Czechoslovak parliamentary election, 1920 – there is no consensus to relist or overturn the RM closure. It is within the remit of a closing admin to weigh the relative strength of the arguments presented in the discussion, and to give greater weight to the arguments that best represent the policies and practices of Wikipedia. I note that there are a substantial number of articles with "Czechoslovak" in the name, and a handful with "Czechoslovakian"; a broader process may be called for to determine if there should be a single standard for all of these. bd2412T 13:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Czechoslovak parliamentary election, 1920 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
This RM was clearly a no consensus result (contributors to the debate were split 50/50 on the move, with both sides citing valid reasoning), yet has been closed in favour of the requested move. The move rationale itself was based on the false claim that the word "Czechoslovakian" is "incorrect", yet it is the Oxford English Dictionary, so is clearly not. The closure was made using the claim of WP:COMMONNAME, which is debatable given that (a) common name applies to the "name of the person, place or thing that is the subject", but here we are discussing the correct adjective rather than a name (part of the WP:NC-GAL naming formula for these articles), and (b) even if this does apply to adjectives, the evidence showed that Czechoslovakian was actually the more commonly-used adjective amongst the general public. Number57 08:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer. As well as my rationale at the RM page, there is also some discussion at User talk:Jenks24#Talk:Czechoslovak parliamentary election, 1920 that might be of interest to those assessing my close. Just on the COMMONNAME thing, I would say COMMONNAME just expands on the recognisability and naturalness criteria at WP:NC. Note that recognisability explicitly covers names and descriptions of the subject. The principles are the same, COMMONNAME just expands upon them in more detail. At least that's my understanding. Also, the count was actually 5–4 in favour of the move, though that was of much less relevance to my decision that the strength of argument. Anyway, I'll be stepping back from this discussion now unless anyone has specific questions for me. Please ping me if the result is to overturn my decision and I'll move the articles back myself, I know what a pain it can be when someone else buggers up and you get stuck with the busywork. Jenks24 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4 supported, 4 opposed, so presumably you are including the proposer in the 5–4? Number57 09:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for more discussion. "Czechoslovakian" or "Czechoslovak"? Czechoslovak is preferred at Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakian sounds more traditional English. Czechoslovak sounds like English yielding to foreign influence. English is always moving, and especially so when naming foreign things. I think there is no "right" or "wrong" here.
Did the closer WP:Supervote, or did the closer use clueful unbiased judgement and call a rough consensus within admin discretion? I don't know. I think more discussion with a wider survey of interested editors will give the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Cúchullain's !vote, I would agree, a reasonable close within admin discretion. I would say the same thing about a no consensus close. It has never been the requirement that a closer make a close that all other closers would similarly make. Sometimes a decision has to be made, it will have a degree of arbitrariness, but we need to be able to keep moving. I therefore lean endorse, close within admin discretion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning relist) Leaning towards relist per Number 57 and SmokeyJoe's comments above at at User talk:Jenks24#Talk:Czechoslovak parliamentary election, 1920. That said I also agree that there really isn't a right or wrong here. FWIW, "Czechoslovakian" sounds more natural to my ears as an adjective and using just "Czechoslovak" sounds a bit off to me though still correct. Hence while I'm leaning towards "relist", I'm not sure either way is really wrong enough to worry about it. I'd almost suggest if it is relisted just to wait till the close to worry about moving the pages remembering that no-consensus would likely mean moving back at that time, especially as this is a bunch of pages. PaleAqua (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. A perfectly reasonable closing decision.--Cúchullaint/c 13:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - this doesn't seem to have any compelling arguments for moving anywhere, and I can't support a consensus here. Red Slash 03:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Cytherea (pornographic actress) – RM closure endorsed. However, per the comments here and in the MRV under this one, it seems that the most sensible solution at this point might be a wider-scope RfC about the titling of this type of article. – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There was clearly overwhelming support for shortening this article's title from Cytherea (pornographic actress) to Cytherea (actress) (7 "Support" votes). Only three users voted "Oppose". The "not moved" close of this discussion violates policy (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA #5, Consistency: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."). Cytherea is not arbitrarily different from other porn stars, such as Aja, AprilO'Neil, Chloe, Hillary Scott, Mandingo, Savannah & Serenity (all discussed with consensus to shorten their titles to "(actress)" & "(actor)"), so why should her article have a different title? Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I strongly endorse the close suggestion that the way forward is a systemic centralized discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: It seems questionable for someone to open a Move Review and argue that an article should be renamed for consistency with other article names without mentioning that they personally recently performed the controversial moves of dozens of those articles to those names without RM discussions (see User talk:Rebecca1990#Please do not move articles without RM). Moreover, they also instigated and waged an edit war by attempting to close this same RM at least six times within a 34-hour-period with an outcome in favor of the opinion they had expressed as an active and vocal participant in the discussion (against guideline number 1 of the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions). The closing admin suggested "a systemic RfC with wide input to settle this issue once and for all", which seems like a sufficient suggestion toward resolving this without need for a parallel Move Review. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Rodney Moore (pornographic actor) – I find that there is consensus endorsing the NC close of RM1 and consensus that RM2 should not have been shut down right away by someone involved. Because allowing a third RM or overturning the close of RM2 to allow discussion has the same end result, I am opting to leave RM2 closed but allow an RM3 which should not be "shut down" before its natural end. However, per comments here, it seems a better way than RM3 might be a wider-scope RfC about the titling of this type of article, instead of an RM3 focused solely on this specific article's title. – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Discussion had very few voters (4) and half of them (2) were "Oppose" votes, so it resulted in "No consensus", but this article's title cannot remain the same. It contradicts an overwhelming consensus to cease using "(pornographic actor)" in article titles (This has been discussed numerous times. See discussions for Aja, April O'Neil #1, April O'Neil #2, Chloe, Hillary Scott, Mandingo, Savannah & Serenity, which concluded that "(pornographic actor)" & "(pornographic actress)" titles should be shortened to "(actor)" & "(actress)".) and it violates WP policy (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA #5, Consistency: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.") Rodney Moore (director) is a more accurate title for this article than Rodney Moore (actor) because his IAFD entry (the IMDb of porn) lists more films for him as a director (796) than as a performer (667). Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - 27 April / Overturn ( for reclose ) - 31 May - No consensus was a reasonable close for the April 27th move discussion. However a no consensus close does not prevent another follow up discussion. May 31st should not have been closed the way it was, especially by someone involved in the previous discussion. That said it would probably be better to have a centralized RfC to clarify naming policy in this case. Per people naming conventions and the disambiguating section of that page I don't see anything that shows a preference between one and the other likewise a search through other naming conventions turns up nothing, though WP:CONCISE might apply. PaleAqua (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note while I'm suggesting May 31st be technically "overturned", I strongly think that the proper answer is a centralized RfC on naming conventions for these cases, and thus recommend in part per IAR that it be reclosed pending a wider RfC. PaleAqua (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both closes: Regarding the 30 May close, there were strongly-expressed arguments on both sides, and declaring no consensus for a move was a reasonable call. Regarding the 31 May close, as the closer said, "Immediately renewing an appropriately closed request like this is an abuse of process and a waste of editors' and admins' time." Although a wider RfC might eventually establish a different outcome than what occurred here, this Move Review is not the proper way to achieve that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
