Deep web – Close endorsed. It's been over 2 months, and there's a strong consensus that the close itself was appropriate, and that's what MRs are designed to look at. However, all other participants noted that the nominator presents new points and evidence that weren't covered in the previous RM, and as such another RM may be warranted. Cúchullaint/c 18:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I believe I was unfamiliar with the necessary burdens of proofs required to perform this type of move. Despite me contesting it, according to @Tbhotch: who I trust knows what they're doing, disambiguation pages appear not to be preferred to a primary topic where there is a candidate for a primary topic. As a result, I didn't fully make the necessary case.
My argument is a complex one, it's an issue I've been following for a while now, and I accept that whilst it's possible my point of view doesn't not fall within the letter of the disambiguation page policy, it is useful one.
The term 'deep web' is highly contentious in it's use. It is a skunked term, best avoided for clarity of communication. Think of the contemporary use of the word 'literally'. I've traced the source of this conflation to a 2009 Guardian article. Since then we have search companies[1] sociologists,[2] and journalists[3] disambiguating these terms, not to mention myself[4], though I accept the latter may be inadmissible.
We also have the synonym confusion that wasn't resolved. Deep web is also a synonym for dark web, but dark web is not a synonym for deep web.
Whilst not admissible as mostly written by myself, the entry for Deep Web on RationalWiki is fuelled by this ongoing point of confusion as the two points are conflated. This confusion and associated urban legends is one of my major areas of study.
I am very keen to stem this confusion and would appreciate a discussion about these issues. Simply having the move closed because of the Wikipedia policy preference for a primary topic over a disambiguation page does not aid understanding of the topic, in fact continues to confuse it. Deku-shrub (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. @Deku-shrub: I sense from your nomination that you're not really disputing the close of this move request, but rather you wish to present more evidence and continue arguing the case. I appreciate that you were unfamiliar with the details of move requests, and therefore were not aware of the requirement to back up positions in support or opposition with firm evidence and policy based argument, but unfortunately this page isn't really the forum to challenge that. Move review is specifically to examine whether the close was correct, given the discussion that had already taken place in the debate. And given that there were four supports (including the nominator) to two opposes, with more explanation offered as to why it is primary than as to why it isn't, I think the closer had no choice to close this discussion (after a month of listing) as moved. If you really have some new evidence to offer, I suggest waiting a few months for the dust to settle on this one, then try opening a new RM presenting the new information. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Reply appreciated. However if policy says that primary topics are preferred over disambiguation pages, then no matter how ambiguous the term I will lose. Do I have to challenge the very core of this policy using this as a test case? It seems a lot of effort... Deku-shrub (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Deku-shrub: no, there is certainly no policy to "prefer" primary topics. Have a read of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It depends entirely on the particular term in question as to whether it has a primary topic or not. For example, Subway is a disambiguation page, because none of the three usages (rapid transit, underpasses, and restaurant chain) is thought to be primary compared with the others. On the other hand, Apple is a primary topic, while Apple (disambiguation) is the associated disambiguation page, because in that instance the community has decided there is a primary topic. In the case of this particular move request, the majority of those in the conversation felt that there *is* a primary topic for deep web, and that the search indexing term is it. I personally have no opinion on whether that's correct or not, but on evaluating the discussion as it took place, I think the supporters presented a stronger argument. If, in a future RM, you could provide some compelling evidence that it is not the primary topic, and that a disambiguation page is appropriate, then Wikipedians at that future discussion would take that into account and/or discuss the matter with you when making their own votes on that future discussion. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Amakuru. Try a new RM in a few months, it seems like you have a reasonable case. Jenks24 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I read a consensus that the previous title was a bad title. Sometimes, in that situation, the page is moved to less bad title. This is the case here. Consider carefully before making the next proposal, as repeated RM discussions dominating the talk page are very tedious to editors more interested in the quality of content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This discussion was closed by a non-administrator, but WP:RMNAC states that The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days). With 3 supports and 4 opposes, there is no clear consensus to close the discussion as "not moved".
The closer of the RM described the move proposal in a derogatory way, saying that the page move would be making the article title more ambiguous, showing personal bias by the RM closer. There is also no consensus in the discussion that the proposed page move would be not helpful to the reader.
The closer quoted the opinion of one discussion participant, saying that In ictu oculi has cited SONGDAB as a reason not to move. In ictu oculi only mentioned the naming convention without explaining how it advises against the move, and WP:SONGDAB advises to Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)).
while the minority of supporters have not cited any policy or guideline in favor of moving: This is not a neutral observation of the discussion. In ictu oculi was the only one of the opposers who mentioned any sort of policy or guideline, but they did not mention how the guideline advises against such a move, and the arguments made by the other three opposers are not supported by policies and guidelines. Richhoncho's statement It is a "Little Mix song" isn't it? suggested that disambiguation should be used for describing the topic, which is not supported by policy. Meanwhile, the arguments made by the supporters are supported by the WP:AT policy, specifically the WP:PRECISION section, and Jenks24 also argued how the article was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for songs named "Black Magic", another reason to move the article.
The closer of the RM discussion did not interpret the discussion neutrally; it can be argued that the closer performed a WP:SUPERVOTE. I have already discussed this closure with the discussion closer. sst✈ 09:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stale. I'd be inclined to support overturning the close per the comments in the nomination, but the move request was closed in July. Better to just submit a new move request at this point. Calidum¤ 02:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen numerous closure reviews involving discussion closures that are a few years old. sst✈ 05:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closer here with a few comments:
With 3 supports and 4 opposes, there is no clear consensus to close the discussion as "not moved". – headcounts are irrelevant since consensus is based on policy/guidelines and the quality of arguments, not voting.
The closer of the RM described the move proposal in a derogatory way, saying that the page move would be making the article title more ambiguous, showing personal bias by the RM closer. – How exactly is this "derogatory"? The proposed move is more ambiguous, which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. (I pushed heavily for Crazy in Love's most recent RM for a more ambiguous title.) I said that the consensus I saw is that adding ambiguity, in this case, is not helpful to the reader.
The closer quoted the opinion of one discussion participant, saying that In ictu oculi has cited SONGDAB as a reason not to move. In ictu oculi only mentioned the naming convention without explaining how it advises against the move, and WP:SONGDAB advises to Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). I quoted IIO to prove that the opposing side's arguments were rooted in Wikipedia's P&G. IIO's rationale was that there are multiple songs on the dab page with the same title; even if the other songs do not have articles, there is much reason to believe that further disambiguation could be needed per SONGDAB. Not sure how IIO's argument contradicts this.
Even if I were in the wrong with my closure, as Calidum noted this is a very stale RM. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This (arguably very bad-faith) MRV is a complete waste of time, and I'm really not sure why SST couldn't have opened a new RM instead. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stale ( would likely be overturn otherwise ) - Agree with Calidum. While I see problems with the close it is far enough back that a new RM would be the way to go. PaleAqua (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stale, I would likely have closed as no consensus, but do not endorse closer's rationale. A few miscellaneous points on this:
I'm not inclined to take the non-admin status of the closer into account. This forum is specifically for evaluating the close itself, not the status of the closer, and being a non-admin is never grounds to overturn a close.
Essentially the debate itself comes down to the notability of the other songs with this title, most particularly the Swollen Members song. Jenks24 in particular thinks none of the others are notable, while Andrewa felt the Swollen Members song is notable enough to be considered alongside the Little Mix song. I don't think either side presented a slam dunk piece of evidence on this, hence I would close as no consensus.
On the close summary, I don't agree with what the closer said.
"There is consensus that making the article title more ambiguous is not helpful to the reader" - no there isn't. Clearly several users disagreed that the change would be making things more ambiguous. Perhaps there was *no consensus* but that is not the same as *consensus against*.
"In ictu oculi has cited SONGDAB as a reason not to move" - the "citing" of SONGDAB was given with no clue as to which part of SONGDAB was being referred to, and I can see no reference to "other songs with article mentions" in SONGDAB.
"the minority of supporters have not cited any policy or guideline in favor of moving" - no, they haven't, but essentially their argument came down to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE - if we accept the premise that only Little Mix song is notable, then it's clear that guidelines dictatee we should host the song at ("song"), even if the supporter doesn't spell that out in full, a closer must interpret these things.
Anyway, I've included the above points just to be thorough, but first and foremost I agree with everyone above that this is an unnecessary request given the age of the nomination, and a simple follow up WP:RM request would have served better. Certainly no overturning or re-listing of the close is called for. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Disclaimer: I "voted" not to move. It seems agreed above that there was no chance of consensus to move, that the closer identified this correctly, and that not moving was consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Agree that the closing comments were not perfect, nor was the discussion leading up to it (my own arguments included... I think I made some valid points but the most important one needed supporting evidence which I did not provide, in hindsight). But we all have finite lifetimes in which to improve Wikipedia as best we can, and we are all learners here. So the question I'd like us to address here (relying on WP:IAR if I must) is simply, did the close improve Wikipedia? I think that, on balance, the close did improve Wikipedia, and that the closer will do even better next time and should be encouraged... again, with the goal of improving Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously you voted the way you did because you believed it would be better for Wikipedia. Who would actively vote against improving Wikipedia (in their opinion)? In my opinion, disambiguating against topics that simply exist rather than are actually notable sets our naming standards on the wrong path and causes more trouble than its worth, especially in cases like song titles where there are an unimaginable number of titles that exist (and can be verified existing) but are non-notable. Jenks24 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stale. I was planning to close this as stale, but on reading over the RM realised I had participated there. If this were a timely MRV I would consider voting to overturn, but as it is it would be simpler to just start a new RM. I think Amakuru's summary of the discussion is a good one. Jenks24 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Reading the RM, I can see why the closer concluded that "There is consensus that making the article title more ambiguous is not helpful to the reader", even though there were 3 editors who felt that making it more ambiguous would be OK per reasons such as "I disagree with disambiguating against topics that we don't actually cover on Wikipedia and that aren't notable." Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, although I think the same result via a "not moved due to no consensus" would have been more correct. This looks like old Wikipedia:Partially disambiguated page names battles. Black Magic is obviously ambiguous, and the dab pages lists multiple songs, not to mention albums, but some consider this to be the primary disambiguation song? I think these people are the titling minimalist titling aficionados who have forgotten what it is like to be an unencultured reader. Readers do not confine their confusions to the set of extant Wikipedia stand-alone articles. I feel the need to note evidence that titling experts are as a group separated from non experts, which is a problematic situation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amakuru's !vote above nearly entirely word for word, except what is with this rash of "stale"s? Any old discussion may be raised for review regardless of age, although with an old RM the Move Review should probably recommend a fresh RM instead of implementing the change. An important purpose of reviews (DRV and MR) is for continuing education. The result of the close is defendable, the text of the closing rationale was less than ideal. However, it was not a shooting mistake, and I hope Chase continues to close RM discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
