Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 October

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trucks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

User:BD2412 was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted.

I do not know how to post this text:

This RfM is extremely confusing and has gone on a long time, it is my fault. I do not think what was happening is clear.

There are five active Support, including Admin User:Wbm1058, who earlier posted "I've been trying to maintain some neutrality so that I could credibly close this, but I've become too involved at this point not to take a position. Closing admin: Please do your best to filter out the noise and find the strongest arguments." He last posted here on 21 October 2017.

On 21 October 2017 Admin User:Andrewa posted "Oppose" and we began to discuss by e-mail and on his talk page.. That discussion was ongoing and could have changed his position. When it closed he couldn't change his position after his first discussion.

At the time of closure the Support had a strong case. A consensus may have reached before User:Andrewa opposed, and he might have changed his Oppose.

I have so confused this RfM and it has gone so long that it is almost impossible to understand. But it was ongoing and a consensus was realistically at hand. I can't do this again and I think my problem is just that I made it illegible. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. I note that the close reads in part I would suggest waiting a few months and then marshaling a more complete move proposal backed by a complete picture of prevailing usage over time. That seems good advice to me. I'm happy to continue the discussion on my talk page, and probably elsewhere, in the meantime. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I would have been tempted to close as moved based on the strength of argument, but you cannot say that BD's close wasn't a reasonable reading of the consensus. As was mentioned in the close, the OP should come back to this in a few months. Jenks24 (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to discuss "reading of the consensus" with somebody. I would love it if anybody could look at my sources.This is my only chance, coming back is simply not physically possible for me. Please consider the strength of the actual discussion. Sammy D III (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I see the actual discussion as not strong at all, but confusing and full of irrelevant tangents. There are issues there that might justify a move, or might not. To what extent do we want consistency between what we call a marque and what we call its models, if in common use they differ? This is possibly a benchmark of that principle. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I did not see this in time. I absolutly agree that it is "but confusing and full of irrelevant tangents", that is what I say above. I also answered you below, not knowing of this post. I am sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Clear consensus to change. After unarguable refutation of their reasons the only opposers failed to confirm their continuing opposition when pinged on 19 October. Eddaido (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that these !votes should have been disregarded? I see no basis for that. Note also that my oppose was added after this challenge was issued (so of course I wasn't pinged). Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wish to put it that way (??) - I'm saying the opposers (even the valid ones) seem to have read their refutations and all withdrawn their opposition except you with your User:Andrewa/Andrew's Principle which might be invoked if there were any opposition — and of course, there isn't. Eddaido (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the only evidence we have that they have all withdrawn their opposition is that they have made no further comment since expressing this opposition, is that right? And on those grounds you think that the closer should have disregarded these !votes, despite them not having been explicitly withdrawn? Andrewa (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. They failed to respond when their reasons were easily negated. They did not respond to pinging either. Now, what might the reason be for that behaviour? I think it is a fair presumption that they have recognised their mistake(s) wouldn't you? —and if not why not! Eddaido (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not adopt this attitude for three main reasons: Wikipedia policy, logic and commonsense.

But the important thing is, I don't think you can challenge the close on the grounds that the closer should have taken this view. Their assessment of consensus is fair enough. And that is the only issue here. Andrewa (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The interpretation that the failure to respond to the ping shows a change of opinion is a misrepresentation of the discussion. Specifically, the ping came with a specific request for the pinged editors to "reconsider your opposes". The invitation, therefore, is for editors who have changed their minds to state that they have changed their minds, not to "confirm their continuing opposition". They can not have "failed to confirm their continuing opposition" when they were never asked to make such a confirmation. bd2412 T 20:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And this MR is becoming as messy as the RM. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit: this is a reply to Andrewa's last post only) The process is more important than the product. I think I made a good presentation. People were talking. The discussion form was changed somehow and I did not know the process was wrong. Because of my ignorance of procedure my point can't be objectively considered. And isn't this the very definition of "[Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM"? Standards are set that I can't even understand, much less meet. I can only do clear and sourced facts. Sammy D III (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No, the process is only a means to an end, and at the risk of confusing you further see WP:IAR. But this process seems pointless. The close was good in terms of the policies and procedures which you admit to not understanding. You have provided no rationale for overturning the close, and no reason that we should not go to a fresh RM as suggested by the closer, other than that you see no way to follow this through for personal reasons. I am very sorry about that, but if it needs doing then someone else will do it. Andrewa (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just linked me to WP:IAR while you are doing exactly the opposite. Sammy D III (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion noted. Disagree. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And another thing tho be borne in mind: "It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are."
• Underline —Strength of the Argument— and consider. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with this. But I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to show. Andrewa (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Why do you continue to use the word "vote"? Everyone here knows that each arguement should be judged by its merit. You also will not answer a reply on your talk page. Then I posted an appeal for you to simply look at my sources, nothing more. Your oppose does not address the actual name itself, correct? Is it clear that two oppose are blocked and cannot answer refutes? That one oppose has an opinion with absolutly no support? That one has not answered a refute? That no recent poll has been taken? What is happening? I have been 100% honest with you. Clearly you can stop this move, why? I am not trying to argue, just to correct a simple mistake. Sammy D III (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that it's !vote, often read as not vote. This is important. I should have linked to it before. Andrewa (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You did link it to me, I had no clue what you meant. You were just explaining a "consensus". Sorry. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This is my RM to start with. I have said everything everywhere over and over. If you have a question please ask, otherwise thank you for coming. Sammy D III (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Overturn (moved) as the arguments for moving seemed to be much stronger than the those against. Looking at it relative to title; the arguments for appear to be based on recognizability, naturalness, and conciseness and the arguments against focus more on consistency with the company article International Harvester and precision with concerns about international being a common word. Only tentative !voting as I've yet to check out all the links and ngrams yet and the strength of the arguments depend in part on how compelling that data is. PaleAqua (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to an immediate, fresh RM. But this one was a mess. There is a fundamental issue barely touched on regarding consistency between the International Harvester article title and the titles of the vehicle articles. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: Do you also see a fundamental issue regarding consistency between the Navistar International article title and the title of International ProStar? Do you think maybe that should be moved to Navistar International ProStar? wbm1058 (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say do you think maybe... Well, maybe is the word, but I'm inclined to think not. But this is not the place to discuss the merits of any proposed move, just the recent close. Andrewa (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The new people do not know that this is Part Two of this discussion. I posted an "article immediatly above this, this was turned into a RM sort of on the run. You are seeing the end without the beginning. Everyone knew that before Andrewa, I guess none of us realized it. Sammy D III (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very all very relevant to any new or relisted RM, but irrelevant here. There's no reason to think that the closer failed to consider that previous discussion, or even that they should have done so.

Another example of this MR being as messy as the RM. Does anyone want to comment on the suggestion I made above of a fresh RM? Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a very good idea. Eddaido (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Eddaido. Then perhaps you would like to modify your !vote above to indicate this?

@Andrewa: I regret this but I must say I do not understand what you, Andrewa, mean. In any case, does it matter now? Eddaido (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy D III, would you object to this? If it happens I would like to give you some strong advice regarding participation. As you yourself have indicated, your unfamiliarity with processes here has been a major factor in the messiness of this discussion, and may even have led to the failure of the first RM. Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep up, I think this goes here: I'm beating a dead horse. This was a discussion that somehow was bent. I have chased so many "hood ornament"s and "I say so"s trying to talk that it turned into a mess. I think most of this discussion everywhere is literally about hood ornaments. I thought that since I had a mountain of evidence and the background knowledge to connect, explain, and source it all I could sell "International® ". I hope Eddiado has better luck. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. (I opposed the request). The conversation had become a big wall of text by the end, so I don't envy the closer having to pile through it all, but I don't think the strength of the support arguments sufficiently outweighed those of the more-or-less equal number of opposes to declare a consensus to move. At heart, there is a conflict in arguments between simple WP:COMMONNAME reading of the individual series titles, vs making them WP:CONSISTENT with their parent article in what is ultimately a descriptive title rather than a proper name. The issue of international readers finding "International A-Series" confusing is also valid I think, per WP:RECOGNIZE, given that the common name question is not cut and dried. The suggestion to come back in a few months with better evidence is a good one by the closer as well. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if I am supposed to answer these, somebody from the outside please tell me. Amakuru, you are the only person who has opposed on Common name vs Consistent grounds and five editors disagree with you. (Note: there may be support among people who discuss hood ornaments). Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, though with a bit of reluctance and resignation. New York wasn't moved in a day either. Regarding consistency, titles omitting "Harvester" are consistent with the pattern of several similar articles' titles, as I've already pointed out more than once. What is inconsistent is that we have two sets of articles, one using "Harvester" and the other not, even though they were both made by the same manufacturer. The only thing that changed is the manufacturer's name. There are no topic-specific naming conventions for motor vehicles, only for aircraft and ships. Presumably that's because it's just been implicitly understood that the de facto convention is "<Make> <Model>". Making an exception to that convention to favor "<Manufacturer> <Model>" or "<Descriptive title> <Model>" isn't beyond reason, so such positions can't be dismissed as being counter to policy. As to the assertion that the common name question is not cut and dried, this varies over time. I think it's hard to make the claim that "2001 International Harvester 4500" is a valid name (if the reason why isn't immediately obvious, then you haven't been paying enough attention). This page gives a history of the truck's logos. For many years up to 1952, the logo was a script "International" or three-diamond "International"; the word "Harvester" wasn't part of the logo. But, then they muddied the waters by switching to the iconic "man-on-tractor" iH logo. Three diamonds in November 1952, then the iH man-on-tractor is pushed to the truck grilles in January 1953. This was part of a corporate-wide strategy to push the "International Harvester" corporate brand name front-and-center across all product lines... heck even their kitchen appliances were named "INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER REFRIGERATOR! If you put the "International Harvester" brand on household appliances, don't be surprised if common usage starts putting the "Harvester" name on trucks. I understand the dismissal of Sammy's volumes of primary-source examples from the company's own promotional materials. But those claiming that the common name is something other than the name the company is promoting have the burden of presenting the independent sources using a different name; I haven't seen sufficient presentation of independent sources to override the primary sources. The best way forward isn't to repackage this large multi-move request, but to come at it from the edges, avoiding this period in the 1950s when the company was hyperventilating to promote the Harvester brand name even on its refrigerators. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this approach, great suggestion. I do not think it is at all inconsistent with my suggestion of a fresh RM or that of the closer, but what it it adds should make the next RM more productive and less painful. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

• I am sure this will be seen as a personal attack on User:Andrewa.

I would like to ask why you would post this: "I'm happy to continue the discussion on my talk page, and probably elsewhere, in the meantime. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)" and yet chooses to ignore a good-faith discussion here and will not even acknowledge that I have any sources at all here. Of course, you are under no obligation to answer me. AGF.

I would also like to ask why you posted this "No, the process is only a means to an end, and at the risk of confusing you further see WP:IAR. You defend the process while telling me to "Ignore All Rules"?

I would like to ask how "Is so because I say so" with no support whatsoever is a rational argument. And how an editor who will not answer pings to a RM can edit the same discussion, after it has been closed, to my disadvantage. AGF.

Irony? I don't have a lot of faith in Wikipedia and have no plan to edit any article. I just saw a small error and thought it would make Wikipedia more accurate to correct it. But if the arguments won't be judged on their merit and no supporting evidence will be considered then I guess the opinions overrule the facts.

Well, it's probably time for me to be scolded like a child. And in the meantime International trucks will continue to be mislabeled. Shame on me. Sammy D III (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the above contribution here because it seemed to make the stringing incomprehensible.

I am certainly not going to raise it as a personal attack, for many reasons. Relax about that.

And I'm very sorry your one experience of Wikipedia has been so negative. There is a learning curve, and I'm still on it too!

The error, if it is one, will be fixed in time.

But first we must see how this MR closes. There is no benefit to Wikipedia in going outside this process. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the emotions. Your talk page is my best argument. If I can get people to look at it and then go to the mess it will make more sense. The best thing I can ask for is outside eyes, we have been begging for them. I don't edit because I already own far too much of it. This was just a quick stalk about a simple thing. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to reply to my latest posts there (made since the post to which I am replying here). Others may like to comment on my talk page too; It belongs to the project, like all pages here. Andrewa (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic–Lutheran dialogue (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

New arguments introduced in a similar discussion led to the reversal of the page move from "Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue" to "Anglican-Catholic dialogue". As in the Anglican dialogue article, both parties in the Lutheran dialogue refer to the "Roman Catholic Church" (Examples: "Catholic/Vatican", "Lutheran"). The closer of the Lutheran article move may wish to reconsider in light of the arguments raised against the original the Anglican move. –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I forgot I commented on this one at first. I consider this distinct from the Anglican one because you don't have the complicating matter of Anglo-Catholicism to deal with in the naming conventions. We have been consistently moving articles where there was no need for disambiguation from Roman Catholic to Catholic when there wasn't a need for Roman. I don't see the recent Anglican move as changing the Lutheran move. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Sceptical. Disregarding all other recurring arguments in these cases, please compare ultimately the coherent "Catholic" terminology (not "Roman Catholic") employed in the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Younan (2016) (link to full text from the Wikipedia article) - promulgated inside a Lutheran cathedral, in a Lutheran-majority country, issued by the highest designated representative of the worldwide Lutheran denominations for the occation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would consider ecumenical discussions to be a series where varying between "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" causes more confusion than it clarifies. Since the source material for most formal dialogues refer to the "Roman Catholic Church", we should use that throughout the ecumenism series. For other examples, see WP:Roman Catholic?#Ecumenical relations –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking duplicate vote, apart from in RfXs nominators don't support their own proposal. DrStrauss talk 19:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There was a clear consensus in favour of the move. Move review is here to assess closures not to reopen the old arguments. If you think something has significantly changed then you should file a new move request.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This was a plainly reasonable close considering not only the local consensus, but the consensus at the various earlier RMs I mentioned in my comment. Move review is for determining whether a close was correct according to WP:RMCI, not for introducing new evidence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I misread the comment Talk:Anglican–Roman_Catholic_dialogue#comment1, and believed it to say request a move review rather than a relist. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still very confused about Amakuru's comment on the linked debate. If taking it to move review isn't what was referred to by "As a procedural note, opening a new RM to reverse one which was closed just two weeks ago is not usually best practice. It would have been better to request a relisting of the above RM", I'm not sure what is meant by it? Obviously if one notices the proposed move partway through, that makes sense; the problem is that on a topic like this there are so many articles it's easy to miss some, until someone comes out of the woodwork on a page you are watching and says "We should move this page for consistency with these other pages we've just moved". @Amakuru:, can you explain what you meant? TSP (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "procedural solution" might be a request to relist here in light of new information? I do not wish to play Wiki-lawyer; I am just trying to avoid stepping on toes.... –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Vietnam Air Force (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The RM was closed as a "procedural close" after weeks of input by numerous users which seems a waste of everyone's time. The closer stated that the "nomination could do with being bundled or at least be renominated with a more detailed rationale". The move in question was to make this one article's title consistent with other similar articles' titles; thus, there was nothing to bundle. As far as a more detailed rationale goes, I feel the policy rationales (WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:PRECISION) along with some stats that I provided were sufficient. (Is there a requirement that only the nominator can provide rationale for a move?) I am requesting a close of consensus or no consensus. Pinging the original nominator and the other participants as well. —  AjaxSmack  00:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; allow re-nomination; WP:SLAP the serial nominator for the inadequate nomination statements. There are repeated RM discussions each proving that the question is much more debateable than the nomination statements would imply, in their shallowness. Try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Summarise the previous discussions. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Productive discussions rarely come from inadequate proposals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Amakuru, re-tag it as "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Despite what the closer said, perhaps it is time to WP:drop the stick? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but call it no consensus. Because that's what it is, ultimately. The closer didn't see a consensus, so they closed the RM, and invited people to submit fresh ideas if they could think of any (and by that I mean ideas significantly different from the original proposal, which was seen to have no consensus). That's normal practice, and we don't usually call it a "procedural close".  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Call it no consensus per Amakuru. Probably the best explanation of this scenario I've seen. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Kraków (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

BD2412 did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move..

The biggest problem with this move discussion is that there was widespread conflation of "Krakow" and "Kraków". The first one is widely used in English, and is about even with "Cracow" in academic and reference works. The later is barely used, and a lot of the supporting editors used the prevalence of "Krakow" for the modern city to argue for "Kraków" for the 19th-century Grand Duchy, which is a fallacious argument. In fact, some support votes only mentioned "Krakow" and not "Kraków", which means that despite writing "support", they didn't actually make an argument for renaming the article "Grand Duchy of Kraków". Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse valid weighting of arguments and within the discretion of the closer. The "ó vs o" arguments regarding USEENGLISH are particularly weak (we have redirects and most native anglophones have no clue there is a difference). Favoring consistency with the article concerning the city is valid under naming policy when there are multiple common English names, and the close explanation made the reasoning clear. I see no reason to overturn. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Krakow" and "Kraków" are not interchangeable, and having the article at "Cracow" would be consistent with the way similar scenarios are handled (i.e. Free City of Danzig but Gdańsk, Empire of Trebizond but Trabzon) Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closer's October 4 conclusion that "there is substantially greater support for the move, after extended discussion, than for the status quo" and see no reasonable basis for overturning that conclusion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There may be more votes for the move, but there are more arguments grounded in policy for leaving the article where it was. Academicoffee71 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close. Consistency with the article concerning the city of Kraków. McDonald's is Макдо́налдс in Russian and yet the Russian Wikipedia titles its article McDonald’s, because that is the name ... and so is the name of Kraków. See also: Kraków#Contemporary foreign names for the city. Poeticbent talk 05:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some proper nouns have translations in different languages...Cracow is one of them. Unless you think that we should rename the Warsaw, Venice, and Egypt articles "Warszawa", "Venezia", and "Misr", your argument holds no water. Academicoffee71 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have misunderstood my point entirely. What I'm saying is that if Warszawa is Warsaw in the English Wikipedia, so is (and should be) the Warsaw Philharmonic. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Poeticbent talk 20:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a contemporary organization like a Philharmonic and a defunct political unit from 150 years ago. Bombay State, Constantinople Vilayet, and Duchy of Brunswick belong at those titles, even though the articles on the modern cities they were centered on are at Mumbai, Istanbul, and Braunschweig. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. The city of Bombay (capital of Bombay State) was officially renamed Mumbai in 1995. Kraków was never renamed in its history. The city of Constantinople was known originally as Byzantium around 660 BCE. It was renamed as Constantinople in 330 CE. In 1928 Turkey adopted the name Istanbul using Latin alphabet. The name Kraków, which is (and has been) the official name of the city since its beginning, is also the English Wikipedia's going standard according to community consensus. And that's that. Poeticbent talk 16:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point with Bombay and Constantinople, however, the Brunswick example still stands. The name Braunschweig is and has been the official name for the city since its beginning, yet the article on the historical duchy is still at "Brunswick", the traditional English name. Traditional English names for European places are usually used in historical contexts, even if they are no longer the most common name for the modern city. (see also: Treaty of Ryswick, Battle of Corunna, Council of Trent, Thessalonica in the Middle Ages, and many more similar situations) Keep in mind that it is dubious what the most common name for Cracow is in modern English, but that "Kraków" is definitely not it. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close and congratulate bd2412 on what they themselves described as a difficult close. The result does not please everyone of course but this is not the place to re-argue the RM, the question here is just, was the close good? It was. Andrewa (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't, although it's not BD2412's fault. A lot of participants conflated "Krakow" and "Kraków", leading to a flawed consensus. Academicoffee71 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close. Thank you, all involved in the discussion and in the final result! Nihil novi (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close Zero valid argument to overturn. The admin concluded a difficult discussion well and in line with both policy and community consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except policy says use English and use the most common name, neither of which was followed in this move. Academicoffee71 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to have a close read of WP:UE. It seems that you don't understand it at all. It says explicitly that "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English language reliable sources - there is no blanket requirement for crude Anglicisations; the exact opposite is true. Policy specifically allows us to choose what spelling to use based on reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas "Kraków" is barely used in English at all, and the weight of expertise very much lies on "Cracow" in historical contexts. It makes me sad that English usage is being systematically ignored (or misrepresented) to push some internal Polish POV. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? Have you seen how much time Academicoffee71 devotes to UE battlegrounding? Kraków is much preferred in English-language sources so I'm assuming that part of your comment was a mistake. AusLondonder (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Kraków" is the least common spelling in English. "Cracow" and "Krakow" are tied for first place, depending on the context. And in this case, the majority of reliable English-language sources clearly prefer "Grand Duchy of Cracow". Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONNAME is not a style policy. For UCN purposes, "Krakow" and "Kraków" are the same name; whether to use the diacritic is an MoS matter, and in actual practice we use a diacritic any time it is sourceable as belonging, except when for a particular subject the diacritic has been abandoned by the subject and is almost never seen in RS. Reasoning like "the average English-language newspaper or magazine doesn't use the diacritic" is invalid, because such publications very often have a house style against diacritics (or sometimes more specifically against them except in French and Spanish names, or whatehaveyou). It takes people a while to wrap their heads around it, but UCN wants us to use the most common name (regardless of stylistic matters that may apply after that choice is made), including in low-brow sources; this is a WP:RECOGNIZABLE matter, a familiarity not accuracy matter (it's actually a form of permissible original research – Wikipedians on their own doing a kind of half-assed statistical analysis). Diacritics are a WP:V matter; if they're sourced as legit, they stay. This isn't my opinion, it's the collective results of hundreds of RMs, often again intense pressure (especially in sports; the notion that a tennis or hockey or whatever player should not have a diacritic in their name because their professional leagues don't bother with them thus most newspapers' sports sections don't either, has been shot down again and again – any time non-sports sources (or the subject's own website) independently confirm that the person's name properly has a diacritic in it, we use the diacritic. If the subject has abandoned the diacritic, then we don't use it (e.g. Stana Katic doesn't use a Serbo-Croatian diacritic in her surname, at least not as a public figure (no idea what her birth certificate says).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Both the spirit and the intent of the closing instructions were followed. While I opposed the change, and still find that the "Grand Duchy of Cracow" is the more common English name for this entity, the close was a good close. --Bejnar (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except having the article at the new title violates WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME, so even though there were more votes for the new title, there were more good arguments for the old one. Academicoffee71 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Academicoffee71 is quite right, but precedence suggests that those pushing a Polish POV simply care an awful lot more (and will not hesitate to misrepresent the facts), while those who prefer to stick to English usage have plenty of better things to do with their time. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is just re-litigation, and sorely misunderstands how WP handles diacritics. No evidence of faulty judgement on the part of the closer.
  The deets: From a WP:AT policy perspective, "Krakow" and "Kraków" are the same name; whether to use the diacritic is an MoS matter, and standard practice here is to use it if RS indicate that it belongs there (even if some sources, which a house style against diacritics drop it). The main argument presented for "Cracow" is that the English name of Kraków/Krakow/Cracow "is" Cracow. This simply isn't true; the spelling is uncommon, and the K spelling dominates. The position taken is just PoV prescriptivism. The next argument is that if we use the K spelling, that Kraków with the accent "isn't English" and fails WP:UE. This anti-diacritics campaigning has been rejected consistently at hundreds (at least) of previous RMs, people have been indeffed for tendentiousness about it, MfC deleted a "wikiproject" devoted to "cleansing" WP articles of diacritics (twice), and this basically just needs to stop. A variant of this argument is that unless the vast majority of sources in English use the diacritic that WP should drop it; this has also been rejected in RM after RM; it is mistaking COMMONNAME for a style policy, which is most definitely is not; it's the policy that has us choose between Cracow and some version of Krakow (for diacritics, we retain them unless given a very good reason not to for a specific case, e.g. a celebrity who has stopped using a diacritic in their own name). The reason for this is obviously encyclopedic accuracy. It is not Wikipedia's job to "dumb down" orthography to match the style used by low-end or obsolete sources (e.g. ones that pre-date Unicode and desktop publishing software which made diacritics much easierto use for publishers). Previous discussions of this whole lot of articles with Kraków in their titles have confirmed that the K spelling is the common one, and that we're keeping the diacritic. The third "Cracow" argument is that The Grand Duchy of Kraków/Krakow/Cracow is somehow different and should diverge from Kraków in its spelling, despite WP:CONSISTENCY policy. But this isn't borne out by the sources, which are quite inconsistent; in absence of a clear showing that modern sources overwhelmingly prefer "Grand Duchy of Cracow", consistency policy has us normalize to Kraków to avoid confusing readers.
  The short version: just get over the fact that WP uses diacritics when RS demonstrate that they properly belong in a name; and stop pursuing alleged technicality nitpicks that do not serve readers' interests and just sow confusion. The last thing we need is WP:GDANZIG-style rule creep about place after place with with variant names in different languages. It's like arguing that an article on the bus system in Cardiff should use "Cardiff" and the one on the train system should use "Caerdydd". Just, no.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cracow" isn't uncommon in academic and reference works, although it is less common than "Krakow" in news and travel works. Wikipedia is an academic/reference work, not a news or travel site. And WP:CONSISTENCY actually says "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Using "Cracow" in this context is consistent with similar articles, see Duchy of Brunswick, Bombay State, or Constantinople Vilayet but Braunschweig, Mumbai, and Istanbul. And claiming that using different names for different periods in history is like using different names for modern train and bus systems is a false equivalence. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is broken only from a WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:SSF viewpoint, i.e. when attempting to force what a particular camp of academics might expect, as "correct" or "right" or "true", over what readers will expect. WP is an reference work but it doesn't rely upon academic material heavily for WP:COMMONNAME or MOS:PN purposes, nor is it written with academics in mind. The grand duchy only existed 1846–1918, a time during which various spellings were used and there was no standardized orthography for rendering foreign placenames and ethnonyms in English; people wrote whatever rough phonetic approximation they liked (Rumania, Manks, Byelorussia, Szechuan, etc.). Today, we use (by a pretty wide margin) the K spelling for this place and things associated with it; there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason not to in this specific case. If there was, this would surely have been clear in the RM and it would not have closed the way it did. RM isn't forever. If a new and stronger case can be made for "Cracow", with additional evidence and/or rationales, it can be done in another RM later. About 6 months or so seems to be fairly customary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Duchy of Cracow is not well-known enough for readers to expect it at one title over the other. "GD of Cracow" is the most common name in reliable works by a margin of about 5:3. Your assertion that people wrote "whatever rough phonetic approximation they liked" is inaccurate. While some foreign names, especially those in Africa and Asia, were rendered somewhat inconsistently, Cracow, as a major European city, was not. Even today, "Cracow" is still preferred by a lot of good sources (i.e. the OED and some other dictionaries, some Cracovian universities, Bing maps) for the modern city, and is significantly dominant over other spellings in historical contexts. Thank you for letting me know about the ephemerality of RM results, I have seen repeat RMs get shut down within hours, so I assumed that this was the best way to continue to argue my case. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. Admins should consider whether the new account Academicoffee71 needs a more less friendly but official warning regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot the Dog (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Non-admin closer TheDoctorWho did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move.

• The close sided against a 2:1 3:1 move result, which had multiple well-explained rationales (though some late-added alternative name possibilities), while the opposing side presented an argument that was quickly refuted (it depended on a particular idea about the scope of the article that is disproven by the article's actual content).
• BarrelProof raised concerns about the close at User talk:TheDoctorWho#Spot the Dog, and the response boils down to "it was listed three times and I still didn't think there were enough responses". This isn't how WP:RM operates. After that many relistings, and no further attempts to justify the current name, the presumption is that the requested move is non-controversial.
• Furthermore, TheDoctorWho asked (in that user talk thread) for notification about any future RM of this page, so they could comment in it; this causes me to question the neutrality of the close, which now looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE. (No bad faith assumed; it simply takes practice and will to close per the arguments presented rather than by how one would have !voted, especially if one feels one's !vote might've neutralize the result that has emerged.)

I believe that any RM admin would have closed this as move, maybe to the first name suggested by the nom maybe not. Pinging Steel1943 and In ictu oculi, who also participated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Followups: This is actually worse than I thought.

Just from a quick skim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to consensus to move, no consensus as to title per WP:RMCI this would have been the appropriate close, especially after three relists. Of all the titles offered, Spot (book series) seems the least controversial landing space. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me, too, as does the suggestion below to reopen to select a title. That avoids the problem that "Spot (dog)" is apt to be taken for an article title on a real, notable dog named Spot, or the concept of spots on the coats of dogs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC), updated 22:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an aside, that clause in RMCI is actually one of the reasons that I think RM is one of the better discussion venues we have (for all its flaws). We recognize that naming conventions are complex and sometimes there is consensus the current title is bad but no agreement as to whats better. That shouldn't keep an article at the old title, and the closer should choose the option that is least controversial/everyone hates the least/has the most overlap, and move it, making it clear a new RM can be held to figure out consensus on a better title. In this case, I think Spot (book series) fits the bill quite nicely. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand by my original option to close as no consensus and would not change it if I had the opportunity to do so. My reasoning for doing so can still be found at [13], [14], and [15]. I'd espesially like to bring attention to the edits around this area [16] in which the the nominator and I resolved the issue of my close that they disagreed with, however they did not take any further action after this resolution. And finally SMcCandlish did not try to resolve the issue with me as suggested to do so in the lead of WP:MR the user just immediately opened this request after seeing the previous disagreement proven here: [17] providing an edit summary of only "Meh". I believe that we may have been able to come to an agreement had they not immediately opened this request we would have had time to discuss. Especially since the original editor that disagreed with my decision DID NOT ask me to revert and it appears that SMcCandlish automatically assumed that there was a request to revert that I ignored. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those explanations explain that there was general agreement in a move, agreement that article might be about the book more than the subject itself, and that RMCI is unlike other discussion venues in that it allows the closer wide discretion to implement even minor shared ground, while noting larger disagreements. The totality of the discussion was more in favour of a move than opposed. The exact title was unclear though. In such cases RMCI prefers a move and then a new discussion as opposed to a pure no consensus outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Already explained above why "I had a conversation with the nom and that settles it" is not how WP operates. Moreover, I did take it to your talk page and you not only refused to self-revert the close [18] (at 01:57, before I opened this MR at 02:11 [19]), you repeated your prideful and stubborn wording at your talk page [20] that you use here. Since someone else already raised the issue on your talk page the day of the close and you didn't listen, I had no further duty to do it again, anyway. Nice attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERing, though. At least four editors are telling you this close was wrong, including two uninvolved ones. The correct thing to have done would have been to self-revert the close the first time it was questioned, especially since you concede yourself that this was a controversial case [21] – which NACs are not supposed to close. Please read WP:NACEXP carefully, along with first law of holes. You've barely been here two months and are trying to do things you don't know how to do properly yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to select an alternative title, roughly per TonyBallioni and SMcCandlish. I was the nom for the RM in question. My reading is that there was a clear consensus to move, although there was not yet a clear convergence on what the new title should be. My thinking is further elaborated upon in the discussion on the User talk page of the closer at User talk:TheDoctorWho#Spot the Dog, so I won't repeat it all here. However, I was rather surprised by the way that was closed, and was planning to submit another RM since the closer suggested that this would be acceptable. I just hadn't done that yet because I didn't want to act like a disgruntled nom, and no one else seemed to be objecting. I'm not very fond of the title "Spot (book series)", since the article also discusses television shows, home video releases, and computer game releases – with the one common element being a particular cartoon character. Although the book(s) came before the TV show and game, I don't think that means the other sub-topics shouldn't be considered when titling an article that covers the whole franchise. But "Spot (book series)" (or even Where's Spot?) would be better than the current title. I believe there was a clear consensus to make some move, and that further discussion would be fruitful. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: Other indications of a potential WP:SUPERVOTE problem are seen in the discussion at User talk:TheDoctorWho#Spot the Dog. The closer said "the scope of the article is not debatable", followed by a rationale for this opinion based on the phrasing of the article's lead section. That seems to be a personal opinion, saying that the scope of the article cannot be discussed, when I believe it can. The phrasing of the article's lead section can be changed, of course – I just hadn't done that because I didn't want to make changes during the discussion that might seem like I was forcing my own opinion into the article prematurely. There is also an admission that the closer had "barely considered" the last suggestion that had been put forth in the discussion (and "would support that move" if that suggestion was re-proposed in another RM). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: SMcCandlish said "The close sided against a 2:1 move result". Actually, I measure 3:1 (in favour being myself, SMcCandlish and IIO; one opposing being Steel1943; and two not directly opposing or favouring being 76.65.42.75 and Anthony Appleyard). In my reading, the two who did not express a direct opinion appeared to accept the criticism of the current title and were only concerned about particular issues regarding the proposed alternative. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Bad WP:NAC and a WP:Supervote. Advise the nominator to decide on one specific proposal before formally listing an RM, these ambiguous nominations often lead to discussions that have trouble with the ambiguity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]