Scotty Bowers – Procedural close. Requested move is still open and was relisted less than a week ago. For the 26 October 2015 RM, that's normally not the way relisting is done. Procedurally closing a duplicate RM when an identical one is one is fine, even though there might be an WP:INVOLVED issue with that close per WP:IAR (non-admin closure)— PaleAqua (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The discussion was sidetracked by an additional Rfc; and seven days had passed: in an attempt to bring in more contributors, I opened up a new move request, but this was shut down by a contributor - whom I have zero intention of engaging with/feeding further, for reasons outlined on the page. Engleham (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Foreign Affairs – Procedural close. Given the new RM (since closed) and the withdrawal by the initiator this move review is procedurally closed. (non-admin closure) PaleAqua (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Original close:
Withdrawn. Given the new data at the talk page, I'm going to launch a new RM. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Arguments can be judged using the hierarchy from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.There were three opponents to the requested move, which began immediately after a previous RM with a different suggested target and rationale. The first opposer provided a counter-argument, but this was refuted by a comment from an IP. The second and third opposers did not address the arguments in the new requested move, instead employing a mixture of straw men (referring to the previous RM which had a different target and a different rationale) and ad hominem arguments (referring to the process or the nominator without referring to the argument). In contrast, the nominating statement refutes the central point of the opponent's argument in the previous RM (by proving that the view stats used to demonstrate primary usage were false). Consequently, the argument for the move is the stronger. DrKiernan (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As closer, initiation of MR noted and commented on my talk page. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It should be obvious given the two failed requested moves there is no consensus to move from the current title. The same arguments were presented in both RMs and the disambiguaters (magazine in the first, journal in the second) aren't substantially different so Mike Cline was correct to factor the result of the first while closing the second and the six-month moratorium suggested is appropriate (or should we have subsequent requests to try and move it to "periodical," "publication," and so on until one sticks). There were valid reasons to oppose both requests, regardless of how DrK feels. Calidum 16:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given DrKiernan has now twice accused me of using an ad hominem argument, it'd be good if they could point out where exactly I've attacked their character (or anyone else's). Otherwise they might wish to familiarise themselves with either our article or our essay on the subject. IgnorantArmies(talk) 12:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An ad hominem argument is not the same as a personal attack. Personal attacks are in the bottom tier of the pyramid. The second-to-bottom tier refers to arguments that do not address the substance of the issue but instead challenge the process used to raise the issue or the person raising it, as here. DrKiernan (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you are now in the third-tier, "responding to tone". DrKiernan (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is process-driven; if you're going to attempt to subvert the RM process, then other users are going to pick you up on that. Those aren't ad hominem attacks, and your pyramid doesn't say that they are. Wikipedia is also policy- and precedent-driven – I don't see anything at WP:Article titles about moving pages for statistical experiments, and I've never seen a similar experiment performed anywhere else here. At its heart, your move rationale is circular – "we should move this page because moving this page would prove that moving this page is correct". IgnorantArmies(talk) 14:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or not moving it. The experiment works in favor of the status quo if it is the primary usage, but this is not the place to rehash the RM, only the closing rationale. DrKiernan (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, much as per my !vote in the discussion. The RM procedure, involving a group discussion that is impartially closed, should be respected. An immediate post-close repeat gives the previous close no respect. This case is an example of a particularly unimportant change. There is no rush. What is missing is clear documentation of good practice of repeat RMs. My suggestion is some combination of: (1) 2 months after a "no consensus" close; (2) six months after a close finding a rough consensus; (3) Whatever moratorium was stated in the previous close; (4) A multiply-authored or seconded new nomination that summarizes all previous RM discussions and states something (information or argument) new. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and IgnorantArmies opposed the first requested move before it became apparent that the page view stats used in the opposing argument were false[1], and neither of you made any further statement in that particular discussion after the mistake had been made clear. The second move discussion was not opened out of "no respect" or to "subvert the RM process". It was opened because there was new information and it appeared that many commenters in the previous RM had missed it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It's perfectly legitimate to oppose an RM on the grounds that a previous RM ended too recently. In this case, the previous RM was closed 15:50, 1 October 2015, and the new RM was started 08:06, 2 October 2015. That's an interval of just a little over sixteen hours (!) between RMs. Consensus can change, but that fast? The reason given in the RM-after-the-RM was also not a new angle but a reiteration of the argument that the nominator of the second RM provided during the previous RM discussion, which was not persuasive enough during that first discussion to sway consensus to the support side then. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Bucket toilet – Procedural close. As this hasn't had a formal requested move discussion, move review isn't the right venue for hashing it out. As noted there was nothing wrong with the move, but as it was so recent and has been challenged I'll restore the previous title as the de facto status quo. The next step will be an WP:RM. If the participants need assistance with that, let me know. Cúchullaint/c 15:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This move was done prematurely based on faulty evidence. The informal discussion ran for only 5 days and collected opinions from only two editors before one of them pinged a friendly admin to do the move. The only evidence offered was a faulty comparison of Google searches for the words, not the exact phrases. Google web searches and n-gram analysis for the exact phrases indicate that the term "honey bucket" is roughly 6x as common in English sources. I am requesting that this move be undone and resubmitted to a formal WP:RM so that it can properly advertised to a larger community and in hopes that a clearer consensus may be determined. Msnicki (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it wasn't a formal RM and thus no formal RM close there is not really much we can do at this venue. There is nothing wrong with informal moves wether done boldly or as result of a small discussion; but given that the move is contested, the next step would be to reverse the move and for those that want the page to move to open a formal RM. PaleAqua (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The justification was more than a google web search. It also had to do with one being a euphemism. Please simple join the talk page discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
