Chairman – Endorse closure. There is a general agreement among the participants (over here) about the closure fitting well within the discretionary margin and that no amount of further discussion would have led to a better outcome. ∯WBGconverse 15:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There is consensus to move, but editors supporting a move are split between alternatives. The discussion was relisted twice. To resolve the issue, a "ranked choice survey" section was opened on 14 April. This began (it seemed to me) to show a consensus for chairperson. StraussInTheHouseclosed the RM as "no consensus" on 15 April but reverted himself when requested, and discussion continued. The last comment in the "ranked choice survey" section was at 15:15, 17 April. Eleven minutes later, at 15:26, 17 April, Red Slash closed the discussion as "no consensus to move to any title". Several editors have asked him to revert himself, but he has declined, so here we are. SarahSV(talk) 23:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Modify closing statement: it's incorrect to say there was no consensus to move at all; the majority of users by a considerable margin were in favour of something other than the current title, however, it's correct to say there was no consensus on which alternative to move to. Numerically speaking, the two gender-neutral frontrunners were split more or less down the middle, each receiving as much as the status quo. As I said in my original statement which I overturned on request, I appreciate what Levivich was trying to do, but polling isn't a substitute for consensus. Perhaps an RfC would be appropriate per my previous suggestion (can't find the diff right now). Thanks, SITH(talk) 23:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: just returning to clarify my position. Firstly, I want to state I have absolutely no problem with non-admins or page movers closing requested move discussions and implementing consensus. In fact, I recall an administrator telling me that their view was that page movers and experienced requested move users are better qualified than an average administrator. However, in hotly contested discussions like this one, it's a pain in the arse to close. On the one hand, it is understandable that users will want an explanation of the determination of consensus, but on the other hand, a lengthy rationale can lead to misplaced accusations of supervoting. The discussion had already been relisted twice, and while there is no limit to the number of relists, one is enough before a no consensus closure per the closing instructions. There seemed to be rough consensus to move, but not to which option to move. This is why I have !voted to modify closing statement as opposed to overturn; because the result of the discussion was functionally equivalent to a no consensus closure, so I endorse the outcome, but note that its explanation could have been worded better. Perhaps something along the lines of Consensus to move from the status quo, but no consensus on which alternative to adopt. This is without prejudice to a renomination to gain further consensus as to the alternatives. I would then suggest that the nominator starts a new requested move discussion, with perhaps a short break, ping all the participants and propose "Chairperson" as the target. The issue with ranked-choice surveys is that if you set out to please everyone, you will end up pleasing no-one. SITH(talk) 12:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SITH: First, thank you for all the time you've put into shepherding this RM over the past month (and all the other closing you do). These discussions would go nowhere without editors like you willing to get involved in difficult closes/relistings. I agree with your take that There seemed to be rough consensus to move, but not to which option to move. My question is, why shouldn't we follow the prescription in WP:THREEOUTCOMES for this exact situation: the closer picks a target from among the ones discussed? I quote the relevant part of THREEOUTCOMES below. It seems to be exactly on point, but no one is talking about it here. What am I missing? Levivich 14:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been stated several times in this discussion that there was a clear consensus to move, but that is emphatically not the case. There was very significant opposition to the idea of moving away from the current title, with evidence-based policy arguments in the form of WP:COMMONNAME. The idea that other rules such as MOS:GNL automatically trump common name was unproven and disputed. So yes, *if* there's consensus that the current title is bad but no consensus as to which alternative title to pick, it is sensible to pick one even if it enjoys no proper consensus over the alternative. But if strong arguments and !vote numbers are also made for the status quo then that's not the same situation and it keeps the RM firmly in the no-consensus-for-anything territory. I get that people who don't like the current title are not happy about this, but that's the way it is on Wikipedia and by keeping the status quo we are maintaining something that has been stable for many years. As JFG says below, the best solution is to move on from this and perhaps try again in a year and try to convince enough people to get consensus for a single target. — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: many thanks, it's my pleasure. Despite WP:THREEOUTCOMES stating that the closer should choose one in the circumstances you discussed, I think the precedent for a move review overturning and moving to a given option is very slim, considering that the requested move didn't generate consensus other than that the current title was inadequate. Furthermore, as evidenced above, some users don't agree with that premise, so a move review is likely to end with no clear consensus and a repeat of the requested move discussion, meaning a de facto endorse. There would likely be a move review filed saying that the closer, had they chosen one of the options per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, of supervoting or at least being arbitrary because arguments were made for each side and without a lengthy elaboration it would be difficult to bat that away, which would probably mean it getting overturned at move review, despite the process having been followed. As Chairperson seemed to be an acceptable middle-ground to many users who were unwilling to support the original proposal, having it as the proposal right from the outset would probably generate consensus to move, especially as I note that a couple of the early !votes did not return once Chairperson had been mooted and may have changed considering that. I hope that makes sense. Many thanks, SITH(talk) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Discussion was ongoing and should be allowed to continue. SarahSV(talk) 23:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !vote striked, your opening of this MR already implies an Overturn !vote. Iffy★Chat -- 08:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Close was premature, as discussion was very much ongoing- as mentioned on closer's talk page, there were more than 70 comments in the previous two days, and continuing right up to the closure. Additionally, underlying arguments were not properly assessed- closer noted roughly equal support for several options, but most arguments were based on whether or not the current title complied with P&G (specifically GNL)- the split between preferred GNL-compliant options is secondary to the underlying arguments about whether GNL takes precedence over COMMONNAME, and nearly every !vote for any of the gender-neutral options cited the need for gender neutrality. Finally, closer said on their talk page that, "no one was able to convincingly prove (via sourced points that align with our policies) that either "chairperson" or "chair" (or both of them) is as well-attested as "chairman"." This implies that they disregarded GNL-based arguments entirely, and also implies they required "convincing proof" of prominence in RS to justify closing with the majority of !votes, which shows bias on their part. As noted in the discussion itself, proof of that sort would be nearly impossible to get, because of the many meanings of "chair" creating false positives in any search. Safrolic (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Essentially this is a case of offsetting arguments. Opponents of the move argued with evidence that chairman is still by quite some distance the WP:COMMONNAME. Regrettable though that might be, that reflects the real world situation. On the flip side, supporters provided evidence from notable bodies encouraging the deprecation of the term for reasons of sexism. Both arguments are valid within our policies, and neither view is right or wrong. I actually considered voting in this discussion but genuinely couldn't make up my mind between the status quo vs one of the alternatives. Perhaps if there had been a single unified quorum for exactly one of the proposed titles, there might have been a narrow consensus but that still would have been a line call, given that there was significant support for retaining the status quo, with valid reasoning. Overall I think the close is fair and I don't really think that after a month any consensus was about to emerge. I can understand that editors wanting an alternative will feel downcast, but I think this was a correct close. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, you are correct about both sides having reasonably strong arguments, the issue here is what whether there was consensus never-the-less, and whether that consensus was read accurately. You didn't really address this. See my comment below where I did. --В²C☎ 00:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: I thought I had been quite clear, there was no consensus here. I gather from your !votes in the discussion that you supported the proposal, which perhaps is colouring your view... but I'm sure if you take a step back and examine the discussion itself, not through your own viewpoint, you will agree with me that it is impossible to see a consensus there. Your comment below seems to be formed by adding up the totals of those favouring Chair (officer) and Chairperson, seeing that they formed 2/3 of the !votes and declaring that a consensus. But that's not a fair thing to do because not everyone who supports one likes the other. And furthermore, per WP:NOTAVOTE there is more to consensus building than just counting votes. The opposers had a very powerful policy argument in WP:COMMONNAME, and what I can see if people talking at each other with hardened positions, not anything that would lead me to believe a consensus was formed. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, in the "ranked choice survey" section, 13 people had chosen chairperson as their first or second choice (nine as first choice) out of 22, and that section had been open only three days. It seemed to be moving toward consensus. There was no reason to cut it short. SarahSV(talk) 00:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru Yes, I added up the totals of those favouring Chair (officer) and Chairperson to conclude there was consensus not necessarily for either one of those, but consensus for moving away from Chairperson. The issue was to move to what, and determining that was the point of the secondary survey. There, Chairperson was only my 3rd choice, but Chairman was my 4th. Fully 2/3rds preferred Chairperson over Chairman (the other choices were all preferred far less). I think it was enough to declare consensus for Chairperson already, but, if not, it was certainly moving in that direction, and closure was premature. --В²C☎ 00:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 Overturn (Declaration: I commented in the discussion.) There was a clear consensus to move to a gender-neutral form and it was clear that nearly all supporters of one supported the other with the poll an attempt made to break the logjam. Discussion was clearly ongoing as shown by comments being made less than quarter of an hour before the close. Arbitrarily closing in favour of the status quo was a clear bad call. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "Chairman" is still the common name at this time, and despite what was claimed of me in the move discussion, I believe the article should stay there for the time being. ONR(talk) 23:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Three reasons.
WP:THREEOUTCOMES: There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. The closer did not follow this suggested procedure.
Between the relist and this close, 40 editors were pinged or had talk page invites, ~25 posted, including five new editors joining the discussion (the total was about 30 editors). I can't fathom why we would stop editors from having an active discussion like this.
The closer's given justification on their user talk page for the close was "no one was able to convincingly prove (via sourced points that align with our policies) that either 'chairperson' or 'chair' (or both of them) is as well-attested as 'chairman'." This does not appear to be the suggested standard or procedure described in THREEOUTCOMES or elsewhere in WP:RMCLOSE. I'm also troubled by their final comment, "It'll go to WP:MRV, just like Incel, East Timor, Islamic terrorism, etc. I'm used to threats of move reviews by now. No worries. There was no consensus and I will not be bullied into pretending we have one or that just a little more discussion would have created one." This struck me as an unnecessarily battleground-y, "come-at-me-bro"-type response to a request to un-close. Levivich 00:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC) (participated in the RM, voted to move, asked closer to unclose)[reply]
Unlike some of my colleagues, I did not see any consensus in the discussion that "Chairman" was the WP:COMMONNAME. That was a distinct point of contention and discussion, with editors making arguments and presenting evidence for Chairman, Chair, and Chairperson all being the COMMONNAME. In the absence of consensus on which is the COMMONNAME, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to look elsewhere for guidance, such as the guideline MOS:GNL. If two out of three editors agree it's unclear which is the COMMONNAME, and they look to another WP:PAG to help them make a decision, why should that be discounted? Levivich 03:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close and move to Chairperson. Consensus (2/3 of the participants) favored moving away from Chairman to Chairperson or Chair variant in original survey, and consensus (again 2/3) favored Chairperson over Chairman in the secondary order-by-preference survey. Clearly consensus favored Chairperson over Chairman. Closer ignored all this and did not respond to inquiries about it on his talk page (I participated in RM support Chair (official) in first survey, favoring Chairperson over Chairman in secondary survey, started discussion with closer on his talk page). If the close is not overturned and the article moved to Chairperson, at least it should be Reopened and Relisted to give others an opportunity to participate, and someone else to close. As others have noted, the discussion was still quite active shortly before it was closed. --В²C☎ 00:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn yet another BADNAC. Non-admins should not be closing heavily contested discussions with a complicated reading of consensus that could very easily have gone either way. Non-admins have not been vetted for their understanding of policy, or their ability to read a consensus in complicated situations. Sure, some can, but the proof is in the pudding, a BADNAC is on in which the community in hindsight does not have confidence. The unbundling of the pagemover ability was so that competent RM non-admins could help. Over-reach of these non-admin pagemovers is not help. It does not save time or effort. It diminishes the respect the community has for the RM process. This closer may have many years of experience and may have considered their close to be so obvious as to be procedural and appropriate for a non-admin, but given appeals on their talk page, the right thing for an NACer is to withdraw their close. It is also a shade of Supervote. Clearly, other non-admins read the consensus differently and would have made a different close. It is a supervote because by jumping in ahead of others they get to lock in their reading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applying WP:BADNAC to RM closures does not have consensus support. To the contrary, as WP:RMNAC explicitly states: NACs are not discouraged for requested moves and the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure.. The reasons are stated there. If you want to persuade consensus to change on this, then take it to WT:RM, but invoking non-applicable policy is inappropriate, even though I agree with your ultimate conclusion here regarding Overturn. --В²C☎ 00:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Red Slash is way too involved as an author of WP:RMCI for him to seriously refer to it as a justification for what he does. RMCI is NOT policy. It is an instruction page that has been bloated with opinion and crossed into policy. The proof of a BADNAC is ensuing controversy and unhappiness. The proof of a GOODNAC is that is helps. The frequent BADNACs by overconfident pagemovers are clearly not net-helpful, and are not supportive of confidence in the RM process, when the NAC-ers do supervote arbitrary closes of controversial discussions. NACers have not been vetted for understanding policy or reading consensus in difficult cases; and any good NACer will revert their close on the first reasonable request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. WP:COMMONNAME is policy while WP:MOS is not. Per WP:POLCON: "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence." Edit in case I was unclear: Closing an RM entails more than simply counting votes, like many of those attempting to re-litigate the move request are suggesting. It requires consideration of applicable policies and guidelines. Here, the policy (COMMONNAME) is clear and trumps the MOS. Calidum 01:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I was an involved contributor. Even in the last survey more people than not wanted something other than chairperson. Chairman is still the most common variation and the strength of that argument and the mess of four choices is probably what led to the no consensus close. I had tried to make a two-choice alternative (as suggested by the closer) but have met with resistance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Proponents of this move are misusing the Move Review process to continue litigating for their personal choice of move (WP:MRNOT). Two different RM frequent closers saw "no consensus", closed it, and then were harassed on their talk pages - one chose to revert, the other did not and was brought here to MR. Its also misleading to state there was "consensus to move" because there were essentially 3 choices, roughly split. No matter which choice was made, the other 2/3 of voters would have wanted a change. This is textbook "no consensus". The closer also has made it clear that, upon weighing the choices against WP:TITLES policy, which is the only policy that matters for article titles, the status quo was a reasonable outcome. MOS:GNL is a article prose guideline - not part of WP:TITLES policy, so arguments based on that are clearly inferior. -- Netoholic@ 02:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist – I see a consensus that the current title is not optimal, and that gender neutral language should be used. Discussion should be allowed to continue until it reaches a conclusion. It was not stale or stalled, and there is no deadline. – bradv🍁 03:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. There was not a consensus to move. In fact, I am apparently not even the first person to close this as "no consensus", only to be gently pressured to revert my close until the desired result comes up. I'm used to being taken to WP:MRV, and in a previous MRV I was taken to task for being too wordy in my closing statements, so I went with a concise one this time. Alas, my attempt to avoid MRV failed. Three points for your consideration:
I know full well that WP:RMCI says There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. I know it because I wrote it. Those words were considered and weighed and in this circumstance there was not actually that determination that the current title should not host the article. This wasn't a fifty-fifty split between "move to Chair (officer)" or "move to Chairperson", with no one suggesting the current title.
Non-admins have full authority to close contentious move requests.
WP:COMMONNAME is policy, supporting the current title. WP:NATURAL is policy, and goes against Chair (officer). WP:CONSISTENCY, also policy, supports Chairperson. MOS:GNL, a guideline, seems to support a move of some sort. It seems like there may be a clearer opportunity to move to Chairperson later. In fact, if there had not been a strong swell of support for the current title, I would have just moved it there. The swell of support for the current title stayed my hand into a "no consensus" call. I would strongly suggest a new move in a few months just to Chairperson. RedSlash 15:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to write this explanation. That all makes sense to me except for two things: what do you mean by "swell of support for the current title" when one out of three editors supported the current title? Second, why is it better to have this conversation again in a few months, instead of continuing to have this conversation now? You didn't seem to address the core issue (Brad's point above, It was not stale or stalled, and there is no deadline.): why did it have to be closed at all, at that particular time, instead of just leaving it open another few days? (Five new editors had joined the conversation in the day prior to your close, and people were actively posting, e.g. the vote for chairperson that came ten minutes before your close). Levivich 16:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, Red Slash. Fully agree on #2. As far as I know only SmokeyJoe takes issue with that. But I don't follow your reasoning in #1. How does the fact that it was not a 50/50 split between Chair and Chairperson mean it was not a "current title should not host the article" situation? Why does Support by 2/3rds for titles different from the current title not qualify as consensus that "current title should not host the article?" Especially given the results of the secondary survey, in which Chairperson was clearly favored over Chairman, a point you seem to refuse to even acknowledge, much less address. And #3 is not only a concern because of your characterization of 1/3rd support for the current title as a "strong swell" (what about the much stronger swell of 2/3rds favoring a change?), but also because much of the rest of it reads like a Supervote justification for the close, especially the subjective opinion about which meets COMMONNAME best ("supporting the current title"), not one based on reading consensus. --В²C☎ 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, В²C, I did not mean to imply with "swell of support" that it was a majority or even a plurality. I just meant (see point #1) that a non-trivial group of editors gave policy-backed reasons for the current title to stay. It wasn't a two-sided case where half the people said "move to X" and the other half said "move to Y".
I chose to close the request because it had gone on for nearly a month and did not appear to be nearing a resolution. It certainly is a bad look that the last post was just ten minutes before, but I can only assume that it happened in between when I read the move request all over (and decided that I did not have an opinion on the merits of the move) and when I actually clicked on the "edit" button. Usually, on Wikipedia, it's safe to assume that nothing has changed in between when you read the request and when you click the "edit" button to begin typing your post/response/edit/whatever. In this case, it wasn't.
As per COMMONNAME, there were sources that were provided to make a reasonable person conclude that yes, "chairman" is the common name. I get in trouble when I summarize sources, I get in trouble when I reference policy (supervote), I get in trouble when I do not reference policy (what's the evidence?); I'm used to it by now, though. RedSlash 19:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel compelled to point out that those sources are of published books which are at least more than a decade and as much as a century old. There has been a significant general societal change towards using gender-neutral titles within the last ten years. Safrolic (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Safrolic: I assume you have some sort of proof for that claim? Considering the clear dominance of use of "chairman" at last indication, such a huge "societal change" seems like it would leave some sort of easily demonstrable and convincing numerical evidence. I have to wonder though why such no one in a month of discussion cited such evidence. Or could it be you are guessing or, more likely, hoping something has changed. --Netoholic@ 20:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NGRams only go to 2008, and those particular ones aren't really the best.
WP:BLUESKY might be why two out of three editors concluded "chairman" is not the best title (or the current common name), without having to review sources providing conclusive proof. Levivich 23:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, NGrams are a very poor tool for this kind of thing. The corpora also have marked inconsistencies and can thus give misleading results (for various things, if you do an "English" search and then do separate "British English" and "American English" searches, the latter two results combined will not bear much resemblance to the combined corpus!). NGrams can be suggestive of long-term patterns, up to 2008, but are insufficient data on their own, and are not very solid data. Another problem with them is they mix in all kinds of stuff, including fiction and news, not jjust non-fiction books (news style is very different from other writing styles). Another is that the number of books and other works from each year included in the corpus is not consistent from year to year. Another is that it's machine-parsed data, and OCR has a high error rate. Another is that the Google NGrams interface actually changes the input and does not do literal searches on the strings entered (it will on some of them, but it does various automatic conversions, and there's no way to escape them, other than by someone downloading all the corpora and building a bettter database search tool for them, which no one has done to my knowledge. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was a reasonable close and well aligned to policy for using WP:COMMONNAME. There was no consensus indeed, but that does not mean maintaining the status quo is immutable decision; consensus can change after reasonable period of time. But it's quite sad to see that an out of process RM was opened in parallel to this legitimate Move review in an attempt to force 'consensus' in favor. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammarpad: The new RM was !voted against by the editor who opened it, so I don't think it was an attempt to force consensus in favor of the move. It's worth noting that the closer explicitly said on their talk page "Feel free to re-request the move, perhaps with a more specific proposed title, at the timeframe of your choosing". Finally, this move review wasn't posted yet (23:22) at the time of the new RM (23:07), they were more or less simultaneous. So even though I also disagree with having a parallel RM and MR, I don't think it's fair to call it "out of process" or otherwise hold it against the editor who posted it. Levivich 16:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the new RM was out of process because the fact that the closer of the previous RM had been asked to explain further had been posted on the article talk page well before the new RM started there. Though not part of the formal process, it's fairly well understood that closers often do revert their own closes when asked, and that such a request on the closer's talk page is often the first step in the MR process when the closer refuses to revert, which is exactly how it turned out in this case. Also, RMs made by noms who are opposed to them tend not to put forward the strongest arguments for the move they are proposing, and frankly I think such RMs are disruptive and should not be allowed. --В²C☎ 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was appropriate. The move proposal was held open much longer than the normal week time, and no consensus emerged, nor was it likely to emerge if the proposal had been left open longer. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It appears that no amount of further discussion would have resulted in any general agreement, so the close should be endorsed. Editors can strengthen their args and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a new title. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer couldn't find consensus. How do you prove that there was one when both sides had strong, policy based arguments? Even you just count the votes, one side isn't so much larger in numbers that you can ignore the policy based reasoning on the other side. This was open for over the seven day minimum and doesn't look like to gain much more insight by further conversation Valeince (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – After a long and deep discussion, lack of consensus is obvious. To revisit after a year, per WP:CCC. — JFGtalk 07:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist—there's a consensus to move, all that's needed is a consensus on where to move. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply as all given options are common and have been for decades—WP:COMMONNAME is meant to apply to terms that are dominant, not simply statistically "more common" than the alteratives. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, without prejudice against a (voluntary) expanded/clarified closure statement, since the closer complains of being "damned if you do, damned if you don't" with regard to closure length and detail, in successive MRVs. The close was accurate, both in finding no consensus and not finding a consensus in favor of something specific. A numeric majority that perhaps support a move but cannot agree at all on what to move to and (the important part) have mutually inconsistent and incompatible rationales for wanting to move it, many of them not grounded in policy or sources, is a great example of a failure of consensus to emerge and of why we have to frequently repeat that consensus discussions are not votes. It's ironic that much of the closer's statement (unusually short for that closer) was devoted to that reminder, and people still are not absorbing it. RM, RfC, etc. are not a ballot box. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, SarahSJ, B2C mmake a reasonable case that consensus was forming at that the RM should have been relisted instead of closed; I thus am not opposed to re-opening for another week. It's a better outcome for a consensus to develop; if one does not, then the original close will be mirrored in a later one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, where does the closer complain of being "damned if you do, damned if you don't" with regard to closure length and detail, in successive MRVs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my initial defense of the close (written above), I wrote "in a previous MRV I was taken to task for being too wordy in my closing statements, so I went with a concise one this time. Alas, my attempt to avoid MRV failed"; I later posted "I get in trouble when I summarize sources, I get in trouble when I reference policy (supervote), I get in trouble when I do not reference policy (what's the evidence?)" I fear that the real reason for me getting in "trouble" is just that people cannot resist filing MRV if they don't get their desired result and the closer in question is a non-admin, which just ends up wasting a ton of time for everyone, since in multiple places we explicitly mention that closure by a non-admin is never a reason to overturn. RedSlash 16:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answer's SJ's question. For the record, I agree with RS's gist. People are way too often (maybe even most of the time, these days) misusing DRV as a forum-shopping venue to re-litigate the case they didn't win at RM. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not misusing it. I opened this review because Red Slash arrived as consensus was forming in a new section. It made no sense to close the discussion at that point. I would also prefer that an admin close it, in part because of the complexity of weighing the consensus, and in part because of the implications for the project. To have this article at chairman in 2019 makes us look, as we so often do, allergic to the 21st century. The nutshell at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions says: "If you are not an administrator you should be cautious when closing certain contentious requests." Being cautious doesn't include swooping in to close it just as consensus is forming. SarahSV(talk) 18:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is Brexit all over again: consensus for a move, no consensus on what to move it to. I think both these arguments are incorrect: "there is clear consensus for a move, therefore the current title should be eliminated from consideration" and "people can't agree on where to move it to, so the current title stays be default". Instead, the current title should be considered one of many possibilities, with no special status relative to the others. At some point you just have to throw up your hands and conduct a vote like WP:IECOLL. Voting is evil when an issue hasn't been fully hashed out and there remain substantial differences in quality of arguments; this has already been discussed to death and in a discussion as well-attended as this, the number of people you are able to convince to your side is, in itself, a measure of whether your argument succeeded. This is too complicated an issue to actually form a consensus on a single solution, but I reject that as being automatic support for the status quo. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well said and this is exactly why the second survey was created, in which there was a clear favorite, and it was not the status quo. The closer seemed to ignore all this. --В²C☎ 22:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to compliment you on how well-stated this was. Thank you. Safrolic (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because it misrepresents both Wikipedia policy and what actually went on in this discussion, as noted above. In some discussions there is very clear consensus that the page has to be moved somewhere, even though the somewhere is not clear. That was not the case here, given the significant support for the status quo. And "I reject that as being automatic support for the status quo" may be your personal opinion, but the Wikipedia convention is always to default to the status quo. If you want to change that, start an RFC and propose an alternative. Until then, we stick with the current rules. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is really well-stated, and don't think it misrepresents the policy or the discussion. The policy is WP:Article titles, and it doesn't address this situation. We have a guideline, WP:THREEOUTCOMES, which prescribes what to do when there is consensus to move but not a consensus for a target (my !vote here is based on this guideline). That guideline doesn't say "very clear consensus", it says "consensus". In the discussion, two out of three editors agreed it should be moved. That is consensus. (In fact, it's a supermajority, which is "very clear" consensus). One out of three is not "significant" opposition, because consensus is not about being unanimous, and we shouldn't require more than a supermajority to declare consensus. The notion that the page should stay at the current title is contrary to consensus. We're long past the point of trying to figure out if the article should be moved; the only question is where to. There's no point in delaying resolution of that question to a future RM. This one should be allowed to conclude its natural course without interruption. Levivich 15:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Must be missing something, because it seems that the count is actually 18 in favor of a move to something and 9 opposed. That's not 1 out of 3, that's 1 out of 2, so that might be considered a very rough consensus or it might not, nor does it bode well for any particular title. Still think this closure should be endorsed. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
9 "don't move" and 18 "move" = 27 total votes. 1:2 is the ratio of don't-move:move (9:18). "Two out of three" means the ratio of move:total votes (18:27 or 2:3). Out of every three editors who voted, two voted to move. When the number of "ayes" (18) is twice the number of "nays" (9), the aye:nay ratio is 18:9 or 2:1, but the aye:total ratio is 18:27 or 2:3. (Hence "two-to-one odds" means the same thing as "two out of three", as in 2:1 = 2/3 = 66%.) Levivich 22:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These numbers being thrown around look very fuzzy. I see 12 for chairman, 12 for chairperson, 4 for chair officer, and 2 for chair role. This move/not move total is a load of bunk for anyone closing, as are all the totals since it's based on strength of argument. I still endorse the close as being fair among several options, but there's no question that chairman and chairperson came out the strongest among editor opinions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18 out of 30 is 2 out of 3.3, or 60%. Still consensus, not fuzzy. Levivich 00:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking you should run for some political office:-) You could just as easily say in the last election that Chairman gathered 40% of the vote and Chairperson gathered 40% of the vote. Officer only managed 13%, and Role only a measly 7%. The runoff would be between Chairman and Chairperson, not Chairperson, Officer and Role. You're twisting only to suit your case instead of being objective. The closer looked past this fuzzy math. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Two out of three ...." "Actually, it's 18 out of 30.." "That's 2 out of 3.3." "What's with all these fuzzy numbers being thrown around?" :-) Levivich 13:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speaking about judging consensus, a ranked-choice survey is no substitute for full voting, but I think the benefit of a quick ranked-choice survey is its succintness and ease of interpretation. (almost?) Everyone voting in it had made full arguments (even several full arguments) above in the main !voting section, but those were long and convoluted. This took only a few minutes to tally up, and it provides an at-a-glance read of the overall opinions of the group which was able to respond in the three days before it was closed.
Round 1:
7 Chairman (1)
1 Chair (officer) (2)
2 Chair (role) (3)
10 Chairperson (4)
(officer) and (role) are eliminated in first two rounds, all their votes going to -person.
Round 3:
7 Chairman
14 Chairperson
Of those who voted for Chairman, Chairperson was the next-best option of 3 of them, and the last/omitted option of 4 of them. Also, consensus did appear to be forming in the survey as time passed- of the final seven votes over 12 hours, the last one only 11 minutes before it closed, Chairman was last or omitted on six, while Chairperson was first on four.
Comment – All these interpretations of headcounts and percentages are utterly bizarre. I hate to remind experienced editors that a discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE. Lack of consensus should be obvious to even the most passionate observer on either side of the debate. Someone please close this review before it turns into Talk:New York (state)/July 2016 move request. — JFGtalk 12:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing the shortcut instead of the essay. WP:NOTVOTE explicitly permits polls, and it doesn't say that the numbers don't matter, it says votes can be discounted. So, which of the 30 or so !votes do you think should be discounted? BTW, WP:NOTVOTE actually supports the poll method of choosing a winner in these situations: Once it has been decided by consensus to standardize an issue (e.g. template layout), it is likely there will be several suggestions for standards. Unless one of them is clearly preferred, an approval poll is recommended to select the best-liked standard. This is a way of helping to gauge which of several possible (often similar) versions has the most widespread support, so that the final version reflects consensus.
It's really not bizarre, but simple. Suppose there were only three editors voting. Editor 1 says it should stay at "Chairman" and produces sources showing "Chairman" is the COMMONNAME. Editor 2 says it should be "Chair" and produces sources showing "Chair" is the COMMONNAME. Editor 3 says it should be "Chairperson" and produces sources showing "Chairperson" is the COMMONNAME. How should a closer assess that consensus: as consensus not to move, no consensus to move, or consensus to move but no consensus for a target? Obviously, the latter, in which case per WP:THREEOUTCOMES the closer should pick either "Chairperson" or "Chair" without prejudice for a new move request to be opened. Simple. Levivich 13:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Utrecht tram shooting – I am here to close it as endorsed. The move was based on an alternative name proposed by a user, and the nominator also agreed with that. There is also a clear consensus in the discussion to support this move (closed by non-admin page mover). B dash (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There are numerous oppose in the RM, and some users suggested another name for the article. The discussion should last longer in order to achieve a consensus. 182.239.117.54 (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as the closer, I'd have appreciated a bit more discussion before the move review was filed. It wasn't really a discussion, more of a notification that a move review had been filed. SITH(talk) 14:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, < uninvolved > although I probably would have relisted it, since the discussion still seemed to be ongoing, and the year issue was not resolved. Since the closer's statement included "No prejudice against speedy renomination for the year...", if that is what the nom wants, then a new RM can be speediliy opened as Utrecht tram shooting → 2019 Utrecht tram shooting. Did see general agreement to use the word "tram" in the title. Here's a {{stink bomb}} for the nom's not discussing with closer first before opining about this close here at MRV. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "no consensus." I've read through the discussion twice now and I can't see how there was a consensus to move here. There was more opposition to the move than support for either the orignal proposed title or the one ultimately chosen. The move is also contrary to WP:NCEVENTS, as some of the opposition stated. I should also note the closer here is not an admin and should not have decided such a contentious request per WP:RMNAC. (To be clear, my vote is not soley because the closer is a not an admin, but it is the proverbial third strike for me against the close.) Calidum 18:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not for anything, Calidum, but per RMNAC: "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure" (my emphasis on "never"). So the fact that the closer is not an admin should never be a "third strike" nor anything else where MRV is concerned, isn't that so? That's the policy, so what do we do with just two strikes? Wasn't there a consensus to not keep the old page title? So the closer made a title choice, and then left a no-prejudice statement. What am I missing here? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 01:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: as there wasn't a discussion on my talk page, I hadn't seen it as a priority to review the closure because it was already at move review. If 182.239.117.54 had simply asked on my talk page to review the closure, I'd probably have come to the same conclusion as Paine Ellsworth and relisted it. Sometimes I deny requests because I think the closure was correct, in which case a move review can be filed. But I'd have been perfectly happy to re-open and relist in this instance, because the discussion was ongoing, but not because I'm not an administrator per Calidum's comment. I know some users don't like NACs on highly-attended discussions but I am a page mover which means that the function held by administrators has been unbundled and given to community members who have a good track record for closing discussions. Anyway, my point is, I'm happy to overturn and relist, but I don't want to do it myself because closing a move review questioning my own decision, even if I'm agreeing with the questioning, is probably out of process. SITH(talk) 12:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pagemover right was unbundled to enable non admins to execute the result of clear cut discussions. It was not unbundled to give non-admins the courage to imitate admin discretion in calling a rough censensus in difficult cases. Admins have been vetted for their understanding of policy and consensus, page movers have not. You should be more conservative, and follow the excellent advice at WP:NAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn <closer Supervoted against my !vote opposing>. WP:BADNAC. Highly contested discussion. Many argument-free !votes. Woefully insufficient explanation in the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No actual issue with the actual close, but a much better closing explanation is needed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As usual we disagree on the BADNAC vs. GOODNAC issue. My response to you is pretty much the same as I responded to Calidum above. This close was within the policy set by the closing instructions. There was a consensus to move, the title was up for grabs, the closer chose a title and left the request granted and open-ended on the date issue. Overturn !votes here just serve to drag this out far longer than needed. Thanks for that!Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 20:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice Paine, but nothing is different among these many cases, I am quite sure these many NACs are overreach, they amount to Supervotes, they diminish the respect for the RM process, they most certainly do not save anyone any time or effort. NAC-ers should stick to procedural closes where the reading of consensus is not in question; and if they think they are exception NAC-ers then they will make an impressive closing statement that garners the respect of people who read it, as opposed to receiving complaints and being taken to MRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We go against RMNAC when we in any way bring up that the closer is a non-admin here at MRV. RMNAC represents a community consensus to "never" use the fact that a closer is not an admin to overturn their close. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it needs editing, because of this blinkered reading. "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure". "the mere fact". That came from an RfC and I completely support it. We do not reject every NAC. Traditionally, any admin could revert any NAC for any reason (but it was implied unwritten that there was some reason). The RfC was an incremental thing establishing that no hypothetical single admin could unilaterally revert NACs for no better reason than that the admin didn't like NACs. My "overturn" is NOT based on the MERE FACT that it was an NAC, but that in combination with that it was a contested discussion that included opposing valid arguments and that other non-admins, and even admins, may have called it differently. And then add to it that the closing explanation was devoid of explanatory rationale, and absolutely it was a BADNAC. Someone, untested for understanding policy or reading of consensus in difficult situations has stepped in made an arbitrary close. I am NOT saying the close was wrong or right, but that the non-admin status PLUS the controversy PLUS the woefully unimpressive closing explanation means that the close needs to be overturned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No editing needed. The concept is very clear. If an editor thinks the close should be overturned due to a terse explanation, etc., then those are the reasons to be included in an MRV rationale. Non-admin status of the closer should "never" be included here in any overturn rationale – "never". Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 02:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NAC is relevant because it is important, because it is a common factor in so many dubious closes. The prohibition on calling it as the sole issue does not mean that it can’t be mentioned when relevant. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get that? "Never" means "not ever" – not as a sole issue and not as one of several issues – not ever. Or has the clear meaning of "never" just floated right over your respected noggin? "The mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure." Seems pretty clear to me that it is community consensus that is being violated whenever an editor even mentions that the closer is a non-admin in these move reviews. And that's possibly because it always comes off like a personal attack against the closer, whether it was meant to or not. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 08:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem blind to the the “mere fact” part. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes are wide open; however, you seem blind to the "never" part. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 13:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never object when NAC is the only issue, but yes object when it is part of the set. Arbitrary supervotes correlate with NAC closes of contested discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More simply put: we are here to judge closes, not closers. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 09:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are making up rules. You are wrong. The close was poorly explained. No non-admin should have attempted that close, but allowing for an exceptional non-admin close. This close does not come close to being exceptionally good. You may read personal stuff into that if you like, the closer failed to excercise sufficient skill. Or you can read the facts, the close was not good enough, and non-admins do not enjoy the excercise of admin discretion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I no make up nothing. Please see WP:MRV#What this process is not, which clearly states: "This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion." Making up rules indeed!Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 13:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NB I have no issue with either of the closers whose closes are being reviewed in this log. I can offer constructive criticism, which may sound personal. That is not focusing on the person. NAC is but one of the things I think is worth a mention. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with either of the closers whose closes are being reviewed in this log.
All evidence to the contrary. Never means never. If you have issues with the close, then this is the place for them. If you think it's a BADNAC, then in accord with WP:MRV#What this process is not, your two options are the closer's talk page or WP:ANI, not here at MRV. Bringing it up here casts aspersions, may be construed as personal attacks, and can result in speedily closing of move reviews. The community has spoke! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 13:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. What level of privilege of user is appropriate to close difficult discussions with an arbitrary discussion is part of the RM process and so is relevant to RM review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC). Maybe it is the “sufficient” younare missing. “Never” and “never sufficient” don’t have the same meaning. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those community consensuses that you go up against are there to ensure that this process is not corrupted with personal attacks against the closer. Please stick to the quality of the close only, and stop focusing on the closer with issues that should be seen only on an editor's talk page or an admin noticeboard. Anything – anything – that has to do with the status of the closer is "never sufficient" enough to be raised here at MRV! – "Never sufficient" enough. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 04:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read you are repetitively ranting. You are not persuading me. Are you doing this for our audience? Should we go to User_talk? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read we're both ranting repetitively. Considering raising this issue in an RfC. Just don't understand your unwillingness to abide by two community consensuses, as noted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 08:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I consider your understanding of “community consensuses” inaccurate and I think there no problem calling for an RfC. My opinion that you and a couple of others challenge is merely that WP:NAC should apply equally to RMs as to AfDs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is not the issue here. The consensuses that formed RMNAC and MRV#What this process is not specifically include only discussion about the close itself here at MRV. And they specifically exclude discussion about the closer rather than the close. If you choose to abide by the community's decisions, then it would be most appreciated!Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 12:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in the initial discussion, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't falsely ascribe motives to my comments. Calidum 01:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize because I have never sensed anything but good faith in your comments, and I would never mean to ascribe motives, false or otherwise, to them. Just trying to understand your !vote. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Paine Ellsworth. The closer gave a clear message although there was consensus to move away from the existing title, a new RM could be reopened covering just the year issue. That's a textbook and good close, and the "BADNAC" arguments from the usual suspects above shouldn't take away from that. Rather than filing this MRV, which just sets us back to square one, the filers should have gone ahead and opened the new RM which the closer suggested. On the discussion itself, although there were many opposes, most of those were related to the removal of the year rather than the insertion of the word "tram". That's why a further RM to choose between Utrecht tram shooting and 2019 Utrecht tram shooting is more productive than a full relist of the original RM. Note for full disclaimers: I participated in the original debate, and !voted for the current title. I also challenged an early close of this MRV at User:StraussInTheHouse, and got their permission to reopen the MRV. — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an opinionated !voter in the discussion, you should not have moved the pages as you just did. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Paine Ellsworth (uninvolved). Reasonable choice by closer well within their discretion. More explanation in closing statement would have been nice, but not required. The lack of discussion at closer talk page before starting this MR is disappointing. --В²C☎ 20:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are not uninvolved (although better worded "not objective" on this regular titling battleground), you are a bold up-there-in-neon-lights title minimalist who always argues to drop things like the year from a title that is otherwise technically unique. That aside, the "More explanation in closing statement would have been nice" is actually so important that it demands the overturn for that alone. If NACers closing contested discussions are not required to write a close that explains why that particular close is the right close, then NAC closes descend into random choice depending on which NACer arrives first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"If NACers closing contested discussions are not required to write a close that explains ..." This part should be edited into your !vote in the chairman discussion, as it's highly applicable and speaks to the actual problem with the other NAC. Safrolic (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fading away at the moment. Why don't you quote/copy/repeat it there yourself. Someone repeating someone else's arguments is far more persuasive than the one person repeatedly saying the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – After much discussion, a trend appeared in support of "Utrecht tram shooting", which the nominator supported as well. Decision was well within closer's discretion. Analysis of the discussion supports the closer's conclusion; it's a stretch to call this a supervote. — JFGtalk 07:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your considered opinion, JFG, that to have called it “consensus to not move” or “no consensus” would not have been reasonable? If there was any arbitrariness in the close, if there is not an objectively read result, then that’s in the supervote zone for me. I am genuinely interested in your opinion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a conclusion of "no move" would have been unsupported by the balance of discussion, and hence a supervote. A closure as "no consensus" would have been reasonable, although not ideal, because there was strong support for moving to something (including an editor who qualified their opposition by stating "Could be Utrecht tram shooting"). I believe that both conclusions of "move as amended" or "no consensus" were within closer discretion, and the closer chose to favor action over inaction. The debate revolved around a tension between WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, with some commenters arguing that the date helped recognizability, and others that it was superfluous. The WP:NCEVENTS guideline allows both styles, so its invocation didn't help much. More commenters coalesced around the suggestion to satisfy precision with the "tram" word, with or without a date. Nevertheless the closer left space for a future addition of the date if deemed necessary. Had I closed this, I would have read the discussion as "consensus to change the title", "no consensus for including the date", and "upcoming consensus with no objection" to include the "tram" word. As a consequence, I would have moved the article to "Utrecht tram shooting", and I would have included the above detailed rationale. — JFGtalk 09:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find that persuasive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
