clear consensus to move this page. Every move request should be evaluated individually, so the result of the move request on the vice-presidents page was immaterial to this discussion. Note also that the user who pulled a non-admin closure on this move request actually !voted "oppose" on the move request on the vice-presidents page which suggests a bias in the user's ruling. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC) I !voted "support" in both previous RM's -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing out that smoking gun. Overturn is now mandatory. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn (I had supported the proposals to move to conform with MOS:JOBTITLES) – yes, the evidence shows that it was a very poor non-admin close. And yes, agree with JFG that move would have been the obvious correct reading. Once we fix this list of presidents, it will be easier to see and/or establish consensus to respect MOS:JOBTITLES more generally. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• I have a request for those who were involved in the two RMs... please follow my example and identify your involvement. Right now, there is a distinct overlap between opinions here and opinions at the two RMs. This is to be expected... And is OK. But it would be helpful to distinguish any comments from those involved from those not already involved. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• mine was an oppose vote per oppose reasons stated List of Vice Presidents of the United States the link i put was a mistake עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; I will update the above discussion summary accordingly. — JFG ^talk 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse. No consensus seems a correct close, since the votes were split between those arguing that this is a descriptive title, and those arguing that it is a list of holders of a named title. The argument in opposition was that WP:JOBTITLES explicitly mentions "President of the United States" as a job title, and that this is the plural form. That argument was not overwhelmingly refuted by those in support. The main article is at President of the United States so it would definitely be odd not to have this list article at List of Presidents of the United States. I also think the move closure of the large number of articles with related titles was relevant, and the closer was within their rights to mention that one in the close here. WP:CONSISTENCY is one of the criteria after all.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • By that logic, it should be List of Writers instead of List of writers because the main article is at Writer, not writer. That... does not sound very convincing. I think the closer's obvious bias (having voted in the related move request) is rather damning and should be considered when evaluating his decision here. Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Your example is not equivalent, because "writer" is a common noun, whereas "President of the United States" is a proper noun. The only reason Writer has a capital is because all articles start with a capital letter. In running text the subject is writer. A better example would be List of Dalai Lamas, which is so-called because it derives from the proper noun "Dalai Lama". It is not List of dalai lamas. As for your other point, that may be valid, but the closer didn't actually vote in this discussion and it doesn't alter the fact that there was no consensus. If you really want to declare the close void on that technicality, then the discussion should be reopened and relisted. It certainly isn't a valid candidate for a straight overturn to moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
      • By this logic, it's "Presidents of the United States," but "U.S. presidents"? Oh my. Why don't you rewrite the MOS? That would give us a fighting chance to figure out what your rules are. Nine Zulu queens (talk)
        • Um... yes, we do need to rewrite the MOS... or rather, we need to u do a recent rewrite and return it to what it used to say. The MOS used to note a distinction between “King of France” and “French king”... analogous to the distinction between “Presidents of the United States” and “US presidents”. I would favor a return of this distinction. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
      • User:Amakuru, proper nouns cannot be multi-word terms, and should,not be confused with proper names. President of the United States is not a proper noun, and neither is Dalai Lama. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

        I'm not sure that distinction is widely accepted, most people would regard proper names and proper nouns as the same thing. But whatever we call it, it doesn't change the capitalisation rules. If it's capped in singular, it should also be capped in plural.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

        • "President" is capitalized when it is treated as an extension of a personal name, as in "President Trump." In other words, it is a job title and not a proper noun. "Dalai Lama" is capitalized because it substitutes for a personal name. How do we know which is which? You can't figure it out by speculating, but you can look it up in a dictionary. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (EDIT: Relist might be a better summary for clarity) (disclosure: voted no move on the VP RM, did not vote on the Presidents one which was frankly filed too soon and should have waited for the VP one to finish, would probably have voted no move had I voted). Well, the closer isn't wrong that it'd be a nonsensical split to have presidents and Vice Presidents. While consistency is not that important, that'd be super-weird. I am inclined to say that the VP debate, which had better turnout, is the better precedent to use, but this is clearly enough of an issue that it unfortunately might be worth reopening a third debate - maybe making a full RFC on the extent of JOBTITLES so that whichever stance prevails, there is some finality so that voting fatigue doesn't become an issue. SnowFire (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. (uninvolved) This RM was closed out of process, so its outcome should be overturned and the RM closed by an uninvolved editor. The closer was involved in the related RM about the same thing; therefore, the closer should have realized their involvement and should not have closed this RM.  Painius  ^put'r there  16:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• It would be better if it is relisted for another week if that's going to be the case. I certainly wish to oppose the move.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not averse to a relist, and that might be the best idea.  Painius  ^put'r there  19:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Question: @Nine Zulu queens: Your opening of the move review does not specify what outcome you are advocating (Endorse/Overturn/Relist). You may want to make a clear statement before the review gets closed. — JFG ^talk 20:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn—or in my view, the RM process will lose credibility. Tony (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and move per the actual consensus in the discussion. Some opposes by people who a) did not read the plain English at MOS:JOBTITLES, b) make assertions like "most sources use the capitalized version" without evidence and against already-supplied evidence to the contrary, c) offer WP:ILIKEIT arguments like traditionalism, and/or d) provide "rationales" that actually make no sense at all like "redundant" (someone doesn't seem to know what that word means), are just noise. These comments should have been discounted by the closer, yet even taken all together as if valid policy- and source-based arguments, there's still a 2:1 showing against them, and those in favor of the move had defensible rationales. This was a bad, super-vote close (whether it was an NAC or not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endosrse Close As 'No Move' - As per all the sound and very persuasive comments posted above explaining why "Presidents" should be capitalized. This project-wide de-capitalization campaign is getting carried away. It is only supported by personal preference for a particular style-guide and needs to be reined in and reviewed as it's becoming quite disruptive. (imho) - wolf 22:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  This is just more re-litigation (i.e. "why I like capitalizing"), and is not responsive to the move review or what MR is for (which is examining whether the closer properly assessed consensus, not whether you agree with the result and with people who argued for it). The entire reason we're here is that arguments for the capitalization are not sound or persuasive under policy- and source-based reasoning; this is exactly why the close was challenged. Simply asserting that they're sound and persuasive, without substantively refuting the evidence to the contrary, isn't an actual MR position, but a distraction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Notifications: Some concern was expressed at WT:MOSCAPS that this MR might not reach a clear consensus, so I've posted additional neutral pointers to it there, at WT:MOS, and at WT:NCCAPS, the three guidelines whose wording could conceivably be affected one way or the other by the outcome. It could be "advertised" further, but I'm skeptical that, say, the village pump should be notified about something this trivial in the site-wide scheme of things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and move per JFG and given the revelation the closer was not an uninvolved party. —Joeyconnick (talk)
• Overturn and Move, Please! for the love of all that is holy and the fate of written English grammar!!! and as stated by me in too many, numerous, and redundant discussions of this issue, per MoS and our own Style-Guide. The size of the article count affected by this IS NOT a case of IAR, it's a case of Wikipedia Integrity to the written word and good grammar for future generations. (Oh, and per BADNAC too). ~GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - whatever the rights and wrongs of this individual move closure, I think it's sensible that this list be treated alongside the long list of similar articles at Talk:List_of_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_21_May_2018, and not as an isolated case. WP:CONSISTENCY suggests that we shouldn't move just this one, leaving it out of kilter with the vice president list. Might I suggest that the best way forward now would be to neither endorse nor overturn the previous RM, but instead reopen it with a new request, including List of Presidents of the United States as well as all the pages mentioned on the other move request. The new RM can then be closed by a properly qualified admin, or a panel, and we can put the matter to bed once and for all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

  Or, alternatively, we could just do what MOS:JOBTITLES, WP:NCCAPS, and hundreds if not thousands of previous de-capitalization RMs have directed us to do: stop over-capitalizing. We have guidelines and RM precedent so that we don't have to keep re-re-rehashing the same thing on a page-by-page basis. We have better things to do with our volunteer time here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  Consistency is much easier to achieve when it's consistent with the agreed guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The policy to decide on the appropriate article title is Article Title policy and its naming conventions (the guidelines that support and interpret the Article Title policy -- In this case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)). The MOS guidelines cover content not article titles, so all those who are suggesting overturning this close using MOS guidelines are not basing their arguments on the Artile Titles policy and its guidelines, therefore they ought to be ignored here just as they ought to be in the RM. It seems to me odd that people who argue for overturning a close because guidance was not followed do not themselves bas their arguments on policy. -- PBS (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should look at the close. It says, "per the discussion below and the parallel discussion at Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States#Requested move 21 May 2018." Which one of these is a valid reason? "Per discussion"? The discussion is overwhelming in favor of moving. Per "parallel discussion"? We should not be citing other discussions in this way, according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not only that, but the closer himself was a participant in the "parallel discussion." If we consider the two discussions together, as the closer encourages us to do, it follows that he is WP:INVOLVED. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

    And it's a specious argument anyway. WP:NCCAPS is the application of MOS:CAPS to WP:AT concerns (and NCCAPS defers to MOS:CAPS for the details and the general avoid-unnecessary-caps rationale anyway). A key idea of the titles policy, the naming conventions, and the style guidelines is that we should be consistent. A quick review of WP:RM results also shows that the idea that MoS concerns cannot be applied to article titles is farcically wrong; they're collectively the no. 2 thing that is applied to article titles, every single day, in the course of moving them around (WP:COMMONNAME is no. 1, of course). The idea that there's a fight between these WP:P&G pages and one wins is a strange WP:BATTLEGROUND fantasy. They're explicitly designed to work together. At WP:POLICY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:GAMING, WP:Common sense, WP:WIKILAWYER, etc., we're instructed to interpret our P&G pages as being in concert not in conflict. The community does not intentionally create WP:POLICYFORKs, and trying to manufacture one by willfully misinterpreting P&G material and its interrelations, just to get victory in some over-capitalization cause, is not how we do things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Is it your intent to argue with every single editor here you disagree with? There is point where this becomes badgering. - wolf 21:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like everybody has made their case. Close requested. — JFG ^talk 11:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Many of the support and oppose rationales were similar in both discussions, so it is very reasonable to consider both discussions when closing, especially since the other discussion was somewhat more substantial and closed first, by a very able and experienced closer. While it's not ideal that the closer of this discussion participated in the discussion he cited in his close, that doesn't change whether or not the decision was reasonable. Although a majority favored a move, there was enough rational opposition to indicate that there was no consensus. (I did not participate in either discussion.) Station1 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse Personally I didn't see this discussion when it was happening, because move discussions are relatively low profile, but I would have definitely opposed the move. A style guide is a pretty poor reason to insist on a rigid rule that produces a title as visually jarring as "List of presidents of the United States" - the guideline itself says or the position/office is the subject itself - a point that was raised in the discussion. Would it really make a difference if the article was called "List of Persons elected to the Office of the Presidency of the United States"? - it is basically the same thing, though I wouldn't object to the longer title.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)