Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 October

Seattle–Tacoma International Airport (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move. I just do not know how many examples I needed. I did not want to flood the page with 400 books that use a hyphen, but there is what a 47:1 ratio, and I certainly could have. "There you go again" comes to mind, which was used to belittle Carter when the desire to cap health care costs was brought up. Carter's solution was universal health care. Reagan knew that the only reason health costs had spiraled out of control was because of government involvement. Two equally valid arguments, still unresolved today. The use of an endash in a proper name is a radical proposal from the MOS editors and is not adopted by the majority of book editors, and there is no reason for it to be adopted by WP, in the choosing of article titles. Names have names. Find out what the most common name is and use that. Find out what the correct official name is and use that, provided enough people actually use it, in common usage. I think I more than amply demonstrated that Seattle Tacoma is spelled with a hyphen, and as our own policy states, it does not matter if a thousand editors disagree, the more correct proposal is the one used. The closer did not follow that advice. We have what, five principles (goals) used in choosing names (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency [note: most hyphenated airport names on WP still use hyphens - a small number were converted to endash recently - this one on 31 January 2010‎]). How by any stretch of the imagination does Seattle Tacoma with an endash fit even one of them? Apteva (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Seems like the close followed Wikipedia's style guide. I don't see how the fact that other works, even if a majority, using a different style should override our internal consistency. If other pages don't follow the style guide, isn't the better solution to fix them? PaleAqua (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What for? Why not change the style guide instead? The style guide is inconclusive. WP:HYPHEN says that a hyphen is used in some places. WP:DASH says that an endash is used in some places. The style guide also correctly says not to change things just to change them from one correct form to another. Some of the examples, though, where it says an endash are used are actually not correct - it says an endash is used in Comet Hale-Bopp for example, neglecting the fact that we do not capitalize comet, or did not the last time I checked, and it can just as clearly as for airports be shown that comets use hyphens, not endashes. With comets it is even easier to show because there is only one entity that arbitrates the names of all comets, the IAU, and they very clearly say that only spaces and hyphens are used in the names of comets. Apteva (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:HYPHEN says mentions that independent elements should use an en dash instead of a hyphen. And WP:NDASH dot 2 states to use it in compounds involving independent elements. WP:DASH specifically states when naming an article not to use a hyphen if an en dash belongs in the name. I don't see the inconsistency in the style guide. PaleAqua (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  They are no longer independent compounds when they become a part of the name. If WP:DASH says not to use a hyphen where a hyphen is used, something is wrong with that part of the MOS. That becomes original research, to think that what everyone else is doing is wrong, and what the official name is, is wrong. Apteva (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To me it doesn't seem like the name is being changed, just the style it is being presented in.PaleAqua (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see the MOS was also edited yesterday to eliminate all mention of hyphens being used in names, even though that is one of the common uses of hyphens.[1] But MOS guidelines do not dictate names. WP:TITLE does. Interestingly both MOS and TITLE each have 70 subpages. Apteva (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like it was removed per this discussion. From what it sounds like the examples removed did not fit the bullet and also had issues based on English / French differences if I skimmed that discussion correctly. PaleAqua (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion is an example of the silliness at MOS - "But if the MOS explicitly mentions capitalizing species names here, this will be read (or so I believe) by some of those on both sides of the argument as endorsing capitalization of species names." - the MOS is supposed to endorse the current capitalization of bird names. One of the posters to that thread, the final poster, is someone who has been pretending that bird names should not be capitalized. That though, is not a MOS question, but a TITLE question, and the MOS should "endorse" whatever the current consensus is - for consitency - which is to use capitalization in bird names. It is not a MOS issue to put a hyphen into Mexican American War, and however it is spelled should be reflected in the MOS. Ditto for comets and airports. Most style guides simply say that names use hyphens, and while a very small number of book editors use an endash instead (about 2% of books published), the vast majority use a hyphen in all names, which is the stance that WP should take. I would be the first to recommend using an endash in a name if both the official name of something and the common use of something's name used an endash, but so far no one has been able to find even one proper name that legitimately should use an endash. And believe me some of those folks are very good at finding exceptions. Apteva (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue of whether Mexican-American War (below) should be spelled with an endash or a hyphen went to Arbcom which said quit fighting and figure out what to do - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision - "Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of 'best practices' supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules." (emphasis added). I say that changing the names of airports (and wars) does affect content. Apteva (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, this seems like a style issue and not a content issue to me.PaleAqua (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close (reluctantly) As much as I hate that Wikipedia's style guide trumps reliable sources, the fact is that there was no consensus to move in the original discussion. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  ? The style guide saying that it trumps RS clearly does not mean that it does trump RS. If you ask me that was put there as a rationale for using an endash in Mexican American War. But here is the thing. Someone did an estimate to see how we are doing at using endash instead of hyphen in non-controverial ways, and found that we are using an endash about 55% of the time. I have no problem with the endash police going around fixing the remaining 45%, but I do have a problem with them spilling over into the ones that clearly should not use an endash. Like what's up with that? Both the MOS and RS are guidelines, meaning that both are not policy and are more likely to have exceptions than policies, which also have exceptions, just not as many. Call this an exception if you will. TITLE is clearly a policy, not a guideline, and should have precedence, but even more important is common sense. If the MOS says to use something and common sense says to use something else, which wins? Common sense every time. But for a closer to ignore common sense and count votes? FYI there has been no response from the closer, so I have no idea what they were actually thinking, but saying "insufficient support" indicates a vote count - and if there were 1000 yes votes that said tomatoz is spelled with a z and one no vote that said it was not, the one no vote should prevail, every time. Like I said, I could have flooded the page with 400 books that use a hyphen. Did insufficient support mean not enough books or not enough votes? If I was closing this I would have discounted all the votes and looked at the weight of the arguments, which, I believe, is what the closing instructions say. "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." Apteva (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To be frank there has been a lot of silliness going on at MOS over the last few years and can anyone here imagine adding to RS "Ignore common sense when applying RS" or adding to TITLE, "ignore V when choosing a title"? That would be just as silly as the actual sentence that was added to the MOS "The policy page Wikipedia:Article titles does not determine punctuation." Since when? TITLE has 71 pages. Since when does one of the MOS's 71 pages take precedence over any of TITLE's 71 pages? Did Arbcom decide to put that sentence there? No. Did someone whose name starts with a J or W say to put that sentence there? No. Does it make common sense to pay any attention to that sentence? No. What makes common sense is to decide titles based on the criteria of the 71 title pages, and decide text and layout based on the 71 pages of the MOS. It is not a style issue to replace punctuation in a name, it is a naming issue. Should WP decide to not use any endashes in article names, as was the prevailing mood in 2007, that is a TITLE issue, not a MOS issue. Apteva (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to pick examples that are a bit stronger than needed, but one of my favorite was when the site administrator for web archive got an NSA letter from the US Government directing them to provide IP information of people who viewed particular pages - and the letter directed them not to let anyone know about the letter. Did they comply? No and no. They promptly ignored the letter and posted it on their website. It is known as doing the right thing. I am all for following guidelines and policies to the best of our ability, but clearly WP is founded on the principle of common sense being "above any policy." Apteva (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. We strive for a consistent typographical style site-wide; that goal is compromised by hewing strictly to "follow the sources". The sources can inform our choices, but ultimately if we want to look like a coherent publication, we need to maintain an internally consistent style. Powers ^T 13:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How is using hyphens where hyphens are used and using endashes where endashes are used less consistent than using endashes some of the time where hyphens are supposed to be used and using hyphens some of the time where hyphens are supposed to be used? Doing that is in my opinion, what is inconsistent, not the other way around. If we kicked endashes out of all titles, which has been proposed since 2007, then it would look a little bit like the title was in one font and the text in a slightly different font - but the difference is only about 3 pixels - and this whole argument would be moot - except that airports really do use hyphens, and as it stands right now someone might want to spell an airport in the body of the text with an endash even if the title used a hyphen. That is what would be inconsistent. WP is too big to expect everyone to use British English or everyone to use one particular citation style - or to have every article look just like every other article. It would be like instead of working on 4 million articles we were only working on four articles, and wanted them to be cohesive.[2] (no, I did not make that edit, but I did spot it and fix it) Apteva (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In case you hadn't noticed, there is considerable variation among reliable sources when it comes to typography. Hyphens are often used, whether out of laziness or misunderstanding or misreading or what have you, where en-dashes would normally be called for (or be acceptable). Typography -- particularly when it comes to hyphens and dashes -- is inconsistent to the point that it's a fool's errand to try to match our own internal style with some platonic ideal. Far better to pick a rule and stick with it. Ultimately, our goal is readability; being consistent in our choices allows readers to easily understand what we write without having to guess about our meaning. Powers ^T 20:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no problem with picking the rule of never using an endash in a title. I have no problem with picking the rule of using a hyphen in every hyphenated name. I do have a problem with picking a "rule" of using an endash where a hyphen is used. Why would anyone even propose a "rule" like that? But the "fools errand" of matching our internal style is suggesting that our internal style says that airports should use an endash. When an airport is spelled with a hyphen, how does it improve readability to spell it with something else? The fact that only a tiny number of books use an endash simply amplifies the suggestion that WP should not make that choice. Apteva (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Contrary to your straw-man wording, the actual rule is that we use en dashes for conjunctions of lexically independent elements, as with "Seattle" and "Tacoma". That there are some sources that make the same choice is sufficient to justify it as an option, and we have chosen that option. Powers ^T 15:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Necessary, but not sufficient. The difference is that if no one used an endash we could not use one either. To be sufficient to use in a title, we need to find it is the majority use. And the MOS does not have "rules". It has suggestions. And to suggest something that very few people use, is in my opinion, simply not appropriate for WP. Apteva (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware of your opinion, painfully so. But if your opinion is the only basis for this move review, then it ought to be closed immediately. Powers ^T 19:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Close, obviously. Simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not interested in wikilawyering essays to determine policies or guidelines. It simply does not make common sense to use an endash in airports, comets, bird names, or anywhere else that a hyphen is used in common practice. Apteva (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You're re-arguing the RM. That's not what move review is for. Hot Stop (Edits) 15:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The RM clearly demonstrated that the airports all used a hyphen. There were 5 editors supporting the move, and 6 opposing, including some who are solely voting as endash advocates (including, oddly, for Mexican-American War, which not as clearly as airports and comets, but clearly uses a hyphen in common usage), if I counted right. Of those 11, which presented the strongest argument? I say the 47 books that use a hyphen vs. 1 that used an endash are definitive. Expanding the search reveals a continuation of this pattern - selective examples of a dash were presented by one of the editors voting against the move "I'm finding four punctuations. Most common is the hyphen, presumably because it's easiest to type." Yet they ignored the fact that the criteria in choosing titles is to choose the most common, and voted oppose, instead of support. The airports all originally used a hyphen, and if this RM had been to move to an endash, it is clear that it would have been closed as "insufficient support", and therefore, that is where the titles should be restored, to the original titles.[3] [4] [5] Apteva (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Close and move as proposed. This is more then the style guide. I believe that as covered in the discussion, the closer did not give any weight to the fact that these are in fact proper names which require different treatment. The closing comment, insufficient support, clearly provides no indication that the close was anything more then counting !votes. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proper names do not require different treatment in punctuation. We routinely adjust the punctuation (and even capitalization) of proper names to fit our guidelines. 01:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LtPowers (talk • contribs)

Mexican–American War (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Often there are conflicting reasons for choosing article names. In this case a very odd decision was made last year to ignore the MOS, which says use a hyphen, and ignore common sense, which says to use what reliable sources say to use. I am not a specialist on this topic, but I can and did do a google book search and found that multiple thousands of books use a hyphen - Mexican-American War, and the same hyphen is used in Spanish-American War, Roman-Tunisia War, and any other proper name that uses a similar construction - and a very few use an endash, space, emdash or slash. It is not the purpose of the encyclopedia to do original research and make up names for items that have well established names, and it is a misreading of our MOS to skip over the part that says that proper names use hyphens and find the part that says that adjective clauses use an endash, such as Uganda–Tanzania war, which is not a proper noun, and is just a made up adjective clause that has not yet achieved proper name status. The closing admin indicated they thought it was a case of a conflict between COMMONNAME and MOS, but if that was the case, I would expect policy to trump guideline. Apteva (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, for a long time I wondered why people like the en-dash over the hyphen, and why they were pushing to change it on Wikipedia. I thought it was some sort of linguistic prescription, affectation or overcorrection. But now that I have read the latest WP:DASH I finally understand what the reason is: A en-dash means between x and y, and a hyphen means x modifies y. So a Mexican-American is an American of Mexican heritage, and a Mexican–American War is a war between Mexico and the USA. Speciate (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That is correct for made up items that do not have proper name status. The North Dakota–Wyoming border conflict would get an endash. If it achieved proper name status it would become the North Dakota-Wyoming Border Conflict. What becomes important is the proper name status, with the inherent specific name that entails, not the relationship between the words. For example, if historians decided it was the North Dakota/Wyoming Border Conflict, that is what would be used. Our MOS is not inconsistent with normal usage other than in the examples "Uganda–Rowanda War" and "Roman–Tunisia War", which conflict with the text of the MOS. Uganda–Rowanda war is not a proper noun and war is not capitalized, and Roman-Tunisia War is a proper noun and needs to use a hyphen. And if it is determined that Uganda-Rowanda War is a proper noun, then a hyphen is used. Apteva (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your assertion that we should change from a dash to a hyphen when a phrase becomes a proper noun is absurd, unsupported, and without concrete precedent. Please stop tilting at windmills. Your one-person crusade is a waste of time. Powers ^T 01:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it is wrong. Show me even one proper noun that uses an endash. Normally examples are trivial to find. I have not had one editor come up with even one example of a proper noun that uses an endash. And finding one source does not cut it. What I am looking for is a valid actual proper noun that validly actually uses an endash for example in a predominance of books, as books have editors that fix punctuation errors. Like using an endash for Mexican-American War. Apteva (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't get to just make up a rule and require us to prove you wrong. Find a style guide that actually agrees with you that proper nouns are punctuated differently from common nouns, and then we can talk. Powers ^T 17:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Both New Hart's Rules (Oxford University Press) and ours say the same thing - proper names use hyphens. Most style guides are not very specific. Regardless of what any style guides say, of the millions of books that are printed, most follow that convention, and use a hyphen for proper names, so from the results show the method, the style guides must all say the same. There is a quote from New Hart's Rules that is interesting: Apteva (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "It is, of course, vital to make sure that individual forms are used consistently within a single text or range of texts. If an author has consistently applied a scheme of hyphenation, an editor need not alter it, although a text littered with hyphens can look fussy and dated. Editors can find the dominant form of a particular compound in a suitable current dictionary such as the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors."

  Now I'm beginning to think you're having us on. I just checked New Hart's Rules on Amazon and there's nothing in there remotely resembling what you claim -- and there's certainly nothing like it in our own MOS. Care to try again? Powers ^T 18:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I often disagree with Apteva's interpretations on proper nouns, but I don't think he'd just make something up. There have been many editions and prints of New Hart's—you're probably looking at different editions. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's he or she of course. Google books found it - 2005.[6] Apteva (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found the passage you quoted without trouble; the problem is that it doesn't address proper nouns. Powers ^T 17:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That is on the page that simply says "Use a hyphen in newly coined or rare combinations with -like, and with names, but more established forms, particularly if short, are set solid: tortoise-like ..." I have not read the whole book yet, and it may not say any more anywhere else. So far I have found a small number of books that use an endash for Mexican-American War, but not close to a majority. Apteva (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, names -- personal names, like Olivia Newton-John. That in no way implies it applies to all proper nouns, particularly those which clearly take en-dashes when not capitalized. Powers ^T 13:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far no one has been able to find a proper noun that does use an endash. Possibly comets will, someday, right now they use a hyphen. Possibly they will always use a hyphen. I am not saying that there are no exceptions, I just want to see one and find out if it is one exception or thousands of exceptions. So far it is zero exceptions, as supported by a majority of published books that use an endash for that particular proper noun. Apteva (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point though, is not to try to figure out why someone would want to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for introducing a radical new use for the endash, but why someone would ignore policy and guideline and choose that radical interpretation of the guideline over policy in choosing which way to close the RM. If someone is misinterpreting the MOS that is easily fixed by correcting the MOS. There are in fact two examples of using endash that are incorrect - one because it is misspelled, capitalizing it as if it was a proper noun, and the other because it is a proper noun and erroneously uses an endash in the example. The long argument last year was over whether or not this specific article (Mexican-American War) should use an endash or a hyphen. It was clearly a waste of valuable time to argue for using an endash, as clearly that argument does not have a leg to stand on, based on the over 10,000 books that use a hyphen. But the question here is not actually should the article have a hyphen or an endash, but was the RM closed correctly. I say that policy should have been chosen over guideline. And that it should have been noted that both policy and guideline agree that the article should be moved, and that it was a misreading of the guideline to think that an endash is used in a proper name, as the guideline clearly does not say that. But the example of one using one clearly needs to be removed. Apteva (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. The closing admin followed WP:RMCI; in (misnamed but) appropriate talk page discussion, the closer points out 1) the dearth of input for consensus to move in the discussion under review itself, and 2) the past history in previous discussions on the exact same subject. User:Apteva asserts closer did "ignore policy and guideline and choose that radical interpretation of the guideline over policy in choosing which way to close the RM." Apteva asserts the MOS "is easily fixed." As pointed out to Apteva, a sizeable measuring of consensus took place in the recent past (early 2011), involved two contentious RMs, a vast amount of discussion (easily seen in talk archives) and an Arbcom-mandated redrafting of the MOS (involving scores of editors and six weeks of input). The positions taken by Apteva are neither new nor novel; they were among the exact assertions made by those urging the hyphen at those times. With all that in mind, closer did what any reasonable admin would have done. It appears to me that User:Apteva is using this review as a second chance to make a case. That Apteva disagrees with the close is fine with me, but to suggest the closer mishandled the situation is poor assessment. Wikipedians often disagree on fine points; we settle such disagreements by measuring consensus. On this exact point of punctuation, such measurement has been recent, in-depth and wide ranging; Apteva would need to garner considerable new support to overturn the weight of such a considered and settled decision. For the record, like Apteva, I participated in neither the MOS drafting or the two RMs, though previously I played a large part in rebuffing a sock-aided push toward renaming as "Mexican War." BusterD (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Sock-aided" is an oxymoron. What is known though, is that it is a misinterpretation of the MOS that led to the completely unsupported idea of using an endash. The closer noted that it was a conflict of policy vs. guideline, but actually it is policy and guideline that support the move. Commonname and MOS:HYPHEN. Endash does not apply because it is a proper name, and proper names use hyphens. I am not using this as a second chance. I am using this as a correction of a horrible mistake that the sooner it is fixed the better. There are 10,000 articles in WP that use a hyphen, and a very small number, perhaps 200, have been mucked up by using an endash incorrectly. Fortunately the number that did not get mucked up in the great endash folly of 2011 far out number the ones that did. This just happens to be the most visible, but all the rest need to be corrected as well. Apteva (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the lecture. It appears Apteva fundamentally misunderstands an admin's responsibility in this case. Admins do not, as the user says below, "sift through the wheat and the chaff". Closing admins do not themselves weigh into the discussion deciding, for example, whether policy trumps guideline. The closer weighs the merits of the discussion itself and is trusted to measure the consensus inside the discussion. To my eyes it still seems Apteva is a lone voice, with an historic but unimpressive position, and seems to badger every contributor to any discussion. There's arrogance expressed in that user's relist assertion below. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The basic concept of consensus decision making, as it was originally used, is that there is only one right answer and it only takes one person to propose that one right answer, and if everyone listens carefully, they can all learn why that answer is correct. As consensus decision making was applied 40 years ago, it was used as a means of equally respecting everyone. WP could have adopted a voting form of decision making, but it would not be the WP that we know today - and could have even disappeared. Consensus decision making is relatively commonly used in many types of groups. Apteva (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. How else was this supposed to be closed? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Move, obviously. There are 10,000 books that use a hyphen, 100 that use something else. This is not even close. We do not count votes we look for the strongest argument in choosing how to close. We do not interject our own opinion - someone else has already had to have made the argument. We simply pick the one that is best supported by 1) commonsense 2) policy and 3) guidelines. All three lead to choosing my recommendation to move. All three are not supported by the arguments to not move. In consensus building, it does not matter if one or a thousand have a point of view - if the one is correct eventually the thousand will figure that out. That's what admins are for - to sift through the wheat and the chaff. Apteva (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Well, I would have called it no consensus, but there was certainly not consensus to move. There's one oppose vote with an argument, Enric's comment leans towards a move, Tony's comment is essentially a request not to move, and the nominator added a support vote (appropriately, "as nominator"). There's no way this could have been fairly closed as a move. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted above, we do not count votes when we close. We evaluate the strength of the arguments as they are presented without interjecting our own bias. In my case I really think the 10,000 books outweighs any other argument. Apteva (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you think your vote outweighs the other arguments; that's why you made it. But Polling is not a substitute for discussion does not mean Polling is meaningless. It's right and proper to count votes, and to consider that in an outcome. Here, the closer considered that appropriately. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem though, with the close is that no reason for the close was given. There was no reason for even closing it, as it could have been relisted. As it was I had to chase down the closer and ask them for a reason. And the reason given "a battle between Commonname and MOS" should have resulted in policy winning over guideline every time. Apteva (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist (as nominator) Actually this is the only possible outcome of this review, as it will simply be relisted later on anyway. Until it is moved. But it is still a useful review. Apteva (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]