Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November

Football at the 2007 Military World Games – Men's tournament (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

This is an official world military competition hosted by the CISM. This football competition is a part of the Military World Games (4th edition) and the World Military Cup (42nd edition) (Hyderabad 2007 - 4th CISM World Military Games - CISM official website), (2007 MWG football quarters - One India) Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2011 Military World Games – Men's tournament (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

This is an official world military competition hosted by the CISM. This football competition is a part of the Military World Games (5th edition) and the World Military Cup (43rd edition) (Rio 2011 - 5th CISM World Military Games - CISM official website), (Championnat du monde militaire de football 2011 - RFI official website) Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to most modern turcologists, such as Denis Sinor, the term Kök Türk appears only two times in the the Old Turkish stele, both of which appears in the same sentence. It has been established that the adjective kök did not consist a formal part of the country name, not to mention the name of its people. Within serious academic materials, they're referred as Türks.

The term Göktürks is coined by Anatolians and Europeans, possibly in order to save the term "Turks" for the Anatolian Turkish people to take it. Calling them Göktürks is like calling British "Greadbritic people" and using the term "British" to refer Britons. 128.59.192.170 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - I think you're referring to this move discussion which has been closed for nearly two years, and which obviously supported the move at that time. If you would like to present a new rationale and propose a new move, you should do so on the article's talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - wrong time/place, this is long past a point of review, and a new proposal is completely appropriate to raise again on the talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim_Davis_(county_clerk) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Closer Tiggerjay did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because: 

1. Non-admin closure when consensus/lack-of-consensus was not clear. While a cursory !vote count may suggest a lack of consensus supporting the move, a more nuanced evaluation of the policy basis and relevance of the arguments is necessary in this case to determine consensus, per WP:CONSENSUS#Determining consensus. There is no indication that closer did this.
2. Although the proposal was to change between titles both of which reflected the name of the person Kim Davis, much of the opposition was based on the sentiment that the title should not reflect the the person, an issue about which a lack of consensus has been recently established, and which is not relevant to this particular proposal. There is no indication that the closer took this into account in evaluating the discussion for consensus.
3. There was no dispute in the discussion about whether the subject Kim Davis is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kim Davis".  There was only speculation that she may not remain the primary topic in the future.  Such speculation blatantly ignores WP:CRYSTAL, and is dubious because of the particular lack of notabilty of the other uses of Kim Davis, as noted in the nom and discussion.
4. Strong policy-based arguments were presented favoring the move; no policy-based arguments were given against the specific move proposal.  Policy-wise, the consensus is clear.
5. The closer has not responded to questions[1] and pings[2] requesting clarification. 

I really think the policy-based consensus favoring the move presented in the discussion should be recognized and the article moved accordingly.  But, at the least the poorly explained and unclarified non-admin closure should be reverted to allow an admin to close.  В²C ☎ 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only was there no consensus to move, the discussion also re-established that there is no consensus that the material about a controversial event should be pseudo-biographied under the name of a living person in the first place. endorse closure as no consensus-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See? Again, the "no consensus that the material about a controversial event should be pseudo-biographied" argument applies equally to the existing title (Kim Davis (county clerk)) and to the proposed title (Kim Davis), and is therefore irrelevant to any question about which of these two titles best meets WP:CRITERIA and WP:D guidance. And yet one of the chief opposers can't resist mentioning it again even in the move review. Clearly that irrelevant point (about which there is no consensus[3]) is the driving motivation of the opposition. --В²C ☎ 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

when it is clear there is no consensus that that the article about a controversial event should be improperly shoehorned under the name of a living person it is even MORE clear that the contested and controversial content is NOT the primary topic. 

And it is also clear that someone who does not know the first fucking thing about what is "motivating" me should be falsely making claims that they do. @Born2cycle: retract your irresponsible and unsupported claims.  -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just confirmed what you're asking me to retract?  Really? If you don't recognize that you're motivated by your belief that this article is PSEUDO biography, don't blame me! What you don't seem to get is that whether this article is a WP:PSEUDO biography is irrelevant to the question of whether it should be titled Kim Davis or Kim Davis (county clerk).  If it is a PSEUDO biography then neither title is acceptable, and neither of these two titles is even slightly more acceptable than the other. So the PSEUDO argument is neither in opposition nor support of the proposal; it is inherently neutral on that question.  But you keep bringing it up as if it is relevant.  Over and over.  Why?  --В²C ☎ 03:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inherently neutral at all. PSEUDO supports not keeping the article at either title, as you said; it's an argument against this move because the proposed title is inappropriate. The current title is just as inappropriate, but fortunately we don't have to choose one of them: we can do nothing until the neutral title issue is resolved. But every time an editor has attempted to address the neutral title issue, it gets shouted down as "out of process". Skipping the debate about title neutrality does not mean that the debate is settled. Moving this now from one inappropriate title to another inappropriate title is putting the cart before the horse: it just means more cleanup work later. That is the PSEUDO argument: that the page should not be moved at all until a proper, fulsome discussion about an appropriate article title is resolved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this argument is that it presumes something for which there is no consensus support: that there should not be a biographical article about Kim Davis. Therefore the proposed title is not necessarily inappropriate; though the current one clearly is (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Moving from a clearly inappropriate title to an arguably inappropriate title is an improvement - keeping an inappropriate title as a hostage until one gets his way is not appropriate.   --В²C ☎ 17:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there is no consensus that there should not be a biographical article about Kim Davis, there's only consensus that there should be one article related to this controversy, which is what this event article is. Giving it a biographical title is inappropriate. Giving it a different biographical title is still inappropriate. The only one holding the article hostage is you, since you refuse to acknowledge that the inappropriate title should be corrected. Unnecessary disambiguation is only a small part of the problem. If you'd like to drop this, and start a rational discussion about what this article's proper title should be, considering all of the relevant policies and guidelines and not just the one you've chosen, I will be very happy to support that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that biographical articles on WP cannot be mostly about the one main thing for which its subject is notable is absurd, and is countered by the majority of our biographical articles. For examples, just start picking articles at random at Category:Living_people: Henri Aalto, Rolf M. Aagaard, Nabil Aankour, Patsy Pease, Hiram Batchelder.  They all mention what the person is notable for, and much less than we have about this Kim Davis. This is not cherry-picking WP:OTHERSTUFF; the vast majority of entries in this category are about people who are far less notable than this Kim Davis. Having a biography article titled with the name of the subject but with content mostly about an event or whatever thing the subject is most notable for is the norm for biographies on WP. Arguing that this article should not be titled after the person is treating this article differently from most other BLPs, for no apparent reason other than perhaps a bias against this particular person. --В²C ☎ 00:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ivanvector is right. The title should describe the content. There have been several who have argued against having her name in the title at all because she is not notable. It's the controversy that's notable. But there are a number of us who recognize that she IS the controversy. They are tied together. No one else is involved, and it doesn't exist apart from her, so the title should still include her name. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that none of these randomly-selected people are notable only for their involvement in a single event. Some who are (not randomly selected) are Monica Lewinsky, John Hinckley, Jr., Steve Bartman, or John Magno. The first two have biographies which are substantially about their entire lives, with a brief summary of the event which made them notable and a link to the main event article. The second two aren't notable at all outside of the event they're known for, so their names redirect to the event. The events are Lewinsky scandal, Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, Steve Bartman incident, and Woodbine Building Supply fire - names which describe the event; some cannot be described without reference to the person involved, but they describe the event nonetheless. Davis is more likely to be like the first two, but the title of this event article still needs to describe the event, not the person, and if we pull the purely biographical bits out into a separate neutral bio, then that should live at Kim Davis. Currently there is consensus against that, although I disagree myself. An example of a person whose entire public life has been controversies (definitely not randomly selected) is Rob Ford - even his bio is neutral (in that it reflects the negative POV of reliable sources) with brief mentions of his many scandals, which are detailed in separate articles. Kim Davis is definitely not Rob Ford - Ford would have been notable anyway, Davis is only notable because of the event. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer, no, the title should not describe the content. We only use descriptive titles for certain articles whose topics don't have commonly used names, like List of school districts in California by county. When the topic has a name, that is used as the title, and the name of a topic doesn't describe the content. BLPs are titled by the name of the person, even if we have very little biographical information about the person, and much more information about whatever makes them notable. There is no reason to use different rules for this BLP. --В²C ☎ 17:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that this venue is for examining the close itself. Some of the above discussion seems closer to be rehashing the RM itself. PaleAqua (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. The fundamental question here is whether the closer correctly found there to be "no consensus" in the original discussion. The reasons for why there was or was not policy-based reasons supporting or opposing the move is relevant, and that's ultimately what is being discussed. Some of that is going to look like a rehash of the RM itself, naturally. --В²C ☎ 20:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - while I believe that Tiggerjay should have left this to be closed by an administrator with experience closing controversial topics, I think that hypothetical closer would arrive at the same result. B2C and other supporters contend that past discussions determined that this article should be titled "Kim Davis" and that the only unsettled point is the disambiguator, however the previous discussions (AfD, AfD2, RM1, RM2, this clusterfuck) have very clearly only failed to settle anything, and so we're left with status quo. The page only has "Kim Davis" as a title now because that was its original title. There has been no consensus for any move at all, except for the one which moved it back to this title after it had been moved without discussion, and that again only because that was the original title and the discussion could not agree on a better one. When a discussion was attempted to determine an appropriate title for this article, one which would be supported by our policy on event articles masquerading as biographies, the same supporters used the "previous consensus" argument to disrupt the conversation and obstruct any title which was not "Kim Davis", and that rightly led to the aforementioned clusterfuck; this discussion was then immediately opened. The community cannot decide on a name for this article at this time, and the result of "no consensus" move requests is for the article to stay where it is. It is worth noting here that the editor requesting this review has a history of repeatedly making the same proposal and badgering any opposition until their opponents get worn down and they get their way, but that is not consensus, that's victory by attrition, and that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The biographies of living persons policy is not a game to be won. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle has requested (as they should) that I provide evidence for my allegations regarding their past discussions (as I should) per WP:NPA. For examples, please see User:Born2cycle#Persistence pays, where the user lists previous discussions where "persistence" paid off, meaning "those who stubbornly objected to these moves finally conceded, were outnumbered, or were overruled by a thoughtful closer who paid more attention to policy and strength of argument than !vote counts." At the moment this includes one instance of an article subject to a moratorium on move requests noting when the moratorium is to be lifted. My observation is not meant as a personal attack, I do think that persistence is a good thing, but persistence is different from simply trying to outlast your opponents, and it's not a good thing to interpret your opponents conceding or getting worn down as support for your position. That is relevant to this discussion because the editor has been asked to let this go by at least three editors ([4], [5], [6], [7]) and it appears that their strategy with this move request, like above-noted past move discussions, is to drag it through as many venues as possible until enough people get tired of it that it looks like support for their position. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the allegation of !vote counting, the actual final !vote count is 6 in favour, 5 opposed. So the accusation that Tiggerjay simply counted votes should be thrown out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy relist or have an admin re-close.  Not an outrageously bad close, but non-admins should not be closing contested discussions.  While some few non-admins have made very good closes, settling a contested matter with a clarity of close that gets respected, meaning that the "non-admins should not be closing contested discussions" mantra is not absolute, this close does not do the discussion justice. By  "speedy relist" I mean that the NAC closer should have self-reverted on the first reasonable objection.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all I'd like to thank Born2cycle as he has been a valuable volunteer for page moves, and makes good !votes. Also thanks to Ivanvector for stepping up in good faith while I have been noticeably offline since this whole event started to unfold. I was busy IRL, and didn't see this discussion taking place until moments ago. With regard to process for NAC, it is for clear cases of undisputed closures. Certainly by the reaction of Born2cycle one might think that this is disputed. However I would question, after the lengthy discussion on the move, and then subsequently a proposal for a move review, if there is only one person asserting that this was a contentious close, then perhaps it really isn't one after all. Rather it appears to be an original move nominator upset that his proposal didn't go through. It appears nobody else questions if this was a matter of "no consensus" other than the nom, and it appears to support some of the claims of Ivanvector specifically regarding User:Born2cycle#Persistence pays. Persistence doesn't necessarily make things right. We can question if/should an admin have closed this move request, but from a review above it appears that nobody would have supported this as a move with consensus. Many days had progressed without comment, and the discussion was taking no clear motion towards consensus. Perhaps the nom thought he making headway with his proposal, but it doesn't appear anyone else is viewing it this way. I take no offense to the move review, since he was accurately unable to reach me. Again, he does good work. But in my opinion this closure was correct. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was just me, I would not have opened this review. At the "Move review?" discussion (which I opened precisely to determine if it was just me) others wrote, "the closer may have counted votes, or simply gave inappropriate weight to essay-based arguments", and "bad close".  Just above, it was referred to as "contested". I'm not upset that MY proposal didn't go through. I'm upset that the title remains inexplicably disambiguated. It sets a bad precedent. Titles of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC articles should never be disambiguated. A title like this makes such titles seem acceptable, which leads to ambiguity in title decision-making. If a PRIMARYTOPIC article may or may not be disambiguated, how do we decide?  Flip a coin?  Ask about personal preferences and count !votes?  No.  We determine as best as we can if the topic in question is primary, and, if it is, we don't disambiguate.  Period. It is that simple. That was consensus. Those opposed did not even disagree; they opposed for reasons that had nothing to do with what was being proposed.  --В²C ☎ 03:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to move. The supporters cited primary topic, a guideline, while the opposition was based on essays and conjecture about future notoriety; lots of people disagreeing, no matter how spirited, doesn't mean there is no consenus. At a minimum, this should be relisted because a non-admin should not be closing such contentious requests (I myself am not an admin and also considered closing this but thought better of it).  Calidum T|C 03:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to move, or relist and let an experienced admin examine the !votes and discount those which were off-topic before counting, as should have been done. User:Born2cycle's concerns are quite legitimate\, and it's rather amazing that the very same type of illegitimate argument is repeated here. If editors cannot stay on topic, their comments and !votes should not be counted. There is a need to reexamine this improper close. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's Explanation of how I came about to a "no consensus" decision on this page after weighing significant evidence. Honestly, I did far opposite of counting votes (since they were nearly even anyways), but rather weighed the arguments presented and coupled them with policy -- and I reviewed all of the material on this RM, along with the two prior RM and AfDs. BOTH sides do have an established basis in POLICY, and disagreement over its application. Yes, this Kim Davis is the most popular today, and supported by all accounts in Google and GNews and even on WP views. This page and content has been supported through several RM and AfD, so consensus is that this page should be kept, contains appropriate and valuable information. However, that discussion was the sidetrack that was introduced into the RM discussion. The actual question for discussion is if the proposed name is the most appropriate name per policy. B2C brought up the basis of the rename using PRIMARYTOPIC, which is the standard, logical approach. Of the first two criteria it passes "with respect to usage" however it is debated in the RM "with respect to long-term significance" (brought up by Parsecboy) -- however, CRYSTAL doesn't automatically make this statement lean one way or the other - that is, we don't know if it passes the ten year standard for significance. Furthermore under PRIMARYTOPIC we see "if a topic has only ascended to widespread notability and prominence recently" (which is clearly the case here) the application of PRIMARYTOPIC to the discussion has "NEVER never won acceptace...as a good indicator of primary topic" (emphasis mine). The discussion about WP:PSEUDO is relevant to the extent that it impacts the appropriateness of the name change itself, and if another name would be better suited. While the various prior actions support that this article should exist, PESUDO or not, it does raise the valid concern that if this is in fact a PESUDO and BIO1E -- further supported by a review of the UNDUE weight of this article -- then convention would support a move to something similar to Steve Bartman incident as per WP:BIO1E. The arguments for PESUDO are based around this page not being a proper BIO, which it is not due to weight and 1E issues -- and if this article was a prior bio then the rename would be appropriate, but as it stands it is more about the event and controversy instead of the person. These appear more inline with the prior RM which was also found without consensus. I am, however not taking sides, but rather demonstrating exactly the kind of actual policy issues that have been presented and why this a rational argument for both sids of this issue.

This RM was posted 1 day after that very contentious RM from October 6. For these reasons, there is clear debate over application of policy, and there is no consensus. Both sides were talking about their issues, but there was no clear move of consensus, or one side convincing the other of their position. Rather two sides just speaking their own talking points on the issue. I don't feel this or past RMs have gotten us any closer to consensus and we're simply beating a dead horse. The best action taken so far has been to merge the event article into this one. But with regards to the rename of this article, let it rest a while (weeks) and lets have fresh eyes re-evaluate the naming. It isn't a terrible article title at the moment, but clearly a disagreement on what a "better" name would be. However, if someone else really believe that there was actual consensus, feel free to overturn. However, there was no simple vote counting, or glossing over this requested move. But rather a careful review of policy and the policies both sides presented (not their individual synthesis and OR). Tiggerjay (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Editorial Update 19 Nov: Just to be clear since some have not like the use of the duality use of "two sides", the use or perspective never entered my minor or consideration until reading the dialog of the RMMove Review. The nom specifically introduced the term opposition and I have maintained the two sided laungage to be consistent with all of the preceeding dialoug. However, to be clear, the process taken to evaluate this closure was based on reviewing all the editors comments, and related policies, guides, precedents--and prior RM & AfD, without regards to sides, but rather to establish if there was valid discussions and points to determine consensus. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Just for clarification, Tiggerjay, there was never any "action taken so far has been to merge the event article into this one." The event content has always been in this article. It's always been an event article, right from the beginning. The little bit of biographical content was dredged up from various sources after her notability for the event was established. You might be thinking of the "Kentucky...." article, but that was an improper copy-paste from this one. A tiny bit of unique content was later added to that one (mention of the other two clerks, who have never denied a same-sex marriage license because no one has applied). That unique content was merged into this one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your usage of "both sides" as referring to the sides in the larger debate rather than the sides in the discussion you were supposed to evaluate indicates you should have recused yourself for not being objective. The vast majority of biography articles on Wikipedia are about 1E people far less notable than this Kim Davis, including the other Kim Davis's covered on WP. Singling her out as a person even possibly not "deserving" a biography article is plain silly. Your bias is rather obvious. --В²C ☎ 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• your reading into the "two sides" bit too much. There was no bias going into this and I have not participated prior to this close. I believe it is clear to anyone who reads this individual RM that there was two viewpoint, two sides. Looking back to prior RMs, which is equally prudent, especially considering this comes on the heals of the prior close, further supports there are two sides. Provide CLEAR evidence for bias that I am somehow involved or had bias prior closure. Stop sidestepping and continue to argue the RM. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. TiggerJay's explanation should clear up the misconceptions indicated when this review was opened. Omnedon (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ivanvector and Tiggerjay that, although this would definitely be an improvement to the current name, it still not resolve the fact that the new name, even though better, would not adequately cover the actual topic matter, and our titles MUST do that. We will have to revisit attempts to rename it to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy as a much better title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus to move to a title like Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, for good reason.  This Kim Davis is far more notable than the other Kim Davis's with biography articles on WP, and it would be absurd to have biography articles about them (and countless other borderline-notable persons), but not one about her. On the other hand, there is good reason to move this article from its current disambiguated title to the undisambiguated one, per PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 17:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We had a well-discussed RfC on that: Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/Archive 4#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?). It concluded that there is support for having one article about this event. Kim Davis (county clerk) is that event article. Davis isn't notable for anything else other than her role in the event. This isn't a biography of Kim Davis which happens to mention the event, this is an article about the marriage license controversy which includes some biographical information on a key player in it. At the moment this article is 66kB about the controversy and Davis' role in it or information that came to light directly as a result of her role in it, and another 6.7kB of padding about her entirely non-notable career prior to the incident (not counting infobox, reflists, categories, etc). That's 91% controversy, it should be titled accordingly. You are entirely correct that there was no consensus to move to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy: when we tried to discuss what the proper article title for the event should be, this happened. We need to have another discussion similar to that one, but less shouty, better organized, and probably not right away (because people are rightly getting tired of this). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Born2cycle - you are out of line regarding what WP:MR is all about: "Move Review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process." Please stay on topic. Please do not waste time and efforts on rehashing the RM's merrits. Rather this discussion is regarding "an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process." My introduction of the detailed evaluation was to explain WHY I closed the RM as I did, which is the purpose of this forum -- what was the reasons why it was closed, and were those reasons found to be consistent with policy and good faith. You're arguing the move, instead of focusing on the close. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. But understanding the context is key to all this. Really, it's about the following scenario: Current title is A, proposed title is B. When some support the move to B for good policy reasons, no one disputes this, but some oppose on the grounds that neither title is adequate because they believe a totally different title is justified (a position for which lack of consensus has been established), is there policy-based consensus among the participants to move from A to B?  --В²C ☎ 21:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you demonstrate that "no one disputes the move to B"???  Furthermore it is your bias that says that the claims for name C are irrelevant. My review shows valid reasons for both B and C. And without any progress being made towards either, then it is no consensus. How do you see that differently? Are you simply choosing to let your views of policy application create a supervise against policy based opposition? Tiggerjay (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• В²C is correct about that one, Tiggerjay. If you had discounted the off-topic !votes, there was consensus for a move/title change to Kim Davis. The merits of a much better title which actually describes the content is another matter, and should not have been allowed in this RM discussion. Closers are supposed to discount off-topic !votes and not inject their own opinions in the close, or inject the opinions of the discounted !votes in the close. The discussion of a much better title would still have come later, but at least the "primary" Kim Davis question would have been settled. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That again is a misreading of the discussion. As В²C rightly pointed out, the proposal was to move from title A to title B. Nobody anywhere in the discussion proposed any title other than A or B, the only arguments were "this article's title should be B" or "this article's title should not be B". The discussion was entirely on-topic, much more so than the previous discussions in fact. Saying that you disagree with the rationale behind opposing the move is fine, but it's very far off from saying that nobody opposed it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ivanvector, it's not a misreading of the Requested Move at all. I described EXACTLY what happened, and you must have forgotten your own !vote! You didn't vote for either option. You opposition was based on favoring a third option, IOW it was off-topic.
• The six support !votes (including the nominator) ALL supported a change from the current title to Kim Davis.
• The five oppose !votes were of two types: three opposed either option because they wanted a third option which actually described the controversy. Yours was of that type; the two remaining opposed on RECENTISM grounds.
• None of those five oppose votes considered PRIMARYTOPIC, so all of them should have been discounted as they were off-topic. Tiggerjay should have closed the RM as a Snow support for move to Kim Davis. None of the oppose !votes were on-topic. Later we would have to do what we'll have to do anyway, and that is to deal with the legitimate PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY argument; the article should still be named after the controversy, but since she is the only one involved, her name would still be in the title. It's HER controversy. It would be a biography/event article, since she is not notable apart from the controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• The reason we should still move to Kim Davis is that if those who press for the rejected idea of two articles should prevail, Kim Davis would be the stand-alone biography (a teeny weeny, microscopic, biography article, which should not survive an AfD), and the WP:SPINOFF sub-article would be entitled something like Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, with pretty much the same content as now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You and I are very close to being in agreement on this, except that there's no basis for discounting opposition because it doesn't fit in the nice little box defined by the proposal. I supported the PRIMARYTOPIC argument but opposed this proposal nonetheless, because when we discuss what an article's title should be, there are other guidelines which must be considered. That the proposal didn't consider them is not reason for the discussion not to. If the point was to hold a yes-or-no RfC limited to determining whether or not Kim Davis is a primary topic then we should have done that. This was a move proposal, and any comment on the proposal that is backed up by guidelines must be considered valid. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Perhaps the closer should have deferred to an administrator, but in the end, I believe he acted properly and in good faith. That being said, I will not object if an administrator opens it for a formal administrator close, but I don't think that is necessary. Safiel (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (and probably relist) per B²C, -SmokeyJoe, and Calidum. The scope of the discussion was very narrow (a removal of the disambuguation "county clerk"), but ultimately it became a mulish rehash of the essay-based efforts to delete the biography altogether. While Tiggerjay's close as no consensus is by no means outrageous, a trout is deserved for not responding to the challenge posted on his talk page.- MrX 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (reclose, still no consensus) The MR is clearly contentious ( see all the previous discussions and ANIs etc. ) and does not appear to have a consensus either. While non-admins closing such discussions is strongly discouraged by the RMCI it is not outright forbidden and if that were the only issue I'd probably endorse. However for closes in such cases I'd rather see a much more detailed close then the one given for this one which is why this isn't an endorse. The "Explanation" given by the closer above is kind of what I would would have liked to see though perhaps with a bit less about sides etc. I really would have preferred seeing asking the participants to take a step back. While I haven't been involved in the discussion and am not 100% up on all the various RfCs etc it seems to me that several of the RMs votes come from differing options on the focus and point of the article. I'd suggest instead of another AfD, RM, MR, etc. that the editors involved in the articles try to see if they came come to some common ground on what of the topic should be covered and how and then once that is done then RMs, AfDs, etc. can be considered. PaleAqua (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The majority of opposes wanted an article on the controversy to be the primary topic, and not a biography, which is a completely separate argument. If the current article was at Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy instead, three of the opposers would be happy with "Kim Davis" redirecting to it, so there is clear consensus for a primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would fit the titles policy for Kim Davis to be a redirect to this article about the controversy, when it is properly re-titled according to those same policies. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that such a re-titling would be in accordance with those polices. There is consensus that the topic of this article is the primary topic for Kim Davis. This is what the closer (and you) overlooked and why the decision should be reversed. --В²C ☎ 23:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but not quite. Although the specific question has not been asked, there is a broad consensus from previous discussions that the content of this article makes it an article about an event, not a biography. That bears out in the many discussions where you were the only editor (or loudest of a small minority) advocating for it to be considered a biography, but this article just isn't and never could be, because Davis is only notable for the controversy. It also bears out in the content of the article: less than 10% of the article documents Davis' life before the event, and that's fine because she didn't do anything notable at all before what's documented in the article happened. Titling this article Kim Davis (with any disambiguator, or none) describes an article with a balanced biography of Kim Davis' entire life, and that's wrong because the controversy is not her entire life, even though she hasn't done anything at all of note outside of it. She might do other notable things in the future, most likely she will actually, but it's not for us to predict that. So we can move this article to Kim Davis now, because yes this event is the primary topic for that title, but this article will still be improperly titled. Do you want to allow the inevitable discussion about the proper title to happen? Or are you intent on continuing to bludgeon the false argument that this is a biography? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was prepared to close this RM as I had been following it for a while, but TiggerJay came along.  I won’t share what my decision would have been as that is not what this MR is about.  It is however a good case study in why non-admins should stay away from closing controversial RMs.  No matter what their decision is, 50% of the contributors will be unhappy and likely challenge the close.  MRs provide an opportunity to blow off a lot of steam and usually degrade into a rehash of the RM. Inexperienced closers are more likely to get trapped in such controversies.  This RM is also a good case study demonstrating the minefield we’ve created with conflicting and inconsistent title policy, guidelines, MOS and disambiguation and such.  Although the requestor made the nom based on Primary Topic (wrongly stated as policy but it is an editing guideline, not policy) others opposed the move based on other Wikipedia guidance and practice.  Those arguing that those opposes should be discounted because they were not about Primary Topic fail to understand the overall intent of RM process and RMCI.  Editors are free to support or oppose any RM request for any reason they see fit.  Obviously reasons in some RMs are facetious and ill-considered (I have an essay on that) and can be discounted, but I didn't see that here. But there’s absolutely no requirement that I can find that says Supports or Opposes must explicitly comment on the requestor’s rationale and not enter new or different rationale for their position.  Until such guidance to that effect is in place, Tiggerjay’s close was not egregious, but I trust a lesson has been learned. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for sometimes using "policy" when I mean "policy and guidelines", but the point is policies and guidelines like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC reflect WP:CONSENSUS, and the fact that article is the primary topic for "Kim Davis" by an overwhelming margin is unquestioned. Thanks for recognizing the minefield of contradictory guidance, something I constantly work to correct, but I don't think it's as bad as you seem to characterize it.  Of course editors are free to support or oppose for any reason, but support and opposition is supposed to be weighed according to how much these reasons are based in policy and guidelines. The opposition in this original RM was not based on any policy or guideline.  Their argument essentially amounted to "regardless of the fact that the proposed title meets policy and guidelines better than the current title, which we don't deny, we believe both violate WP:PSEUDO (an essay) and so think another third title is even better so we oppose because of the title that we prefer (and never mind that there is no consensus to move that title)".  That is the essence of the argument presented in opposition, it has no basis in policy or guidelines, and therefore should have been weighed (very lightly) accordingly.  That's what the closer missed, and apparently so did Mike Cline.  --В²C ☎ 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)  edits for clarity --В²C ☎ 19:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not quite there. The opposition is based on the biographies of living persons policy and the notability guideline on people; WP:PSEUDO is a convenient expression of those policies and guidelines. Mike, I'm sure you were just speaking generally and didn't mean to say that any of the policy-based discussion in this debate has been facetious, and I hope that's not what's being understood here. Also, there's the "no consensus" argument again. "No consensus" is 100% correct but you are misinterpreting. "No consensus" means no decision to do anything. It doesn't mean a different title was rejected - the question was not answered. The discussion was closed because it was a mess, and rightly so, but it did not determine anything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much generalizing, as I stated in my opening sentence, I am not commenting on the specific merits of the RM discussion (ie re-hashing the RM) in this MR but was instead making a generalized observation on Tiggerjay's close.  I edited my comment to clarify the "facetious" remark. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A well stated comment, thank you. It makes me wonder, should we rework/reword RMCI to clearly define RMNAC to be reserved specifically for move or not moved and therefore restrict no-consensus purely to admins? Tiggerjay (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current guidance against NAC contentious close pretty much covers the issue.. No-consensus and contentious are really tangential concepts. Not all no-concensus results are that contentious, and we already have a problem where not-moved and no-consensus are confused for one another and such advice would push closes away from no-consensus that really should be. It also has to do with the experience of the closer in regards to being able to judge a close and explain it clearly. Being an admin is a good proxy for evaluating that skill/experience but there are non-admins that I would be more comfortable with making such closes. As I noted in my !vote above, my biggest concern with your close was not that it was a NAC but how the result was presented. PaleAqua (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point well stated. Also while I never replied directly to your !vote above earlier, I would say when evaluating this closure, I wasn't discussing or even thinking of sides, but by the time I became aware of this MR, it was already pretty well established there was 'sides' to this issue. Point well taking that a more thorough explanation as to what was evaluated in the middle of a contentious closure would have been preferred. And at that time, the use of 'sides' probably wouldn't have entered the dialogue. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't thinking of sides, then that's why you probably overlooked that the opposing side was not disagreeing with the key basis for the proposal: the proposed title Kim Davis met policy/guidelines better than the current title, Kim Davis (county clerk). They just feel so strongly about the alternative title that any change not to their preferred title is of no interest to them. But taking into account the result of the previous RM where there clearly was no consensus for an alternative title as they promote, the question of consensus favoring the proposed title should have been easy.  It was something like 6 in support, 0 opposed, and 5 no opinion on the specific KD vs KD (cc) question.  That's consensus by any measure. --В²C ☎ 21:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom's Summary. Thank you everyone for participating.  As the nom, I wish to summarize.  Hopefully it will help. There are two separate questions about the title of this article.
  1. Is Kim Davis the county clerk sufficiently notable to have a BLP titled by her name (be it disambiguated or not)?
  2. If there is an article with her name as the title, should that title be disambiguated or not?

  A recent RM proposal addressed the first of these two questions and resulted in a "no consensus" finding. The subsequent RM proposal and discussion that this MR is reviewing addressed only the second of these two questions.   The opposition to this second RM proposal was almost exclusively concerned with the first of these two questions. Where the second question was addressed, the consensus was practically unanimous that the title should not be disambiguated per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  The first question remains unresolved and is likely to remain so for at least the typical minimum six months that normally passes before an RM is reconsidered. In the mean time, there is consensus that Kim Davis meets policy/guidelines better than the current title. The first question will remain unresolved indefinitely and perhaps forever. In the mean time, that unresolved issue should not keep this article from being moved to a title which meets policy/guidelines better than the current title, per consensus. The closer of the RM overlooked this consensus and its significance in the context of the first question above being unresolved, and therefore missed the consensus supporting the move.  That is why the closer's "no consensus" result should be reversed. --В²C ☎ 21:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you support the motion to have an admin close this discussion, why are you still discussing it? No need to reply, it is just rhetorical. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a tree falls in the forest, and anybody hears, are they the primary topic? ;) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: Should Kim Davis be Time's person of the year? Time magazine has a poll where you can vote for  Time's person of the year.  There are 59 nominees.  Kim Davis is one of them. Of course she won't win, but the fact that she is sufficiently notable to be one of only 59 candidates out of the 7 billion people in the world to be considered for Time's Person of the Year, but still not sufficiently notable to have a biography on Wikipedia, is simply absurd. And yet that absurdity, my friends, is the basis for the "opposition" to the RM to which the closer mistakenly gave significant weight.   --В²C ☎ 16:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this shows that the conditions under which the original move request was made a month ago have changed, making this whole discussion invalid. Anyway, for anyone else who's interested, there is a discussion on what to do with this new info at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk) (which will possibly have been renamed as a result of this discussion). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, she is still only notable in this one narrow sense. Nominations for Time magazine prove nothing. Anyone can vote for anyone. The fact is that during the move discussion, no consensus developed, and therefore the article was not moved. TiggerJay's close was appropriate. Omnedon (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Original Move Closer - Closing Summary - based on the accidental close by Alsee, it has brought up that my position on the MR might not be clear because of how lengthy and convoluted this discussion has become. I don't want this to spur a new discussion, but rather just to make it clear that my position is generally unchanged. I believe the original close should be maintained as a proper closure. However, I do believe that a more clear close rationale should have been provided to avoid the speculation which has occurred on this page. Notwithstanding, I still believe endorse close is still the appropriate action. I trust that whoever decides to close this discussion will weigh only the elements which discuss the policy, procedures and precedents as it applies to the "appropriateness of the close", versus the merits of the original move arguments which continue to be brought up here and the other discussions regarding redefining terms such as consensus. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you think following what WP:CONSENSUS says when determining "consensus" in a WP discussion is "redefining consensus" speaks volumes. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears you are reading into my statement something that simply doesn't exist. I have read it a couple of times over the last 2 hours and still cannot make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. My comment above as part of "Closing Summary" is simply to state that I trust whoever closes this MR will do so based on the policy, procedures and precedents that apply to "the appropriateness of the close" -- and NOT on the merits of the other discussions such the one regarding defining or redefining consensus. Perhaps you are confused, as I have NOT gotten involved in the discussion above regarding what is and is not WP:CONSENSUS, I believe it speaks for itself. As such, I'm not sure what "volumes" you believe it speaks of me. Outside of my initial explanation of the close, I have used the word 'consensus' 3 times, and never in the context of suggesting what it does or does not mean - I believe the majority of people here agree it means WP:CONSENSUS - however you have argued the meaning multiple times with multiple editors - I was not one of those... So whatever you are implying I believe, you're probably wrong in that assumption. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have written nothing anywhere that I've read that suggests you recognize and respect that consensus (meaning WP:CONSENSUS) in WP discussions is determined by evaluating the merit of arguments in terms of how strongly they are based in policy and guidelines. Your close did not indicate that you do, nor do any of your comments here. You simply reassert that there was no consensus, without explaining how you determined that. Perhaps I jumped to a conclusion, but it really wasn't much of a leap at all. --В²C ☎ 22:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. There clearly was not consensus, and the "strong" rationales of the proponents of the move did in fact turn out to be WP:RECENTISM, as interest in, searches for, and page views here to read about this person have slumped dramatically just in the time this dispute has been on. WP:NOT#NEWS is policy for a reason. Just because there's some flash-in-the-pan "holy crap! this is hot stuff!" reaction in the general public does not magically make something the encyclopedic WP:PRIMARY topic. This is basic logic, really. If just being trendy right now were a criterion, then every single top-10 pop song with a name that coincided with something else would automatically become the primary topic for a couple of weeks. As a [Gedankenexperiment] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), it's not actually implausible to rework the PRIMARYTOPIC and RM systems to support such a regime, and it wouldn't actually be irrational (it would in fact get more people more quickly to the article they're looking for), but it would be an insane pain in the rear to administer and clean up after. The fact of the matter is we certainly do not have any such "PRIMARYTOPIC of the day" system at a present, so it was basically not possible for this to close with a result to remove the parenthetical disambiguation on such a basis. If this did not conclude with no consensus it would have to conclude with consensus against, or it would be a silly mistake, and everyone supporting it would look foolish for a month or two later.

  PS: The WP:PSEUDO argument, inasmuch as it's being advanced against the RM decision, is clearly untenable. The article and the news/story/facts behind it are obviously about this person, not about "clerks who deny gay-marriage licenses" in general, though that article could be written and much of this article could be merged into it. It's an important fact that various other clerks could have been notable for this, too, but were not, and garnered almost no public notice. So Davis being an article-worthy topic isn't really an open issue. The open one (regardless of this RM/MR) is whether broader topical material is being coatracked into this article as a WP:PSEUDO matter and should be elsewhere; but that won't have any effect on the title of this article.

  PS: The "was a Time Person of the Year nominee" thing has jack to do with anything other than establishing notability. Being notable simply means you get an article, it doesn't magically make your article a primary topic.

  PPPS: I entirely concur with Ivanvector's summary of the history of the debate about this pair of interwoven topic areas here (just text-search this page for "clusterfuck" and you'll find it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC); clarified 00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)<[reply]

  • SMcCandlish, primary topic determination and the related title selection is all about usage relative to the other uses of that name. There is no question that recentism is a factor here, but this person has received far more coverage in reliable sources than all of the other uses ever have, or ever will. There may be some other Kim Davis in the future that changes that, but until that happens, relative to the other ones, this one is the primary topic. If there were no other uses of "Kim Davis" then this article would be at Kim Davis. Given the relative obscurity of the other uses to this one, that should still be the case. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed this. The very fact that pageviews for this person have fallen to hardly anything as soon as the media attention died down clearly indicates it was a recentism issue. We don't rename articles based on what is popular this week. I'm unaware of any news archive search system that would allow anyone to test your hypothesis that this particular Kim Davis has in total garnered more coverage in reliable sources than any other Kim Davis. All that's available is results showing that in very recent coverage (mid-June 2015 ff.) this Kim Davis is in the news more. I.e., the only evidence against this being a case of recentism is ... actual evidence of this being a case of recentism?

Google hits aren't really indicative of much anyway, other than what people are tweeting and redditing about (i.e. ... recentism). Real-world results are far more important. One of the other Kim Davises was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, a major honor in a major sport. The Kim Davis at issue here doesn't appear to have been accorded any comparable honor. "Fired up some debate in the US for a year" isn't much of a notability claim. It's sufficient for an article here, since the debate is sourceable and her connection to helping generate it is, too, but that doesn't mean "primary topic". There's also an Americanism issue at work here. Many Americans do not realize that the rest of the world does not concern itself with the religious fist-shaking of random U.S. individuals, even if their antics inspire or piss off various of their American neighbors. If this Kim Davis had been in a different English-speaking country, e.g. New Zealand, and did exactly the same thing there, with the same result in the NZ press, but a similar lack of interest on the part of the rest of the world, we would not be having this "is this particular Kim Davis the primary topic for that name?" discussion. Everyone would recognize it as parochial promotion of NZ interests.

Finally, from an encyclopedic point of view, we're doing readers an anti-WP:COMMONSENSE disservice here. This is not at all the first time a public official in the US has defied the Supreme Court and commingled their personal beliefs with their official role (e.g. refused to allow black students into schools, refused to take down Ten Commandments plaques from public buildings, etc.) This one case is part of a long continuum of such actions and debate about them. We need an article about that, with most of the content in it, and only short bios of the specific individuals involved, like this Kim Davis. Our own article on her is starting to read like something out of People magazine. It's not encyclopedically important at all whether this Davis somehow got into various events like Papal visits or the State of the Union address, any more than our article on Nicholas Cage is going to cover whether he gets special seats upon request at a particular restaurant, or whether John Perry Barlow has ever been on Air Force One (hint: he has). Articles like this need to be concise, and focused on individuals as they relate to what they're encyclopedically notable for, not trivia about them. And not as coatracks in WP:PSEUDO form to tie encyclopedically historical information to specific people because someone wants to focus on the person instead of the events.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you've made my point, sir. In this long piece you've hardly even recognized the existence of the other uses, much less addressed the relative likelihood of this Kim Davis being searched to them, which is what determining primary topic requires. This Kim Davis' sudden surge in popularity relative to her own popularity, and subsequent decline, and the reasons for it, are all irrelevant. What's important is, well, I won't repeat myself. --В²C ☎ 22:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Ali Elahi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

This move request was closed prematurely as "Not Moved" without comment. There were two votes in opposition to the move, and one neutral vote. The votes in opposition were remarkable in that they did not base their opposition on any policy in Wikipedia:Article titles. I really don't think there was a genuine consensus to not move the article, since the consensus formed by the greater community in WP:TITLE was essentially ignored. I'm hoping the move request can be relisted so that additional editors have a chance to weigh in. Naolae (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move review noted. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish that closers would give more explanation, especially where there is any contention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – My comments in the discussion stand, and I believe the rationale for the closure is pretty evident from the discussion record. No support was expressed for the move by anyone other than the SPA nominator, who seemed to be trying bulldoze the community into accepting a non-neutral title using an honorific. The title suggestion would give the article a title roughly equivalent to "Respected master Elahi" in English. The "Ostad" prefix is not used in any biography article titles on Wikipedia (despite being commonly applied to many well known people) and I see no reason to change that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation that I've tried to "bulldoze" anything is quite ironic. I'm not sure how you and another user constitute "the community," when your arguments are based on your own personal views, and aren't supported by existing policy. Ostad simply means "master" or "maestro," not "respected master." As stated on the article page, the title was given to him because of his mastery on the tanbur, a fact that is not in contention. If the community consensus on neutrality in article titles, which supports the suggested move, isn't what you'd like it to be, the appropriate place to raise that is on the policy's talk page, rather than trying to enforce your personal preferences on this particular article's title. What objection do you have to allowing the discussion to be relisted so that more editors can evaluate the proposal based on policy? Naolae (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close for a few reasons:
  • I can see little or no evidence that the subject was known by the honorific Ostad during his own lifetime, and the evidence submitted for it currently being the strongly preferred usage is weak and difficult to verify, as noted by Amatulić on the talk page;
  • little of consequence has changed in its usage or in new WP policy since the last consensus to oppose, even though it was last argued over (at length) some years ago;
  • since Ostad Elahi redirects to the current article title, a move won't make the name any easier to find: the current article is already the third link returned by both Google and Bing searches for "Ostad Elahi";
  • the only other reason I can think of for a move is to correct an error in the naming, and there's no obvious breach of policy or guidelines, just a bit of a gray area, as noted on the talk page.

Regarding the suggestion of premature closure, the discussion was left open for two weeks, so further argument in favour of a move wasn't shut down abruptly. I was about to vote to oppose for the reasons above, after following the discussion for a week or two, but found the discussion had been closed and then marked for move review here. Three to one opposed plus one neutral isn't a large statistical base, but there was no consensus in favour of a move. Norvoid (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It wouldn't hurt to let the discussion continue, although when I tried to examine the offered evidence more closely, I did not find a strong case for renaming. As it was, there was no consensus to change the status quo. Allowing a consensus to emerge, even if it takes much longer than 2 weeks, does not harm anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ( effectively an endorse ). The outcome of the discussion seems reasonable but I echo SmokeyJoe's concern above that the closes where there is differing opinions should have move then just the outcome given in the result. To the RM at hand the result is quite reasonable. While MOS is a guideline and WP:TITLE is a policy it's not as simple as policies always overriding guidelines. In particular there is some leeway in when common name balanced against other considerations such as neutrality and specific subject matter guidelines. Note that references to the naming conventions for people on the TITLE page explicitly pulls in this considerations. So I don't see how the closer ran around of any "consensus formed by the greater community" issues. PaleAqua (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given that the subject is referred to on his CDs, on websites and writings about him, and in the recent MET exhibition as "Ostad Elahi," I thought it was perfectly reasonable to make this move request since WP:Title makes allowances for using an honorific in article titles if that was how the person is most commonly referred to in the English language. Since neither "oppose" vote addressed the issue of common use, instead focusing on non-policy related reasons, the close with "not moved" improperly conveys that there was a consensus not to move. Note that a consensus is not simply a tallying of votes, and must take into consideration the reasoning of the votes and the consensus already reached by the community, which the closer failed to do. If nobody is willing to let the discussion on common usage happen by reversing the close, at least close it with "no consensus" to reflect the actual outcome. Naolae (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because consenus was against moving. I would suggest the initiator of both the RM and this MR drop the stick. Calidum T|C 19:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn close - Reopen and relist RM. Are we all looking at the same discussion? What I see is an exemplary policy and data based nom, juxtaposed with a blatant ignoring of policy in the two opposition comments to this move. The closer's disappointing lack of a policy-based summary explanation defending the Not moved close is telling, and justifies an overturn in and of itself. --В²C ☎ 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close The closer evaluated the evidence provided in the article itself. There was no support for this move by anyone except for the nominator. At best it would have been closed no-consensus, but that would have even required a supervote from the closing admin, as that would be effectively endorsing that there was support for this move, of which there was none. And even at that, the net effect would have been the same. WP is guided by BOTH policy and consensus. While there appears to be merits for this move, it is not supported by others and it is not the closers job to jump in an simply boldly move regardless of the discussion which had no support for the move. If there is enough interest, a new RM might be appropriate. However suggesting we overturn is rehashing the move discussion, instead of actually discussing the merits of the close. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - while the nominator made a sound case for the move, several commenters made equally sound cases opposing it and/or favouring the current title. Plenty of time was given for other opinions to be offered, but none were. It's difficult to see how the discussion could have been interpreted differently. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]