Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 January

Gjakova (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I believe that no consensus has been reached to rename the article. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". Closing administrator made numerous mistakes when they renamed this article:

1. RM Closer failed to properly evaluate consensus based on applicable policies and guidelines. No evidence grounded in wikipedia policies or guidelines in support of renaming was presented by the closer, nor by anybody else.
2. emphasizing "IIO's Google Books results to be convincing" although IIO:
   1. searched Dakovica instead of Đakovica (that has 3 times more results than Dakovica and more than two times more results than Gjakova)
   2. did not exclude wikipedia
   3. did not present only the last page
3. complained about GB search results with sr extension although:
   1. nobody presented any evidence that there was anything wrong with this results because of .sr extension which is explained to be valid
   2. a couple of editors who supported renaming this article used Googlebooks.fr or Googlebooks.ca extension
4. when stating "Opponents of the move often supplied search results that did not limit themselves to English sources or did not screen out pre-2010 references.". Although only post 2010 results were clearly presented and give more than double advantage for Đakovica in post 2010 English language sources.Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Antidiskriminator fails to mention that "Oppose" voters appear to have been canvassed and that some of their comments clearly contradict what the sources say. Antidiskriminator, why did you omit that, instead resorting to pedantry over the search terms used by one uninvolved editor? In this light, it's hard to see how the move should be undone, let alone how any competent editor could conclude that "no consensus has been reached to rename the article". bobrayner (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There was blatant Canvassing for the oppose voters. The evidence provided by Antidiskriminator didn't produce the results which he said they did. When challenged, he chose to ignore. This whole business about .fr and .sr extensions on google books is a fallacy created by Antidiskriminator. No-one has said that the Serbian version of google books is invalid. The article was moved because "the overall trend was clear". IJA (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained this search results issue and what were the consequences of searching Dakovica instead of Đakovica. Here are NGramtrends for Đakovica compared to Gjakova (link). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shows nothing for Đakovica. IJA (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo. Let me repeat what you said. "The article was moved because "the overall trend was clear"." Has anybody presented NGramtrends results for Đakovica. No. This is what was presented (link). Not Đakovica, but Dakovica that has 3 times less GBS results and Djakovica which is different from Đakovica. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Đakovica' with a 'Đ' produces 0 results for NGram searches. Anyway, I'm talking about the 'overall trend' (as in the trend as a whole), not 'NGram trends'. IJA (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon. You used the same term as closing administrator. "The overall trend". The problem is that closing admin referred to NGram searches I presented above. Here what they said in their closing comment: "Although AjaxSmack argues for keeping the old name, my reading of the Ngram is that Gjakova is in the lead over the sum of the other two names."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I used the same term as the admin because I was quoting the admin. There is a difference between an "overall trend" and a trend on "NGram". The admin didn't close it based on the NGram trend, he just made reference to it. Just like he made reference to the Serbian version of google books being used, he didn't say that the Serbian version of google books was invalid yet you have stated "[The Admin] complained about GB search results with sr extension although... nobody presented any evidence that there was anything wrong with this results because of .sr extension which is explained to be valid". I'm baffled as to why you think this when all the admin said was "In at least one case search results were offered that came from google.sr (Serbian Google)." IJA (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Normally before a RM is listed at move review is it customary to have a discussion with the closer. See step 1 at the listing instructions. Just wondering if this discussion happened or did I miss it? PaleAqua (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. I had the discussion with closer. First on their talkpage (link to the section with our discussion) and then at articles' talkpage (link to the section in question). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. PaleAqua (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis (drug) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

There was a requested move for Cannabis (drug) to be moved to marijuana. I closed it as a move. As proponents showed, a strong majority of reliable sources referred to the drug (not the plant, but the drug) as marijuana. That title also would provide for natural disambiguation. There were no policy-based reasons brought against the move, except for unsupported claims that marijuana is an Americanism, slang, or less commonly used in reliable sources. The reliable sources provided by the proponents (or easily findable through an ngram search) refuted all these arguments. Since finding consensus is not a vote, I decided to focus on the quality of arguments, and it was fairly clear; WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL are policy and there was no reason to avoid following them. I closed the request and put a {{db-g6}} template on Marijuana. Much to my chagrin, the placement of the db template was reverted, with the edit summary "best have an admin review that". Since I'd never heard of admins having to review non-admin closures (in practice, at least), I put the template back, and then a different user put a {{hangon}} template on. I have not ever heard of a move closure not being carried out; there are procedures to review closures, of course, but I've yet to see it happen where a move closure was simply ignored. I'm putting the move request before the community here. Was the result of the closure justified? Red Slash 06:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse move. I was the nom for this requested move which was closed as move by Red Slash based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL and the evidence offered. Admin SandyGeorgia reverted Red Slash's edit requesting technical deletion of the target page citing in the edit summary, "non-admin close, best have that reviewed". I suggested that since SandyGeorgia is the one who's dissatisfied and thinks a review should be done, that it would make sense for SandyGeorgia to request the review. Instead, SandyGeorgia took the matter to WP:ANI based on a concern that it was a non-admin closure. WP:ANI is inappropriate forum and admins non-admin Moe Epsilon and admin Keegan have attempted to use lack of any formal process at WP:ANI for reviewing a WP:RM close to pocket veto the move, offering only vague, non-guidelines based reasons and suggesting that proponents of the move simply try again. This is unreasonable. WP:Move review requests are usually made because someone wishes to overturn a close. In this case, I am requesting that it be endorsed and made to happen. Msnicki (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Msnicki, I think you might be misconstruing our (Moe and myself) comments for being more than they are. They're just comments. We didn't use admin hats to overturn or subvert anything. Your comments and contributions to this discussion are just as valuable as ours. Keegan (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I characterized your remarks as pocket vetoing the move and telling me to try again. Here are your exact words: "I recommend rebooting the move discussion if the proponents feel that they compelling evidence and can provide consensus. Short of that, I decline the move." I stand by my characterization as both fair and accurate. Msnicki (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I am not an admin. Second, I took it to ANI because you suggested I should initiate a review, without mentioning this page (which I had never heard of), and ANI was the only place I knew of for requesting review. Since this page has been in existence for only a little over a month, it's not surprising I wasn't aware of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you also are not an admin. Msnicki (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move Review has been in place since July 2012. That's a lot more than a month. Powers ^T 13:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny-- I see now that I was looking at the monthly log page when I made that statement. Anyway, the broader point is that I don't believe I've ever been to the Requested Moves page, much less knew that a Move Review page existed, and I would have visited it if I had known about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn move First, thanks to Red Slash for properly adding the hangon tag which is how I wound up reading the discussion after visiting CAT:CSD. As much as I don't care for our templates and bureaucracy, this was very helpful.

As for the move, I don't feel that there is consensus to move the page. While RM guidelines value weight of arguments, the crux is COMMONNAME, a guideline. Guidelines do not dictate individual instruction for a page, particularly when asked for without clear result. The google hits are not overwhelming and do not convince me that the article should be moved considering the opposition as well. Keegan (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With neither guidelines nor evidence supporting your position, you appear to be arguing that neither should matter, not when you don't feel there was a consensus. I put honest effort into collecting statistics, checking sources and debating the evidence and guidelines in good faith. Red Slash put honest effort into summarizing the debate and deciding the close, also in good faith. I don't think you're putting in that same effort. From WP:Consensus, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Msnicki (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan, the hangon template was added by TParis, after I initiated the ANI because I didn't know where else one went for a move review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, SandyGeorgia. Keegan (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: and @TParis: I have no doubt that you were acting in good faith in blocking that page move, but as I've noted in my comment below, that move shouldn't really have been blocked that way, according to how I understand the rules of WP:RM. For now I would like to see the page moved, because we are now in the position of arguing a close that hasn't fully been carried out yet. Note that I have absolutely no opinion on whether the move should have gone ahead or not, it's just that I think policy hasn't been followed here. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block a page move. I left a template for an admin patrolling WP:CSD to know there was more to the db-g6 than meets the eye. I don't get involved in move discussions.--v/r - TP 15:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't know what "blocking a page move" even means in this context. I saw a controversial close, didn't know what to do with it, and through a series of (likely) missteps, ended up at ANI. Considering this page was only "invented" about a month ago, such confusion is likely.

At any rate, I just found Marijuana (word) for those discussing whether the term is an Americanism; I frankly have paid little attention to the Move discussion other than to note a controversial close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and continue discussion First, I'll ask Msnicki not to refer to me as an administrator anymore here or any other page, since I am not an English Wikipedia admin (I never have been) and this will confuse editors who took your word on it that I was. I don't have a particular view on the move discussion about whether it should be at marijuana or cannabis, one way or the other personally. However I don't feel consensus was reached in that discussion and, at best, the result of the discussion should have been No consensus. The bigger topic at hand was the non-admin closure, which I don't feel is appropriate or for the best, in this particular case. To answer your question on ANI before Red Slash: yes, it is different at AFD: non-admins who close debates that would result in an administrative action are reverted, regularly. This isn't the case in moving pages, as WP:NAC says, since some moves don't require the assistance of an administrator (and that is common). However, the topic of marijuana/cannibis is a highly contentious area, and this isn't the first move request of the same nature. This isn't a cut-and-dry situation where only a couple editors comment and there would be little disagreement. While it has went the full seven days, I would recommend re-opening the discussion and letting it continue to run for another week. A lot of editors are probably going to have an opinion on this (this isn't your average topic to page move) and a neutral administrator is probably going to be needed to close this debate. Had an administrator closed the debate as it was, and successfully moved the page, the move still would have wound up here to be discussed. Yes, the substance of discussion points is what is more important than the sheer numbers, however, when the article is going to be moved by someone else and the article is high-profile, an administrator closing it is best (or even a group of neutral administrators). Non-admin closures are best served for keeps, redirects and merging (and sometimes no consensus), when the topic isn't going to cause drama like this. And here we are.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're not an admin. Msnicki (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and continue discussion (I opposed the move) - I was taken aback to see the very decided way in which this was closed, with summarizing text surveying the arguments but failing to mention what seemed to be the most pertinent argument of all (as most eloquently put by Moxy) that the proposed new name is simply not substitutable for the old one. That appears to me to be a fundamental objection which makes discussions about Google hits (problematic anyway) moot - and should have been weighed in any assessment of consensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Process looks OK. Closing analysis looks OK. Maybe there is room for debate as to how strong the case needs to be to make the move. It was either "no consensus" or "move", the closing statement, I think there was a rough consensus for move, but not very strong. Interestingly, I note that the use if "strong" as an bold adjective for "oppose" correlates with a weak argument, and thus the "strong oppose"s were "weak opposes". If find it hard to dismiss Doc James's position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about Doc James's position during the debate or the quibbling arguments he's raised after the close? If we're talking about the latter and he'd raised them during the debate, I'd have answered them then. He walked away from the debate after I produced evidence that his quote was manufactured and that his claim that pubmed preferred cannabis was incorrect (1, 2). His claim that marijuana and cannabis aren't the same thing is contradicted both by his own admission and the lede sentence in the article indicating that the terms are basically interchangeable. I have not responded to his new arguments because the debate is closed and it seems both unnecessary and unfair to require me to do so, not because I am unable. I don't think he needs a second bite at the apple. Msnicki (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that pubmed very strongly prefers cannabis. Except that one cannot see that just by typing in terms and accepting the numbers they give back. I would recommend that people check this themselves. Agree that some use cannabis and marijuana synonymously. The Oxford English Dictionary points out some small distinctions as mentioned here Talk:Cannabis_(drug)#Countitis per "esp. a crude preparation of the dried leaves, flowering tops, and stem of the plant in a form for smoking" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with your arguments is your tendency to cherry-pick the data and your unabashed desire for an second bite at the apple in a new venue. You didn't run out of time to make any new arguments before the close. Your last edit before the close was on Jan 6; that's 5 days before the close. Your next edit was to complain 19 minutes after the close. I posted the numbers I saw in Pubmed searches, including searches done the way you asked. The numbers did not support you and you left the debate.

You've posted new claims since the close that cannabis is preferred in British English, but look how you've once again cherry-picked the data. You've given a link to a Google Ngram Viewer chart and you've manipulated the data to get the answer you want by choosing to look at 1800 to 2000, case-sensitive (which favors results referring to the genus Cannabis) with a 3-year smoothing. If you choose instead 1990 to 2008 (the latest for which data is available), case-insensitive with either a zero or one-year smoothing, Google's data suggests there have been many years over the last two decades when marijuana has been more popular than cannabis in books written in British English. For the years, 2003 to 2006, cannabis was ahead, but now it's behind again. In the 19-year period, marijuana was more popular 14 of those years. Msnicki (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Amakuru's 15:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC) analysis below is very helpful.

  Alexbrn's 20:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC) http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-or-marijuana, an independent reputable source directly addressing the question ("Cannabis or marijuana?"), was not overcome, and is by far the strongest argument. The article was perhaps not well read, perhaps because you have to get to the very end before finding the conclusion. It is:

  In conclusion
  While drug use, like all behaviour, has a context where different cultural groups use their own terms for cannabis products, when communicating for greatest understanding and scientific rigor across cultures, cannabis is the correct term.

  It would be great if the Amakuru-weighted supports, User:Msnicki User:BD2412 User:Zzyzx11 User:LtPowers & User:Gibson Flying V, would comment on this. In the meantime, I think this should be an Overturn (no consensus). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What kind of comment would you like? Powers ^T 13:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the independent reputable source directly addressing the question in detail trumps the argument you gave. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a different discussion, I'm afraid. Suffice to say that I think a change in scope may be in order; we could very much use separate articles, one covering the plant and its derived drugs, and another covering the most popular form, marijuana. I say this because we apparently have separate articles on all of the other derived drugs like hashish. Powers ^T 18:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be a separate content issue. But I think the difference is more like Vehicle versus Truck. We have articles on both not because the terms are mutually exclusive but because truck is a more specialized category of vehicle. Moxy's claim that marijuana and hash are different has been rejected by several editors, by the current consensus text in our article and with other arguments. Basically, it amounts to a claim by people and sources who don't use the term (and in the case of the government sources probably don't use the product itself, either) that they know better than the people who do use the term, what the term means. The claim mostly seems to rest on Moxy's observation that a Canadian marihuana card does authorize the use of hash. Therefore, Moxy concludes that hash is not marijuana.

But if the rules of one government's regulations of medical marijuana should dictate what we write in an international encyclopedia, why not choose Washington's, Colorado's or California's definition of marijuana, which includes not only the plant and the flowering tops, but also hash, edibles and pretty much anything else you can make from it? There are certainly a lot more reliable sources discussing those states' laws and definitions. This is the point of WP:OFFICIAL, that we prefer the most frequently used names over official names to avoid problems with competing authorities and the nature of politics, that official names and definitions can change at the whim of the authority concerned (c.f., "Assault weapon"). Msnicki (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn move As someone who wasn't involved in the debate, I think I am able to make a third party comment. In my view, COMMONNAME isn't very helpful here because although marijuana may be mostly used in America, the rest of the English speaking world tend to use cannibis thus most sources (particularly American ones) may be skewed to a national POV thus COMMONAME is not a good policy to use here. The closing comments do not appear to give a reasonable decision especially since they go through each individual objection and especially since under point 2, they make it clear that they had been involved in the discussion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be your "view" that marijuana is only an American term, but the evidence was debated thoroughly and it does not support you. I provided this table showing a preference for marijuana across a wide variety of searches.

Type of search	Marijuana	Cannabis	Ratio
Web	36,600,000	21,300,000	1.71
News	54,000,000	181,000	298.34
Books	3,020,000	1,440,000	2.09
Discussions	48,100,000	14,700,000	3.27
Blogs	14,100,000	4,590,000	3.07
Patents	67,700	18,000	3.76
Applications	103,000	42,800	2.41
Scholar	292,000	291,000	1.00
Wikipedia	31,700	31,500	1.01
google.co.uk web	38,800,000	19,200,00	2.02
google.co.uk news	173,000	176,000	0.98
google.co.nz web	38,700,000	20,600,000	1.88
google.co.nz news	214,000	187,000	1.14
google.com.au web	36,600,000	20,500,000	1.79
google.com.au news	198,000	183,000	1.08
pubmed	19,419	12,519	1.55
pubmed, review, <5yrs	525	417	1.26

In addition, in the close, Red Slash cited n-gram analyses of British English, American English and all English sources which confirm that marijuana is more common than cannabis.

Arguments that WP:COMMONNAME isn't "good policy" are particularly specious. It is the policy. We do not pick and choose which guidelines to follow depending on whether it suits our purposes. We try to follow them all. In addition, this was not the only guideline cited. WP:NATURAL, which asks that we prefer natural disambiguation, was also cited and never opposed. Finally, as Red Slash observed in the close, the article is already written in American English. 17:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself there. You say British English uses marijuana more commonly, yet as you cited in that table, it isn't. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. I never characterized my search results as anything but what they were: Search engine results. Run the search, here are the numbers you get. The numbers are what they are. WP:COMMONNAME says we should prefer the most frequently-used name and suggests using search engines to help decide that. I happen to believe that is a fair way to gather evidence but moreover, I was following the guidelines, not trying to cherry-pick the data. I invited suggestions for additional searches and when suggestions were made that I should include searches at google.co.uk or pubmed or with refined search criteria, I ran those and added those entries to the table. In each case, I gave either the link to recreate my result or, in the one case where that wasn't possible, the steps to recreate it.

Searches at google.co.uk suggest the term marijuana is about twice as popular cannabis on web and running less than 2% behind in the news as experienced by consumers in the UK. (Can we agree that Google has a strong incentive to tailor its results for each market so as to keep users happy and coming back?) As can be seen in the table, the google.co.uk news search is the only search suggested during the debate that showed marijuana running behind and only just barely. Further, that it's a small number of news sources, especially compared to the 54,000,000 US news sources.

The only evidence I have characterized as referring to British English is the n-gram analysis mentioned by Red Slash. And I base that characterization on the fact that if you click the link, that's what Google claims it is. Msnicki (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy move and then discuss the closure - I haven't looked in detail at the debate, and I don't intend to yet, as this is a clear violation of policy. Per WP:RM and WP:RMNAC, @Red Slash: is entitled to make a non-admin call on the move request and, unless there is very obviously a conflict of interest (e.g. because the closer was involved in the debate), or the editor is a newbie and lacks good standing (which is not the case for Red Slash)), that closure is the formal result of the move request and must be adhered to. If the non-admin goes to request page deletions in order to effect the closed move, those deletions are by definition uncontroversial, since they are just to put into effect that formal move. If the move is contested (as it presumably is in this case), the procedure is for those concerned to raise the issue here at WP:MR. So, in short, the article needs to be moved to the new target right now. Once that is done, I will look at the arguments and give an opinion on whether the close was correct or not. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. There's obviously substantial opposition to the close, so it's entirely proper to revert to the long-standing title decline the move while discussion continues. Moving a page back temporarily as a formality flies in the face of WP:NOTBURO. Stating that you'll refuse to opine until such a time that your request is met violates WP:POINT. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joefromrandb: OK then. I assume from the fact that nobody else has opined the same way as I did, that my argument about process is not the community view, and in order to work round your worry that I'm being WP:POINTy, I am striking it. I guess I just reacted that way because I've always taken the view that when somebody presses the close button on a move request then that becomes the accepted community view (pending a possible move review, of course), unless the closure was early, or it is so completely out of left field that a bias or conflict of interest is suspected. I therefore sensed the annoyance that Red Slash must have felt to have the technical move blocked, because I don't so far see any evidence that he/she acted in anything other than good faith. Anyway, having closed that chapter, I will review the close myself later on and see whether I think it was a valid close or not. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The close appears to be a good faith effort but does not appear to have weighed the "ambiguity" argument under WP:COMMONNAME. There was sourced evidence brought forward that "hash", as well as "marijuana", are examples of this topic, and it seems illogical that marijuana is the common name of hash or hashish. (At least, that should be hashed out further :) ), together with the encyclopedic tone argument, which could do with more exploration (including encyclopedic sources). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false representation of the arguments raised during the debate. No one claimed that marijuana is the common name for hash. But neither has anyone claimed (nor do I think anyone believes) that cannabis is the common name for it. The common name is certainly hash or hashish and we have a separate article on it. The argument made was that cannabis includes hash and that marijuana does not. This was rejected by several editors and contradicted by evidence that US medical and recreational marijuana laws consider both the plants and and anything made from them, including hash, to be marijuana, by an appeal to common sense ("If a doctor asked, "Do you use marijuana?", I can't imagine anyone thinking they should answer no if they only use hash."), and by evidence of consensus in article space that marijuana and cannabis are synonyms. From Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, "the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term "marijuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products in the US and around the world". From Marijuana (word), ""Marijuana", or "marihuana", etc., is a name for the drug cannabis, and for the Cannabis plant from which it is made." And from lede sentence of the very article under consideration, "Cannabis, also known as marijuana (from the Mexican Spanish marihuana), and by numerous other names, is a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine." Msnicki (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to reargue "legal name" is inappropriate here, nor is it responsive to my critique of the close. If someone doesn't know hash's connection to marijuana, when a doctor asks them they will likely say "no" but your speculation on that is irrelevant to this MR. As for the lead, that's not under discussion here, either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're worried there could be a lot of hash smokers out there that don't know where it comes from? And that's your main consideration in choosing the title? The lede sentence in our article on Hashish states, "Hashish, often known as "hash", is a cannabis product composed of compressed or purified preparations of stalked resin glands, called trichomes. It contains the same active ingredients—such as THC and other cannabinoids—but in higher concentrations than unsifted buds or leaves." Further, the subject article states at Cannabis (drug)#Hashish, "Hashish (also spelled hasheesh, hashisha, or simply hash) is a concentrated resin cake or ball produced from pressed kief, the detached trichomes and fine material that fell off of Cannabis flowers and leaves." I think we've done everything necessary to explain where hash comes from and make the information accessible. Msnicki (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I worried about, what? This is a review of a move close, the only thing I have concerns about is a poorly done close based on false consensus. So, stop making irrelevant comments, please. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you said, "If someone doesn't know hash's connection to marijuana ..." I'm asking if you consider that a serious objection to the move that needs consideration or merely idle observation that it's a big world and anything is possible, especially when discussing drug users. Msnicki (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, for the last time, we are not arguing the move, here -- we are discussing the close and whether it was proper, which I have determined it is not based on policy, and process, and my completely uninvolved reveiw of the move discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Which policies do you rely? Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL were cited in the debate and in the close. Do you disagree that those guidelines questions were decided fairly in the close? If so, why? Or is there a different part of the guidelines you rely on? Msnicki (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stated my analysis in my first post. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The closure should not have touched this one with a 10 foot pole. We go by the medicinal names of drugs, unless there's sufficient reason not to. "Because we call it marijuana" makes no sense ... might as well call it "pot" or a "big fat doobie" in that case. Poor policy-based reading of the arguments ES&L 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have a policy of referring to drugs by "medicinal names", whatever that is. We have policy, WP:COMMONNAME of preferring the most frequently used names over official names. Our guidelines on WP:Article titles merely ask that we avoid article titles that are vulgar or pedantic. Slang terms are acceptable. More to the point, the claim that marijuana is a slang term was made several times, but no evidence was ever provided. To the contrary, it it is the official name in many US laws and is widely used in all manner of quite serious reliable sources. Msnicki (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is such a guideline which is referenced from article titles. See the box at the right at WP:COMMONNAME and search for medical. PaleAqua (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles does indeed ask that "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)". And that would matter if that rule applied. No evidence was offered to support the claim that marijuana is generally regarded as a slang term. It's been the official term in American laws since 1937 and it appears frequently in medical literature as shown in my table of search results. More to the point, WP:MEDMOS only "delineates style guidelines for editing medical articles." (Emphasis added.) It is impossible to believe that anyone could read the subject article and credibly argue is principally a medical article. Much of the content and many of the sources cited, to say nothing of what I hope we can agree is vast majority of the international consumption of marijuana is not medical.

Where WP:MEDMOS does apply, it's been followed, which is why we also have an article on Tetrahydrocannabinol that reports in the lede, "Tetrahydrocannabinol (/ˌtɛtrəˌhaɪdr[invalid input: 'ɵ']kəˈnæb[invalid input: 'ɨ']nɔːl/ tet-rə-HY-drə-kə-NAB-i-nawl or /ˌtɛtrəˌhaɪdr[invalid input: 'ɵ']kəˈnæb[invalid input: 'ɨ']nɒl/ tet-rə-HY-drə-kə-NAB-i-nol; THC), or more precisely its main isomer (−)-trans-Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol ( (6aR,10aR)-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), that it is the principal psychoactive constituent (or cannabinoid) of the cannabis plant." and another on Cannabinoid that states in the lede, "Cannabinoids are a class of diverse chemical compounds that activate cannabinoid receptors on cells that repress neurotransmitter release in the brain." Msnicki (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here is what WP:MEDMOS says on drugs (Cannabis (drug) is under discussion):

* Drugs—The International Nonproprietary Name (INN). Most biologics, including vaccines, do not have INN or other generic names, so the brand name is used instead ... The lead should highlight the name of the drug as per normal guidelines (in general, the International Nonproprietary Name). The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name(s) and manufacturer follows, in parentheses. Indicate the drug class and family and the main indications.

Another FYI, per MEDMOS naming conventions again, the new DSM5 refers to Cannabis use disorder, not Marijuana use disorder. I don't have an opinion on the name here, but let's keep the MEDMOS facts straight, and not just quote the part of the page that refers to diseases, conditions, etc. As International Nonproprietary Names are determined by the World Health Organization, what they have to say is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that because Cannabis (drug) has been disambiguated as (drug), this means it's a medical article? How do you arrive at that? "Drug" is a common word used all the time. Of course we understand that medical doctors may prescribe drugs as medications and that they prefer precise scientific terms. But the word drug certainly has a broader meaning! Our article gives the example of coffee. Every time you get another cup of coffee, is that a medical procedure? I don't think so. Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There does not appear to be consensus here. Per WP:RMNAC, non-admin closures should be avoided in places were the consensus is not clear. I am surprised that WP:MEDMOS#Article titles was not directly raised during the RM ( or did I miss it? ) as it seems like it applies here. PaleAqua (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. From WP:Consensus, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Msnicki (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm well aware of that consensus forming is not voting. Please don't assume that I do not. From the RM discussion I do not see a strong enough consensus to move. As an aside I have no direct opinion on the title itself ( either liking it or not ), just on the close. PaleAqua (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The majority of people weighting in oppose the move. One needs to have very strong justification to go against the majority when typically for a change to pass is a super majority. If you cannot convince the majority about your policy positions maybe your reading of the policy is wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (I think?): As the page is currently at Cannabis (drug), I'm not entirely sure what we're overturning. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what the hell is going on here. For the record, I support a move to "marijuana". However, consensus clearly appears to support "cannabis (drug)". The close was a supervote, and unacceptable. Frankly, a non-admin had no business closing this discussion in the first place (and that would still apply had it been closed in favor of the other side). Non-admin closures should only be done for simple requests, where consensus is overwhelmingly clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, if you support the move to Marijuana, you should !vote to endorse the close. What's unusual here is that we had a close as move, but it requires an admin to do a technical delete of the target page before the move can be completed and no admin has been willing to do that. Msnicki (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. While I personally support a move to "marijuana", I realize that a consensus of editors disagrees with me. I've been critical of supervotes where I disagreed with the outcome, so I'm going to be every bit as critical of this one. I'll also repeat that a non-admin closure was entirely inappropriate under the circumstances. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't wrong, I was unsure, especially as you seemed to be as well. Thanks for clarifying your position. Msnicki (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb: a closer summing up positions and determining which match the WP policies is not a "supervote" it's just the standard way that we close debates on Wikipedia, per WP:CON and as is specifically laid out at WP:RMCI. If four people had responded "Oppose - I don't like it" while three people had responded "Support - policy X" would you still consider it a supervote to close it as moved? Also, I take umbridge slightly with your view that an admin closing this would have been better. It's either a bad clsoe or it's not a bad close, surely, regardless of who did it? And per WP:NOBIGDEAL it is explicit that admins enjoy that status merely for the purposes of using the admin tools (and because they are trusted to do so), not so as to become more important members of the community than others. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse move. I'm uninvolved here. Reading through the RM, it appears those supporting the move made stronger arguments more in line with policy. Hot Stop 21:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as the closer appears to support the move and for this reason decided to discount all the opposition arguemtns and ignore the fact that a majority of people who expressed an opinion opposed the move. This controversial move of a popular article should also not have been closed by any non-admin let alone one with their own opinion on this issue. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per perceptions of partiality, poorly-judged consensus in the close, and possible misunderstandings and/or misreadings of policy/precedent re the proposed rename. --John (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Several editors appear to be arguing they believe Red Slash should not have performed the close because he formed an opinion about the relative merits of the evidence and arguments offered and, especially, because he introduced his own evidence, namely his observation that the article was written in American English and his n-gram comparisons on Google. If all Red Slash had done was count noses, that would have been okay. Never mind that this is directly contradicted by our guidelines at WP:Consensus, which asks that we accept that consensus is not a vote.

When anyone closes an WP:RM, of course they will read and consider the evidence and form an opinion of the outcome. That is the whole point of the close. Further, let us also hope that most closers will be as diligent as Red Slash has been to fact-check the evidence presented. No one – and I repeat, no one! – has credibly argued or even suggested that the n-grams charts Red Slash cited are cherry-picked or otherwise unfair. He read the numbers in my chart and fact-checked them to see if they made sense using an even more sophisticated search method. I really fail to see how that makes Red Slash biased. Msnicki (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn' no clear consensus to move from its stable long term tile. Need a neutral pov closure that explains what the sources say not just about the Google hits. -- Moxy (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn' The idea of renaming Cannabis > Marijuana is only possibly justifiable in an article relating solely to Cannabis in the United States, since that is the only place this slang term is used. Much of the world doesn't know what "marijuana" refers to, so it makes zero sense to argue that the Cannabis article meant for the entire globe use a US slang word as its title. Google hits are not going to show the long-term use of this word, and will reflect instead the most recent activity - which is US-centered news given their recent moves toward legalization. petrarchan47tc 01:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that marijuana is American slang was made several times during the debate but no evidence was ever produced to support it nor have you produced evidence to support the claim now. Further, the claim is contradicted by evidence that the term is used worldwide and in serious reliable sources including US laws dating back to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which our article reports "legitimized the use of the term "marijuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products in the US and around the world." The purpose of a move review is to review whether the close reflects the discussion that occurred, not to rewrite the discussion to replace the actual evidence presented with your own opinions. Msnicki (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and your hounding of anyone who puts forth an intelligent, policy-based argument is becoming rather annoying. Your personal preference means nothing here. Your poorly-researched preference also means nothing here. This is an INTERNATIONAL project, and what a bunch of pot-smoking hippies call it in California means little to the rest of the world, and the medical community. Really - we don't call it "marijuana" in Canada, we call it pot - so start your RM to give it the REAL common name, would you? ES&L 12:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Msnicki should actually read the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 wiki article, especially a quote from the AMA: he further asserted that because the word Marijuana was largely unknown at the time, the medical profession did not realize they were losing cannabis. "Marijuana is not the correct term... Yet the burden of this bill is placed heavily on the doctors and pharmacists of this country." ... Also note that this act was repealed. --Thoric (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a quote from 1937. It does not represent a current view. Msnicki (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence is here. petrarchan47tc 06:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and continue discussion, wasn't an appropriate assessment of consensus for this RM. Zad68 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it wasn't a proper consideration to begin with, and should have never been taken seriously enough to get to this point. petrarchan47tc 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This has come up again and again. I don't understand why this ends up wasting everyone's time. Cannabis is the proper botanical name for the plant in question, and hence Cannabis (drug) is the proper article name for referring to the use of part of the plant as a drug (i.e. not an extract or byproduct). Marijuana, while a very common North American term for use of cannabis as a drug, has questionable etymology, and was purposely used (due to it being a Mexican slang term) by Harry J. Anslinger to criminalize the cannabis plant without the public realizing. Hence by naming the article "marijuana", we would be perpetuating and endorsing this political agenda. --Thoric (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is plenty of support for cannabis including the following

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More cherry-picking. When The Times reports on marijuana, note that all the stories are international. The first 5 stories are about news in the US. The next one is about Uruguay. When they report on cannabis, 3 of the first 5 stories are about events in the US, where the both the participants and the local news coverage overwhelmingly use the term marijuana. The Times is rewriting foreign events in their own preferred vocabulary, exactly as they also did when they reported on story about an American meat producer's plan to turn animal fat into fuel for "lorries". Americans simply do not call trucks lorries and they don't call marijuana cannabis, not even in the official language of the new US laws.

But also, who knows how good any individual paper is at estimating the number of hits on their internal search engine or how comparable the results are to search result estimates on other news sites. Frankly, it looks to me like their own engines might actually overstate the use of the word marijuana. I think I'm right in insisting that marijuana is the more frequent name, but I prefer to show that with conservative numbers.

Publication	Circulation	Self-reported hits for marijuana	Self-reported hits for cannabis	Self-reported ratio	Google hits for marijuana	Google hits for cannabis	Google Ratio
The Times	393,978	1,816	3,856	0.47	457	2,310	0.20
The New York Times	1,865,318	131,000	3,620	36.19	93,300	3,470	26.89
Total	2,259,296	132,816	7,476	17.77	93,757	5,780	16.22

Here's what I think is a better representation of what's going on with the top 10 daily newspapers in English. The list and circulation figures are from that first hit at mapsofworld.com. In making my comparisons, I'm consistently using google.co.uk to search UK and other international publications and google.com to search US publications. The exception is The Daily Mail for which I'm using bing.com. (Google reported 40,600,000 hits for marijuana but that's simply not credible. More likely, Google encountered a problem indexing the site.)

Publication	Country	Circulation	Marijuana	Cannabis	Ratio
The Sun	UK	3,472,841	730	796	0.92
USA Today	USA	2,610,255	10,300	3,850	2.68
Daily Mail	UK	2,476625	87,700	26,700	3.28
Daily Mirror	UK	2,187,960	5,540	4,570	1.21
The Times of India	India	1,879,000	17,000	9,440	1.80
The Wall Street Journal	USA	1,800,607	33,800	1,420	23.80
The New York Times	USA	1,109,000	93,300	3,470	26.89
The Daily Telegraph	UK	1,020,889	5,790	7,640	0.76
Daily Express	UK	957,574	4,950	16,400	0.30
Los Angeles Times	USA	944,000	96,800	3,430	28.30
Total		18,458,751	355,920	77,696	4.58

What you can see from this chart and even more clearly if you burrow into the results is that the English language discussion of marijuana is being dominated by Americans and by events in America. I appreciate that this is disconcerting to Europeans and others, yet another irritating reminder of an unwanted American hegemony. But this is simply what the numbers show. We do not have a rule in the guidelines that says that when trying to determine what name for a topic is most frequent, that each American source only counts 1/20-th as much as a British or other English-language source. We simply count all English-language reliable sources.

That marijuana is now the more frequently used term isn't a good thing or a bad thing. It just is. But recognizing this fact would be a good thing. Our readers will be likely be coming here because they encountered the term somewhere else. Most ordinary people don't read scientific papers and international drug agreements but they do read newspapers. These numbers (and my original numbers, table above) suggest the term they'll see in newspapers, on the web and elsewhere is marijuana, even if it is mostly because of events in the US. We should use the term they'll be commonly wanting to look up. This is simply about serving our customers and it's why we have the WP:COMMONNAME guideline.

When I proposed moving the article, it was because I believed that the evidence and our guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME indicated that the move was appropriate. Every reliable bit of evidence I can find really does indicate to me that marijuana is the more common name and that it is not slang. Others joined the debate to point out that our guidelines at WP:NATURAL, asking that we favor natural disambiguation, also supported the move.

Most of the responses here (and on other related pages) have amounted to argument supported only by repeated assertion that cannabis is the official international term, that only Americans call it marijuana, that marijuana is slang, that all Americans are biased and complaints that it was not closed by an admin. One editor has even attempted to smear the term as racist based on a trite argument that prohibitionists 80 years ago liked the term because it sounded foreign and scary. There's zero evidence that the term is considered racist today in the US and the argument seems aimed at working the same prejudice among Europeans, that they should reject the term simply because it sounds foreign. Even if true, none of these complaints is a guidelines-based argument.

I think our guidelines and the evidence should mean something. If that's not true, and content will now be decided based on personal opinions and I don't like it votes, I don't know why we're even here. But I concede it doesn't look like mine is the majority view. Msnicki (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning overturn move and probably relist because it only had a week - having promised above to weigh in with an opinion on this, I have just spent some time looking at the debate and trying to make some sense of it. Before I begin, I would like to reiterate my stance that there was nothing illegitimate about the close. Per WP:NOBIGDEAL, the admin bit is specifically not intended to confer extra community priveleges, only extra techinical priveleges which because of their nature require a strong vetting process. WP:RM, unlike deletion and blocking is to me a case where the potential damage that could be caused by non-admins is minimal, and I am all in favour of non-admin closure by experienced Wikipedians, not least because it gives them a chance to cut their teeth on the route to adminship. On the debate itself, I will go through the !votes and comments one by one with my thoughts on them (collapsed so it doesn't fill the whole page):

• So, in short, the !votes that may have merit are left in place (not struck) above, and form a roughly equal split. The most compelling arguments in favour are (a) that marijuana may be much more common, and (b) that it is more natural. I think the first point is probably unproven, despite the pro side offering more evidence than the against side; I don't think the Google evidence presented is overwhelming, particularly in a WP:WORLDWIDE context. The most compelling argument in favour is that it is an Americanism, so runs against WP:WORLDWIDE; again this is not conclusively proven, but the Australian document gives the strongest evidence for that argument. So with the split valid !votes and equal arguments on both sides, if I were closing this I'd have to go with "no consensus". Note that if the article were already at "Marijuana" I would still call it as no consensus to move to "Cannabis (drug)".
• Finally, on the close itself, I think Red Slash acted in good faith, calling the evidence as he or she saw it; the only thing I think he/she should not have done is to introduce new evidence into the debate in the form of the four links. The job of a closer is to assess the evidence on the page, and verify that, not to bring new factors in or attempt to reach an independent conclusion on the correctness of the move. So I will !vote to overturn in this case, but it's a close run thing and I think some of the aspersions cast on the closer in this move review above are uncalled for. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original votes may have been close, but the ratio of Oppose to Endorse the move are 8:1, so clearly the close was premature. Not all wikipedians check in on a daily basis. --Thoric (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thoric: well I think we're more or less in agreement so it's a moot point, but I would say that as with the move process itself, one doesn't arrive at any conclusions here just by counting votes. In fact, it's often even less relevant to count votes at move reviews because the discussion often seems to be either (a) people rehashing their opinions from the move itself, or (b) attempting to bring new evidence into the discussion. Neither of those are pertinent as I see it - the review should be purely based on whether the closer assessed the points made during the discussion correctly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how many more sources are need to explain that Marijuana is just one of the drugs produced by the Cannabis plant. This has legal implications for people all around the world..... i.e in Canada we have medical Marijuana rights....but this does not include the right to have hash or oils..to be clear no extract is legal only the dried bud. We should not mislead our readers in thinking that Marijuana covers all forms of the drug. Please see Canadian laws ....It does not apply to any derivatives of cannabis such as hashish or hash oil (page 3). -- Moxy (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yet another cut at the English-speaking web. What this indicates is that the preference for cannabis over marijuana is strongest in New Zealand and mixed in Australia and the UK, where goverment, organization and academic sites prefer cannabis but commercial sites prefer marijuana. Marijuana is clearly preferred in the US and Canada. Note that Canadian .org, .edu and .com sites are lumped with US sites because they do not have a separate .ca suffix. Also, I'm doing this by hand, so I've only sampled the Canadian provinces. But one of them, Quebec, is all in French, which favors cannabis, so I think this is probably fair.

Search	Marijuana	Cannabis	Ratio
Canadian web
site:ca on google.ca	1,390,000	324,000	4.29
site:gc.ca on google.ca	30,900	24,500	1.26
site:qc.ca on google.ca	9,110	12,700	0.72
site:ab.ca on google.ca	4,810	491	9.80
site:yk.ca on google.ca	1,140	517	2.21
Subtotal	1,439,830	363,958	3.96
UK web
site:gov.uk on google.co.uk	18,300	143,000	0.13
site:co.uk on google.co.uk	31,300,000	9,290,000	3.37
site:ac.uk on google.co.uk	8,250	24,700	0.33
site:org.uk on google.co.uk	17,100	57,600	0.30
Subtotal	56,043,650	19,715,300	2.84
New Zealand web
site:nz on google.co.nz	115,000	306,000	0.38
site:govt.nz on google.co.nz	21,300	15,500	1.37
site:co.nz on google.co.nz	100,000	248,000	0.40
site:ac.nz on google.co.nz	3,200	1,980	1.62
site:org.nz on google.co.nz	6,200	17,400	0.36
Subtotal	245,700	588,880	0.42
Australian web
site:au on google.com.au	371,000	419,000	0.89
site:gov.au on google.com.au	42,600	55,300	0.77
site:com.au on google.com.au	243,000	222,000	1.09
site:edu.au on google.com.au	8,680	15,100	0.57
site:org.au on google.com.au	12,000	17,000	0.71
Subtotal	677,280	728,400	0.93
US web
site:com on bing.com	21,300,000	11,600,000	1.84
site:gov on google.com	1,340,000	154,000	8.70
site:edu on google.com	593,000	91,700	6.47
site:org on google.com	37,600,000	13,400,000	2.81
Subtotal	60,833,000	25,245,700	2.41
Total	119,239,460	46,642,238	2.56

Basically, what you're looking at is what it really means to say that this is an international encyclopedia: Big nations may overwhelm small nations. But we don't count nations, we count sources.

And to Amakuru, who acknowledged that there's a lot of evidence that marijuana is the common name and basically none to the contrary but still felt it wasn't "proven", I would ask, what exactly is your standard of proof? Are you looking for preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond all possible doubt or is it simply that this isn't the word you use, so therefore, there's nothing that would prove it to you? Obviously, we can't count them by hand and obviously also, any particular search could be cherry-picked. But at some point, aren't you satisfied there's a pattern? Msnicki (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki: Maybe, maybe not. A raw search of Google data is informative, certainly, but I would never regard it as solid evidence in a WP:COMMONNAME debate, simply because that policy requires us to pick the most common name used in reliable sources, not just that commonly used in the street or on blogs. If the arguments provided by the oppose camp had been completely baseless, I would probably nonetheless have regarded the Google searches as sufficient; but given that there were some reasonably compelling arguments made on internationally agreed usage (for example the Australian document), I think a more rigorous argument needed to be made to overcome the lack of consensus, probably in the form of similar documents addressing the specific name issue, or at least a very wide variety of demonstrably high quality sources using the proposed new name. It's close, certainly, but I just don't quite feel like the arguments pushed it over the consensus line! Thanks again  — Amakuru (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it all boils down to you not being willing to any evidence from Google or other search engines no matter what, then I think you should take that up as a guideline issue on WT:TITLE. Currently, our consensus guideline at WP:COMMONNAME is that search engine data can be helpful. If indeed I was presenting searches of blogs, I think you might have a valid complaint. No one should doubt that it's possible to cherry pick data, presenting it selectively and if you have a complaint that you think I've done that, I wish you would state it. But I've tried hard to be as honest, fair and thorough as possible. In, for example, my list of the top 10 English language daily newspapers above, which do you think are not reliable sources? (I hope you're not questioning the US papers.) It's clear (but we knew all along) that some English speakers and sources, especially in the UK, Australia and New Zealand prefer cannabis.

But take any category, whether the web as a whole, .gov sites, .edu sites, .org sites, newspapers, books, patents, whatever – and marijuana is simply more frequent; the US numbers overwhelm the entire rest of the world. Again, this is also what it means that this is an international encyclopedia. A big country like the US may overwhelm the smaller countries sharing our common language. I had nothing to do with that.

Re: the Australian document, it's a fraud. Never mind that at best, it might only establish the "official" name which WP:OFFICIAL says is less preferable than the common name. And never mind that it's just one document cherry-picked from the millions on the web. Consider its claim: "The agreed international term is ‘cannabis’, hence its use in global legal instruments such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs."

The claim is absurd. There is no hence. The SCND was signed in 1961. Current usage did not cause events 53 years ago. And there is no international agreement that the correct term is cannabis. The international agreement is that it's the genus Cannabis, a scientific fact that no one disputes, no matter which title you prefer. From the English version of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, page 1:

b) “Cannabis” means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated.

c) “Cannabis plant” means any plant of the genus Cannabis,

d) “Cannabis resin” means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant.

No one writing this was thinking about trying to choose the most common name. What they wanted most was legal precision and a term that could be translated into the 6 languages the agreement would be published in. They wanted to clearly identify a particular plant and products of that plant so of course they gave the name of the genus, Cannabis, knowing that would translate.

This Australian document has misrepresented the evidence. If an editor did that here, it would be instantly reverted as WP:OR.

But also, look at the rest of the document. Consider this claim: "the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 in the US continues to impact upon the terminology used today. This bill legitimised the use of the term ‘marihuana’ as a label for cannabis plants and products, including hemp. Prior to this time it would appear that ‘marihuana/marijuana’ were purely slang terms and there is no evidence of them being included in any official dictionaries."

This claim was lifted from our own article on Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Here's our current version: "the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term "marijuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products in the US and around the world. Prior to 1937, "marijuana" was slang; it was not included in any official dictionaries."

How do I know they got it from us, not the other way around? Because the Australian document is dated October 1, 2011 and the language in our article predates that. I can trace our language back to earlier versions (e.g., here in 2009) and even further back to previous variants.

Basically, what we have here is a self-published document by an anonymous Australian bureaucrat that cites no sources, misrepresents the facts and plagiarizes from Wikipedia. This is your authority that you think trumps all the rest of the evidence and our guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURAL and WP:OFFICIAL? Msnicki (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At some point you will have to confront the sources that have been presented over more search numbers. You have not confronted the fact the sources say marijuana (yes the most popular form thus the one with the most hits) is just one of the drug produced from cannabis. Reading over search engine results would be to everyone benefit especially our readers who care about verifiable information not hit numbers. This whole approach to how articles are named is very concerning. --Moxy (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have, Moxy. And so have several other editors. No one bought this argument the first time around. You appear to base it on the fact your own Canadian marihuana card does not permit hash and on individual documents like the Australian document. But competing authorities like the states of California, Washington and Colorado consider marijuana to include the plant and anything you make from it. This is exactly one of the reasons why, as explained at WP:OFFICIAL, we prefer most frequent names over official names. Thinking you can settle the debate over whether marijuana includes hash with just the right document is a fool's errand. Out of the literally millions of documents on the web, in print and in other sources, it seems likely anyone might find a few claiming almost anything.

Realistically, we have a different guideline that speaks to this, WP:NPOV: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. ... Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone ... Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." My point is that you're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't convinced anyone that this is anything but a minority view. Maybe we should mention this claimed dispute in the article, but it's hard to take this as a serious objection to renaming the article. Msnicki (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is concerning 3 editors made this point that was ignore in the close and is why we are here...cant ignore the sources. My point have been made and is why the artice is still at the stable tittle. What we are looking for is real contributions by reliable sources over guess work from Google hits. I have started a new section so all can address the sources as its clear Overturn is the outcome here. You are free to spam numbers there again but would be best to try and address the sources. I really do hope that this sort of problem is not all over...we have educated people with our sources ...the opposite of what has happened with Google hits. -- Moxy (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, does it bother you that according to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (quoted earlier), cannabis also does not include hash? According to the SCND, cannabis doesn't even include seeds and leaves, only bud. Again, this is the problem with WP:OFFICIAL names: Competing authorities will have competing definitions and those definitions can be arbitrary and at the whim of the issuing authority, c.f., "Assault weapon". This is why we prefer the most frequently used name.

You seem to be arguing that "most frequent" is simply unknowable, therefore the article should be called "Cannabis (drug)" because you think that's the official name and a broader term. You've rejected all my search data and paid no attention whatsoever to Red Slash's n-gram analyses. Do you not believe in statistics or sampling? Did you spot a sampling error or even an unconscious bias in any of the data I've compiled? You can't credibly reject all numbers derived from Google searches – especially where the guidelines encourage us to use them – without some kind of actual reason. If my evidence is wrong, go after it and point out why it's wrong. You haven't done that because you can't.

But never mind that you don't like any of my numbers. Where are yours? You've presented evidence that cannabis may be the official name in some jurisdictions and that some people think marijuana doesn't include hash. But our basic principle of WP:NPOV asks that we do not settle disputes, we report them proportionally. You have a few sources you really like that say what you want, therefore you seem to feel absolved of showing these are more than just minority views. That's not really buying into that principle.

Currently, the article reports in the lede that marijuana and cannabis are interchangeable terms. If you think that's wrong and that marijuana does not include hash, I think you need to gain consensus for that content change. Since we're both asking for content changes, me to the title, you to the lede sentence, our evidentiary burdens should be the same. You shouldn't be allowed to simply presume you'll gain consensus for your content change as a valid reason to object to mine. You should have to get it, first. Here are some sources that contradict you:

Drugs and Society by Glen Hanson, Peter Venturelli, Annette Fleckenstein, p. 395: "Hashish (or hasheesh) is a second derivative of cannabis that contains the purest form of resin. This type of marijuana consists of the sticky resin from the female plant flowers."

Drugs Across the Spectrum by Raymond Goldberg, p. 255: "Two other forms of marijuana are hashish, known in India as charas, and hash oil."

The Cultural/Subcultural Contexts of Marijuana Use at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, edited by Andrew Golub, p. 6: "Hashish is a form of marijuana that is also called "hash.""

Marijuana by Jeanne Nagle, p. 11: "Another form of marijuana is hashish, or hash."

Medical Toxicology of Drug Abuse: Synthesized Chemicals and Psychoactive Plants by Donald G. Barceloux, p. 60: "Hashish (charas) is the concentrated, dried resin collected from flower tops that contains substantially higher (i.e., up to 10%) concentrations of Δ⁹-THC compared with ganja and bhang. This form of marijuana is particularly common in the Middle East and North Africa."

Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings, p. 188: "Hashish is a form of marijuana that is also called hash."

The Facts about Marijuana by Ted Gottfried, p. 8: "Hashish is the most potent form of marijauna."

I think all you're going to get (which you could have right now) is an additional sentence, something like, "Some sources define both cannabis and marijuana as not including hash."

How do you propose to show that cannabis is even as frequent as marijuana in reliable sources? How do you propose to show that marijuana is not usually understood to include hash in reliable sources? You certainly can't do that by cherry-picking a few sources you like out of the millions available! Where are your numbers? Msnicki (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Although I support the move to the natural disambiguation title per WP:NCDAB, I feel that the RM discussion was close enough to warrant a re-listing instead of a non-admin close. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close; the analysis of the quality of the arguments was perfectly valid. Powers ^T 13:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Without majority support (and we often require 2/3rd support) this should have been closed as "no consensus" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in our guidelines is there a 2/3 majority requirement for any content decisions. There's not even requirement for a simple majority. This is not a vote. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. All it takes is a single counterexample. Find the guideline that requires 2/3 for anything and post the link. You can't. Msnicki (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are. Have a read of this were a 2/3rd support was required [1] and [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Those are not examples of the guidelines requiring a 2/3 majority. Those are examples where it merely happened that more 2/3 joined the consensus on a couple of individual debates. Sheesh. Have you ever actually read the guidelines? You don't appear to understand the difference between the guidelines pages and the talk pages so I'm guessing the answer is no. Msnicki (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki: please could you tone down the language a bit? The above comment reads somewhat like a personal attack to me. I think your point is valid, that the examples given are not cases where the community accepted the principle of a 2/3 majority for voting, and personally I have never heard that figure used on Wikipedia. However, it is possible to make that point without being rude to @Jmh649:. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is common practice. For example "It is well-established that we treat a 2/3 majority as consensus here, while taking the comments people make into account."[3] And "The poll specified that in the case of less than 2/3 majority, it would be extended a week. The vote was Yes=4, No=7 (and one unsigned) - which last I checked was less than 2/3 majority. Everyone who signed the poll agreed to the written conditions" [4] There are lots of examples. And here from the PC "This is a very difficult proposal to get my head around. Which steps are you suggesting a two thirds community consensus for? You appear to want to switch the tool off and then seek a two thirds majority for this"[5]

The purpose for the 2/3rd is so that I do not get 50% plus one today and you get 50% plus one tomorrow and we switch back and forth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: There's some history here. I didn't just slap him out of the blue. You think it's easy? You try to explain to him there is no 2/3 requirement anywhere in the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, I'll leave the matter between the two of you then, it's not my job to enforce the civility rules here! As for the 2/3 majority I think sometimes a poll is cast in which both sides of an argument agree a set of rules by which they will assess the poll, one of which might be a 2/3 majority in one direction or another. I'm not aware of any wiki-wide convention involving that figure, however, and in my experience the true assessment of Wiki-style "consensus" is that one good argument can outweigh ten bad ones, assuming the closer can make such a convincing black and white assessment. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOWBALL, requesting this review be closed as Overturn and relist. Comment. Discussion has moved back to the article talk page. Moxy has opened a new section, RfC:Google hits vs reliable sources asking, "Should the article be moved from Cannabis (drug) to Marijuana based on Google hit count and American laws or stay at Cannabis (drug) based on the sources below and international use of the term?" Though not so helpfully titled or framed, I believe this is substantially the same question debated at the WP:RM that closed as move but sits in limbo here. Heated discussion picked up exactly where it left off but is hampered by ambiguity because this review remains open. Per WP:SNOWBALL, and there being no good reason not to, I ask the original WP:RM be reopened, this new RfC discussion be considered appended to it and that a new close be taken after a suitable relisting. Msnicki (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the new endorse !votes, my WP:SNOWBALL request is no longer sensible and I am changing my own vote back. Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Based on what I see from the reliable sources as evidence brought forward here I believe WP:COMMONNAME is correct in this case. I have been uninvolved in the discussion though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. I am also uninvolved in the !vote, but I have read this discussion. The closing admin made the right call. Jonathunder (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Jonathunder, Red Slash is not an administrator. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - I contributed to the original discussion, but this is my first contribution to the move review. The closing administrator summarized the discussion well. Neelix (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Neelix, Red Slash is not an administrator. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. The title has bothered me for years. Without a doubt the most common name for this drug in the English language is marijuana. For example the term "medical marijuana" outstrips the term "medical cannabis" in the scientific literature over 5:1. Cannabis is the name of the genus from which the drug is derived, which explains much of the usage in professional and legal documents. As to the usage in British English, Wikipedia has an article at "elevator", not "lift". Move it. Abductive (reasoning) 03:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

We don't determine community consensus by counting the !votes or opinions of the small fraction of the community that happens to be involved in any one discussion. Instead, to determine community consensus, we must look at, and evaluate, the strength of the arguments on each side, and decide which side, if any, has stronger arguments based on policy, guidelines and convention. There is no evidence that such evaluation was done at all in this case. B2C 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying there's a consensus there and the closer missed it? I don't see it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dicklyon (talk · contribs), the closer missed the consensus favoring the move. First, the main oppose argument - that the movie is not clearly more notable than the book - is based on the wrong assumption that the book and movie have the same title. Second, while 3 opposers acknowledge the difference in titles, their claim that the book is commonly referred by the movie's title is not supported by any evidence, much less citations to reliable sources. Finally, your interpretation of the WP:TITLE words you quoted would preclude the use of an ambiguous title for almost any WP:PRIMARYTOPIC article, which clearly has no consensus support. So, there is no strong policy-based argument opposing the move, though there is one supporting it (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). --B2C 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The main argument of the "oppose" camp was that the film does not enjoy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status, not least because the book is very often called by the same name. In other words, the !votes were grounded in policy and guidelines. Note: I participated in this debate, and I !voted to oppose, so I'm biased, but from looking at the arguments as a whole I don't see any way that anyone could possibly have called this as consensus to move.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no evidence provided, much less citations to reliable sources, of the claim that "the book is very often called by the same name [as the movie title]", and only a tiny minority even made that claim. That's not an argument "grounded in policy and guidelines". That's WP:JDLI. --B2C 21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - Clearly no-consensus here. Granted consensus is not just vote counting and it would have been nice to seen a little more details on the closing rational. That said, I also don't see the step where the closer was asked to provide more details about their close before bringing it here. See step 1. PaleAqua (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Step 1 (as noted above): [7]. I would love to see the closer, or anyone else for that matter, provide details about the rationale for closing this discussion as "no consensus" that is based on evaluating the arguments, not counting the !votes. See also my previous comment, to Dicklyon. --B2C 00:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry missed that link and was mislead by page move archiving after following closer's talk page link from RM. PaleAqua (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I figured and why I just added another note referring to that archived section on the closer's talk page. Still waiting for a rationale on why no policy-based consensus was found in that discussion... --B2C 01:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Evidence is important for controversial requested moves. Be it known - I supported the move. Red Slash 09:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just happen to have looked at this MRV request as I have a MRV request below. I am not familiar with this RM, but I understand and agree with user B2C's points about how to define a "consensus". This is a basic and very import issue. In someones minds, even >50% may not be enough for "consensus" and they seem to seek "unanimity" or "an overwhelming majority". They forgot to or failed to evaluate the strength of the arguments based on policies and guidelines.--Lvhis (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – not the best close, but correct in that there is no consensus to make this page's title ambiguous with the other 12 topics that could use the same title if it weren't ambiguous. It would be a travesty to endorse B2C's extreme interpretation of policy that he has been a contentious author of, over a majority objection. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are conveniently ignoring the fact that no evidence from reliable sources was provided in the original discussion, nor in this one, demonstrating that the title in question is ambiguous with even one other use, let alone 12 other uses. You're just stating that title is ambiguous with 12 other uses as if it's a given. It's not. That's the key issue, and you, like the closer, are not even addressing it. --B2C 07:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, such research might lead you to count fewer than 12 of the ones I counted at The Wizard of Oz. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, clearly there are many other uses that are ambiguous with "The Wizard of Oz", but all are relatively minor/unknown uses compared to the 1939 movie. You don't question that, do you? --B2C 09:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are we supposed to re-argue the RM here, or just review the close? Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Review the close, of course. But you seemed to simply compare the result with what you believed the result should be, and endorsed because it was the same. You did not seem to review the close at all. The fact that there was no indication that the arguments in question were evaluated at all, bolstered by talk page comments that indicate !votes were simply counted (roughly), is not sufficient reason to at least ask the closer to provide such evaluation, or re-open and ask someone else to close who is willing to do the required evaluation? --B2C 23:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. If there was a consensus on that page, I sure couldn't find one. The entire debate was almost completely devoid of any discussion of either guidelines or evidence and consisted mostly of just lots of diverse personal opinions. That is the essence of no consensus. Msnicki (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, as well as Dicklyon's caution against extreme reading of policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku Islands (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move because

1. Consensus has been reached that current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines, and this is the base for the RM and this does be relevant to the purpose of the request. Otherwise, there is no need to have such RM at all. Closer should evaluate this before he decided to close it and how to close it, but unfortunately he did not, so this is the 1st defect of this closure.
2. One key point in closing judgement that "title of "Pinnacle Islands" also enjoys some support in this discussion, there is likewise no consensus in favor of it" was not in line with the fact of the discussion. The fact is although the initial proposed alternative title of this RM was "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands", as the RM process is a consensus building exercise, some users changed their initial views and agreed that "Pinnacle Islands" can be a good title if a slashed dual name technically is hardly facilitated. The main reason in discussion is this is an English name and currently still being used. The two local non-English name "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" have equal "POV" problem and either one cannot override WP:POVTITLE, their "most common use" in English have been canceled by each other, one should not compare the "Pinnacle Islands" with either of the two non-English names in terms of "most common use". One should consider what said in WP:COMMONNAME "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" and WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, but closer did not mention these at all in closing statement. Even looking at the arguments or comments about "against ..." from this "tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community", compared with "against retention of 'Senkaku Islands'" or with "against moving to 'Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands' or 'Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands'", the "against moving to 'Pinnacle Islands'" is the least one, which were from 6 users of 15 participants and 4 of these 6 were those who insisted on retention of "Senkaku Islands" but only 2 users who oppose to use the current title "Senkaku Islands".
3. The closing sentence "the article(s) will continue to use the current title, "Senkaku Islands", because that title has been stable since 2010 ..." is not in line with the argument history. The so called "stable" is purely due to forced "move protection" but dispute on it never stopped. The conclusion that the current title is "stable" cannot be stood. The current title has damaged and will keep damaging the merit and reliability of Wikipedia.

--Lvhis (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (no consensus). Clearly, strongly, contested. Consensus has not yet been found. Finding a consensus here will take some work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - Agreed. Don't see how there is any consensus here yet. A non consensus close does not prohibit future RMs; there would be normally nothing wrong with a new opening RM with some of the other options that came up during the discussion. However with the long running dispute and arbcom case, taking things slow here is probably best. PaleAqua (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was one of the first in that discussion to recommend "Pinnacle Islands" should be considered, and there was some support for that, but nothing near a consensus. That may still happen in a future discussion, but I think this one was closed correctly. Jonathunder (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - per User:Jonathunder. I think for an RM to be closed as a third solution, different from the current title and the original proposal, there would have to be an even clearer demonstration of support than even for a regular RM. Clearly there were very many voices specifically opposed to the Pinnacle Islands solution in this instance, so it was right to call it as no consensus. If you want to test the waters for the Pinnacle Islands solution, I don't think there's anything stopping you from opening that as a new move request. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close with Six Month Moratorium Unfortunately given the vitriol/hysteria of the discussion any concenses for change is most likely the result of a particularly aggressive (and temporary) campaigning. I would block any move for six months to a year and just hope that the well poisoners simply move on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.211.11 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014

• This IP user did not signed for his/her input which inserted in between others, and talked in a tone as s/he is an admin(?).--Lvhis (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close and I do not think that another RM should be made for that page for at least six months. While consensus can change, with contentious article titles such as this it does not change overnight. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - The RM concerns a complex naming issue which has been frequently in dispute for a long time. It needs more editors involved in order to establish the real consensus, therefore a longer period of discussion should be held. STSC (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (involved editor)[reply]

• You mean it needs an WP:RfC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting the RM. STSC (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that another another seven days won't be enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least give it a try. Until there's a bigger overall participation in the process, I would find it hard to accept the "no consensus" verdict. STSC (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This RM was open for much longer than a week and it was advertised elsewhere (here for example). Traditionally such contentious moves are left alone for at least six months so that there is time for a new consensus to form. If another RM is opened in the near future (under six months from the previous close), and I am made aware of it, I will close the request with "no move" reason "disruptive request" under the arbcom sanctions governing this topic. -- PBS (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a basic and important point needs to be clarified: what is the correct definition of "consensus" in Wikipedia? I learned more from your comment there. How to decide if a consensus has existed or not? Shall a consensus have to mean supported by unanimity or an overwhelming majority? People may know the correct answer theoretically, but may be lost in some practical case. In this case, consensus reached for "current title is not in line with regarding policies and guidelines". If this consensus existed, closer should give some more time for building up consensus for which alternative name should be. In this case moving to "Pinnacle Islands" seemed reach Rough Consensus" already.--Lvhis (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it did. I suggest raising the question on the talk page, but not yet in a formal RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When correct definition or judgment on "consensus" in Wikipedia is not clarified, disagreeing that it (consensus) existed cannot justify it did not reached. --Lvhis (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RM should have been re-listed to attract more inputs. If this RM is not getting a relist then I may start a new RM regardless. STSC (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critique Given how little traffic those pages had and how small the list of participants is, it's stupid to think a couple weeks will generate a decent amount of participation from 3rd parties. Besides, it's Christmas month and a lot of people have family lives, product releases, exams, etc to worry about. :)

What's worth noting is that admins were all too eager to close the RFC and all too eager to tolerate bad behaviour by Benlisquare and Phoenix. Someone should really dig out Sandstein and those other admins and give them a whipping.... Just kidding - admins seldomly are held accountable for bad decisions. :)

But speaking of consensus... the original page appeared to be under that Pinnacle Island name (as far as I remember at least). I don't remember there's any consensus on that move. It's just someone stealthily moving that before anyone noticed. But whoops! Sorry for that little fact-checking. :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured: This MRV request was not concise enough and now is restructured here: The defect of this closure is 1)closer claimed that he did not evaluate if there was a consensus on "current title is not in line with regarding policies and guidelines" because he thinks "it is not relevant for the purpose of the request" but actually such evaluation is very relevant and important. 2)According to the right definition of "consensus" in Wikipedia, the consensus said in "1)" did exist, and closer should have carefully and impartially evaluated if consensus on "Pinnacle Islands" had reached or roughly reached, but closer's evaluation on this was obviously taking one weak side by ignoring the other strong side, and made such evaluation like an involved discussion. Or the least the closer should have given some more time to let the process of building up consensus on this be finished. 3)if a consensus on "current title is not in line with regarding policies and guidelines" exists, the current title cannot be recognized as "stable" anymore. Comment: Re-List or starting a new RM is reasonable.--Lvhis (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know... you guys can simplify the problem by just proposing to re-assess the original Pinnacle -> Senkaku naming that took place god knows how many years ago. The way, it'd take a consensus to support that previous rename, don't you think? Given how conservative this consensus system Wikipedia has, I am pretty sure there would be no consensus if there's an RFC on that. There - simplified that little logic problem for y'all. You're all very welcomed! :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]