Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 July

Usher (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The move discussion involved two editors who were blocked, and a number of IP accounts with few or no other contributions outside the discussion. This was not taken into account by the closer, who is also an IP account with few edits. Policy based arguments were put forward with linked evidence, which was not taken into account by the closer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to move as proposed. I would have !voted oppose in this move (and I couldn't name you one of his songs), but the policy and sourcing based arguments were clearly on the side of moving. I don't think relisting would do anything more than bring in extra !votes from fans. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn closure and move to Usher (singer) per SilkTork's rational and my !vote in the original move request. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the practical result of the closure, without necessarily endorsing the particular way this was closed. Yes, the discussion had problems, including sock puppets and a closer who seemingly dropped in from hyperspace. However, this article has been the subject of a very large number of move discussions, most of which have simply moved the article back and forth without any conclusive resolution to the basic issue. At this point it shouldn't be moved without an overwhelming consensus, which didn't exist here - otherwise there will simply be a reverse move request in a year or so and the underlying problem will continue. I trust I will not be discounted as an IP "with few or no other contributions" merely because I don't use an account. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't count you as an account with "few or no other contributions" because you do have substantial contributions. By the way, did you note the part in my rationale where I pointed out that the recent move from Usher (singer) to Usher (musician) had not been fully carried out, so that there still remain templates and categories and hundreds of links with the term Usher (singer). The path of least resistance is to retain the previous name of Usher (singer) which it had held for some time before the recent move: Talk:Usher_(musician)/Archive_2#Requested_move_5_May_2017. It is also noteworthy that the May 2017 move request was made by an IP account with a total of six edits over three days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That does look like a bad problem, and I wasn't aware of it. I would have voted the same way, however; more general descriptions are better. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The identity of the move requestor should make no difference in the way we appreciate their arguments and evaluate the discussion through the lens of policy. We should respect that the OP of May 2017 took the time to find out how to submit a move request, phrased it properly, backed it with similar cases (Prince, Sia, Drake) and I see no reason to doubt their good faith in this instance. They raised a question, the community discussed, and the title was changed. In July, somebody else raised the opposite question, the community discussed again, the closer found no consensus when assessing the discussion, and we are here only reviewing the closer's reasoning. — JFG ^talk 05:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endrose. Since the account that initiated the discussion was deemed a sock puppet (Ddd23), i see no reason for the whole proposal to remain alive. I originally opposed the move because Usher covered more than singing, including performance and instruments; additionally siding by 92.20.88.238's argument, he is indeed primarily considered "a musician" on Bio.Khaire Nuh (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The reasons Silktork have given are compelling for overturning, however many of the arguments supporting the move are not. Better to let this one go a while longer for additional, non-sock input.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and declare a 6-month moratorium. Too many moves, no strong objection to either possible title disambiguator (singer, musician, entertainer, artist, whatnot). Given the polar opposites in discussion, had the closer decided to move, that could have been considered a WP:Supervote likely to be overturned. The "no consensus" reading is more accurate. Relisting is unlikely to bring more clarity; I relisted the original discussion and it received only one support and one oppose during the extended week. — JFG ^talk 21:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be a moratorium on move requests for this article. As for fixing which name it should be held at, if you see my point above to IP account 64.105.98.115, the recent move from Usher (singer) to Usher (musician) has not been fully carried out so there are categories and hundreds of links, etc, which use Usher (singer). The path of least resistance, especially when (like me really) there is no strong preference for which disambiguator to use, is to use Usher (singer), as it involves the least work for the project. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I don't see a consensus here. Clearly, given the history of this title, and the sheer number of RMs over the years, there is no right or wrong answer to this question. Yes, he mainly sings, but as pointed out by some opposers, he does sometimes play instruments as well, a point which was made twice by opposers but never answered by any of the supporters. As JFG says above, I don't think anyone could have fairly called this a "consensus to move" without accusations of a supervote, and it had already been relisted once. Best to concentrate on finishing off the category moves leftover from the May move, and declare a moratorium on further RMs, unless significant new arguments come forth.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with no prejudice against a relist (though moving back to "Usher (singer)" is preferable). SilkTork's detailed and well-researched rationale alone carried much more weight than any of the opposes combined and its points shouldn't be overlooked, even if he doesn't only sing. Furthermore, "singer" is a more specific term that is very well known to apply to Usher. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, and relist, without moratorium: looking at close instructions should have been closed by an admin not by an IP. Cannot see any reason above for any of the Endorse statements. FWIW "singer Usher" About 1,050 results vs "musician Usher" About 156 results indicates that eventually the article will move to the more common descriptor, but that's not the point, this close should not be endorsed even by those who agree with the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the previous RMs succeeded in removing the title (entertainer) ...a descriptor which has something of a history on en.wp as almost an honorific..., but (singer) has been stable. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And so this boring repetitive argument goes on, and on, and on, and on.

If there is only one Usher notable for music, the correct Wiki disambiguator is (musician), because it's the most general one. Should there be other notable musicians called Usher, the way to distinguish them is by genre, by instrument, or by birth date.

This is getting tedious. I can't find the links, but this looks to me like part of an ongoing campaign to promote Usher (musician) up to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Well, he isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: You don't say whether you endorse the move? No opinion? — JFG ^talk 06:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I abstained, because both (musician) and (singer) are perfectly good qualifiers. Provided that one redirects to the other, readers can easily find what they're looking for - which is, for me, the only thing that matters. I have a mild preference for (musician), which also happens to be the status quo; and as far as I can see currently involves no double redirects (which a move to (singer) would create). I consider discussions like this fanclub stuff, and a waste of bandwidth and editors' energy. I would definitely support a moratorium on this topic being raised again for at least six months. Narky Blert (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: I understand that you don't mind which qualifier is used, but the question at Move Review is "did the closer correctly reflect consensus or lack thereof?" Do you have an opinion on this? — JFG ^talk 13:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having weighed the arguments in the most recent move discussion, and not having the patience to go through the nine earlier ones, I endorse the closure as "no consensus", Narky Blert (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheremkhovo, Irkutsk Oblast (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The moves by Anarchyte were reverted by Ezhiki. The closure was therefore incorrect, and we need the RM to be relisted with alternative titles to move Cheremkhovo and Slyudyanka to if they are not disambiguation pages, but rather set index articles. Both town articles will still be moved to the base title regardless. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 16:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, titles of set index articles on Russian inhabited localities are subject to the WP:NC:CITY#Russia guideline. If the move request goes forward, the set indices would have to be titled Cheremkhovo (inhabited locality) and Slyudyanka (inhabited locality). No opinion on the RM itself—I understand the rationale, but do not believe any of these places (towns included) rise above the level of obscurity that warrants WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to kick in.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 17, 2017; 17:15 (UTC)

• As the closer, I'm fine with reopening and relisting with the newly proposed titles as options. My closing rationale no longer stands because some opposition has been raised. Have a great day, Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I participated in the discussion, but the decision was pretty straightforward as the two towns are the only one bluelinked and much more notable than the namesakes. I don't see anything on WP:NC:CITY stipulating that SIA should be used instead of a disambiguation pages, and naming the dab page Cheremkhovo (inhabited locality) certainly goes against the site-wide convention of naming it Cheremkhovo (disambiguation) using {{geodis}}. As a matter of fact, I think that SIAs should be deprecated as being an unnecessary and confusing category overlapping disambiguation pages and DABCONCEPTs, and might start an RfC on the issue. Procedurally, the correct move by Ezhiki was to start a MR debate rather than revert the close. Even if there emerges a consensus to move Cheremkhovo (disambiguation) somewhere else, it should be decided on a separate RM; this one clearly indicated that the two towns are the primary topics. No such user (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the pages in question simply cannot be allowed to exist in their present form as disambigs (regardless of which title those disambigs have) because the red links would then fail WP:DABRL and would have to be removed. There was no way to correct that within the framework of the discussion outcome, so it was my choice to restore the original setup (with no prejudice to opening a subsequent MR) rather than attempting to fix it. The revert of the move was on technical grounds and I stand by my judgement. To address other aspects of your comment, the goal of set indices is to provide encyclopedic value in addition to pure navigational purpose, and encyclopedic content allows red links as long as they pass verifiability and notability checks (populated places pass both). The decision to utilize set indices for entities of the same type and name is one that a WikiProject within the scope of which the concept falls (in this case, WP:RUSSIA) is allowed to make, and there are multiple WikiProjects that make use of set indices (ships, mountains, maths, comics, you name it...) instead of going with plain disambigs. "Deprecating" SIAs, while a valid suggestion in general, is not one that belongs in a move review—it definitely has to be an RfC, soliciting input of any and all WikiProjects that would be affected.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2017; 15:17 (UTC)

  Frankly, I don't care much about WP:DABRL, particularly since the general consensus is that all villages are notable, so they better be redlinked on the dab pages (and I'm sure hundreds of similar examples violating DABRL can be found); if you are a particular stickler for rules, you might have unlinked them, thus satisfying DABRL, although I don't see the point. This is not the place to debate SIAs, although the (stale) discussion at WT:SIA#Why? is an interesting read and shows that my disdain is rather widely shared. No such user (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lega Nord (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The procedure has been closed too soon, with 5 users favorable to the move and 5 users against, therefore the consensus about the name to use for the page has not yet been reached. Furthermore some motivations against the move are questionable, because denied during the discussion. For these reasons, I think the discussion should continue, to consolidating an effective consensus. Wololoo (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer – (Copied from my talk page, in response to OP's question) The discussion had already been extended by one week and attracted only one new comment. Discussants offered valid arguments both ways, and I saw no trend towards an emerging consensus. I would suggest a 6-month pause before trying again. — JFG ^talk 21:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse valid reading of the (lack of) consensus. Neither side had a stronger policy based position. Lack of consensus on this move means it defaults to the stable title. You can launch another RM in a month to try to clarify consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Although I !voted in favour of the move, it is clear that the RM itself had no overall consensus, and as either title is valid and the RM had run for two weeks, this is a perfectly acceptable and good close. Also, could people please follow the rules at WP:MRV, and discuss closes with the closing editor *before* bringing them to move review. Very often the issue can be resolved then and there, without the additional need to come here.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]