Overturn. All five editors who commented in the discussion favored a move of some sort and only one editor opposed the suggested target, instead favoring a change in the birth year from 1964 to 1965. There was unanimous support to move the article and 80% of editors supported the suggested target as the most appropriate article title. Therefore, there is no possible basis for closure as no consensus. DrKay (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom. I favored the move as proposed. While I believe either a move or no move could be justified via policy, and no one made an illegitimate argument, the close was egregious. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for the closer to register an oppose vote and leave it to someone else. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, with re-review from mover I will point out that numerical counts of supports and opposition would make it a simple vote, which it is not; the inputs are to be substantive, not just "I support it too". That being said, the main argument revolves around whether "mexican footballer" is ambiguous vs. "footballer, born (year)". There appears to be some ambiguity about whether the sportsperson was born in 1964 or 1965, and there are three possible titles being discussed "mexican footballer", "footballer, born 1964" and "footballer, born 1965". The potential for ambiguity was brought up by one person, and I did not take into account his effective retraction of that statement. Based on re-reviewing the discussion and properly recognizing the retraction of ambiguity, I think I adjudged the article move request in error, particular as the the naming convention guideline suggests prioritizing nationality over year of birth in cases of disambiguation. I will point out, though, that if you look at Victor Medina, that the move will bring this article out of consistency in naming format with the title of the article about the Panamanian footballer; maybe that also should be suggested for a move based on the Nationality over Year of Birth guideline. I have not investigated how long ago that portion of the naming guideline was put in place, or whether it was a controversial matter, but that's not directly relevant to the present case, but could season it. In recognizing the error, I'll reiterate that consensus is not a matter of numerical votes; that is well established here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). A relist would have been much better, while it is acceptable to close an RM with one relist as no consensus, it's pretty clear that at least some consensus was generated from the discussion. Even the oppose !vote accepted that the status quo wasn't ideal, and it is acceptable to relist up to three times. Consensus on a target could be plausibly achieved with an extra relist. SITH(talk) 00:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. <uninvolved> And relist to give RM closer time to re-review the closure. It should be noted that any move request can be closed at any time following a relist; no need to adhere to a 7-day or any length waiting period to close if consensus is found in the RM discussion. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 00:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Telephone (game) – Overturned to no consensus. Regrettably, this MRV discussion is mostly devoid of proper analysis of whether the close was an accurate summary of the discussion when viewed through the lens of policy. Most of the chat below looks like simple relitigation of the debate from participants on both sides. The sole !vote from a non-participant says "Closure was adequate" without really going into the merits of it. Ultimately though, in reading through the comments in the MRV, I see some serious concerns raised about the closure, which aren't adequately countered. Necrothesp's comment probably summarises the concerns in the "overturn" !votes best: "The closer ignored the fact that a move would contradict WP:ATDAB, WP:RETAIN (the title has been stable for fourteen years) and WP:ENGVAR". At root, this is simply a dispute between two different varieties of English, and WP:RETAIN is very clear that "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary". The only major reason given for ignoring this policy was that the long-term stable title breached WP:POV. But the "overturn" !votes also challenge this point. Again, per Necrothesp: "Claiming that the term is racist is clearly highly POV, especially since it has entered into common English usage and is widely used even by the media". The notion that "Chinese whispers" is racist or offensive was not proven in the RM, and is seemingly not endorsed by reliable sources who themselves use it freely. Overall then, the consensus here when assessing and evidencing the policy arguments (as opposed to relitigating the RM) is that the closure should have been "no consensus". — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This close was originally simply "Moved" but after discussion with the closer they added an explanation that most were in favour of "Telephone" or some variant but while 7 (including the nom) supported the proposal while only 4 opposed it and I would never ignore the support/oppose ratio, as most of us know the quality of the arguments are more important than the quality. The 2nd point regarding WP:POVNAME wasn't raised in the discussion and as FOARP noted on the closer's talk sources to counter this was provided anyway. The most important point on the oppose side (that I made) is that WP:ATDAB says Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so we chose Elevator as the title of the article on the lifting device. so basically "Chinese whispers" (the common name in 1 variety of English) is an effective tie breaker between Telephone (game) (a bracketed title) and Telephone game (a natural disambiguator in another variety of English) and WP:RETAIN which most of the supported cited says the change reduces ambiguity (and no one addressed this) which "Chinese whispers" does even though "Telephone game" and "Telephone (game)" were what the article was titled (until 2006). I would also note that in prior moves evidence "Chinese whispers" is used in the US was also presented and it was noted that it used to be called "Chinese whispers" in the US. As was also noted on the closer's talk page that a RM is a discussion about having support in consensus for a new title rather than having opposition for the old title. At best this was a no consensus since although in the minority the opposer's arguments were as strong or stronger than the support and in a RM discussion (as in most places on Wikipedia) the burden usually lies of those supporting the move (with the possibly exception of primary topics) to make the stronger case, not those opposing the move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved, supported move). This appears to just be relitigation of the requested move. Obviously the supporters disagree that the oppose arguments were stronger, or else they wouldn't have supported at all. The opposers to the move were very, very voluminous in the text devoted to their opposition; all of the above concerns were already raised, and rejected by the supporters, that "Chinese whispers" reduces some nonexistent ambiguity or something. There isn't any new information in this Move Review. Finally, even if this was considered to be a case for a "no consensus" close, there's a strong WP:RETAIN argument that "no consensus" = restore to the original title of Telephone (game), since a consensus needs to be gathered to break RETAIN, and the fact that the article was started using American English is not contested. SnowFire (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also only speaking for myself here, I know other supporters cited other reasons, but re Necrothesp below: IMO, WP:RETAIN does not have a "time limit". If an article is started using British English in 2003, moved on shaky grounds in 2006, and then is "stable" for 14 years at the American English title, I would think WP:RETAIN would support restoring the BrEng title & style so as not to "reward" the undiscussed move. Such an interpretation of RETAIN would not turn this into American Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there was a disagreement and no clear consensus! The opposers presented evidence such as sources and citations to our PAGs (such as ATDAB and RETAIN) while the supporters main arguments were RETAIN (which as I've noted actually allows such moves for disambiguation purposes) and that the title is considered offensive (which NOTCENSORED counters). And regarding the supporters rejecting the arguments first of all neither the sources provided by FOARP (which counter the nomination statement) nor the ATDAB (and RETAIN) argument that I (and others made) about avoiding ambiguity was addressed by the supporters. Secondly a RM discussion is about obtaining consensus for a new title not obtaining consensus to keep the existing one. I didn't feel the need to repeat what RETAIN says to every "Support" argument that cited it per WP:BLUDGEON but that argument should have been applied by the closer.
While I think I agree with you that RETAIN says we revert a move that goes against RETAIN even if a move was made a long time ago the fact RETAIN says moves to avoid ambiguity are valid plus the fact its been (relatively) stable for around 14 years compared to being at "Telephone (game)"/"Telephone game" for only around 3 years makes me think reverting on this basis is not likely a good idea. In short augments in favour (1) offensive, (2) sources may show "telephone" is more common, (3) reverting move that changed variety and (4) called "telephone" in other languages. Against (1) sources show its 30% more common, (2) ATDAB (and RETAIN!) allow changes in variety for disambiguation and (3) its had the title for 14 years. For the favour arguments 1 was countered by NOTCENSORED, 2 was countered by FOARP's sources, 3 was countered by ATDAB and RETAIN and 4 was weak as noted by RGloucester by USENGLISH. For the against arguments 1 wasn't countered, 2 nether of the points that both PAGs say about disambiguation was addressed, 3 was countered by RETAIN but then countered by the disambiguation argument. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's much point discussing WP:RETAIN here since the closer did not appear to consider it in their close, and it does not appear to have been the basis of their close. A move-review is not supposed to be a re-hashing of the move discussion but instead an analysis of whether the closer assessed the consensus correctly - and they clearly did not. Instead it appears they decided based simply on the strength of feeling of the people opposing the present name, and then apparently came up with a post-hoc rationalisation based on a policy that wasn't even discussed in the RM discussion, and which applied fairly would not have resulted in moving.
To briefly address the ambiguity point, this was something discussed even by the supporters and was the reason they were divided as to which name they wanted to move to, so to say that it doesn't exist or the opposers were just making it up is clearly not correct. FOARP (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up RETAIN because of the reason in the close the article was originally created under a variation of the name "Telephone (game)" and moved via an undiscussed move which most of the support for the "2:1" majority point that the closer gave. To be perfectly honest if it wasn't for the ATDAB point of RETAIN I might just have let this go since otherwise SnowFire's point is valid that we shouldn't "reward" an old move contrary to our PAGs but the move was compliant (or as least is now). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: as a compromise maybe we should move back but have "Telephone" first in the lead. If the article on the lifting device started at Lift (device) in 2001 (which it appeared to unless history was lost) and moved to Elevator later would we move it back years later under RETAIN? Probably not because ATDAB and RETAIN allow such moves since "Lift" can mean anything while "Elevator" only means the device even though "elevator" if used significantly less common in British English than "lift". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what kind of "compromise" that is. Anyway, this is move review. The question is whether the consensus of the community was correctly discerned, not relitigating the merits. Clearly you and FOARP feel very, very strongly about this matter, but walls of text do not necessarily equal persuasiveness (as I have learned myself on some issues I "lost" on). The main confusion here is that there are multiple, separate policies that all indicate that the article should be brought back to Telephone (game). That's a strength in favor of restoring the original name, not a weakness because the closer cited one policy but not every supporter cited the exact same policy. SnowFire (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one making the oppose argument cited the policy on which the close argument was based. That is simply a bad close. It wouldn't have been cited, because it was a bad argument for support ("Telephone" is also a POVNAME - it is only to a North American that it appears neutral). FOARP (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the complaint, then I certainly think POVNAME applied as a supporter of Telephone (game). I don't see citing that policy as a problem with the close or as not reflective of my comments; as I mentioned, there are multiple reasons to restore the original title here. I did mostly press RETAIN after you responded to my !vote because the "Chinese whispers" proponents were very clear that they thought the racism / POV angle was no big deal, and pushing that kind of argument tends to generate more heat than light, but I also made clear that I believed that the racism concerns (read: POVNAME concerns) also suggest a move away from Chinese whispers. SnowFire (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walls of text that contain arguments based on policy/guideline and otherwise good points should be given greater weight that arguments that fail to take into account a part of a guideline (the ambiguity part being ignored in RETAIN). While you did rely on IAR as part of you're reasoning which was valid it doesn't override the strong arguments based on sources and PAGs presented by the opposition so finding a consensus to move is inappropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). The closer ignored the fact that a move would contradict WP:ATDAB, WP:RETAIN (the title has been stable for fourteen years) and WP:ENGVAR. If we look at the supporting votes, two use the argument that "telephone" is the WP:COMMONNAME, which is clearly not a wider world POV and should probably be discounted. Claiming that the term is racist is clearly highly POV, especially since it has entered into common English usage and is widely used even by the media. If we are not going to apply WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN then we may as well just rename this American Wikipedia, as there are always going to be more American editors on here than others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). Reasons:
The close was essentially a WP:SUPERVOTE, and as such improper, since it raised issues not discussed in the RM discussion (particularly WP:POVNAME) and decided on that basis. No-one can say that they were assessing consensus if they decided on the basis of arguments not presented in the discussion.
Even applying WP:POVNAME, since the resulting name was also a WP:POVNAME (i.e., it is the name primarily used in North America and hence represents a North American POV) it was not well reasoned.
Even assuming the resulting name to be neutral (it isn't) the only evidence explicitly produced in the RM discussion (i.e., the Google NGrams data) as to what the common name was conclusively pointed to Chinese Whispers being the name used in a clear majority of sources (30% more use in the NGrams corpus than the other names combined). Applying POVNAME fairly would result in no move as the common name is favoured in those circumstances.
The impropriety of the close is particular highlighted by the closer's apparent ignoring of WP:NOTAVOTE. Specifically, they stated prior to drafting their final closing statement that "the support arguments would have to be really weak for the discussion to be closed as "no consensus"—the majority of !voters clearly felt that the arguments in favor were more persuasive", which is to say that the support arguments were not weak because the people making them did not feel they were weak. To be fair perhaps they just weren't thinking clearly about it, but since they had already made the close decision the day before saying this the impression is that this was the actual reason for the close and the rest was post-hoc rationalisation after being challenged.
The close added all the votes against the existing name and assumed them to be votes in favour of the resulting name, but actually they were fairly evenly divided as to the name they wanted to move to. An RM discussion is a discussion in favour or against moving to a new name, not a discussion about whether people like the present name or not per se.
This discussion was a classic example of where WP:NOTAVOTE would result in a decision agreeing with the minority, since those arguing against moving clearly grounded their views in policy (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:RETAIN, WP:ATDAB etc.), whilst those in the "majority" (a majority against the present title, but not so much in favour of the new title) either failed to express any actual policy in favour of moving (e.g., saying that the name should change because of what the name in Finnish is) or were incorrect in fact (e.g., the incorrect statements made in the nom about what the most common name in the Google Ngrams corpus was). This is particularly the case when ENGVAR discussion are always going to see a majority in favour of the US name as the majority of Wiki editors are US-based and will vote in favour of US English - the closer must look at the actual basis of the arguments in policy and not simply be swayed by which name appears more familiar to them or which seems (due to lack of familiarity) "racist". FOARP (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP is correct to note that the closer introduced the WP:POVNAME link, and that this crosses the SUPERVOTE line. The closer should have !voted that contribution. POVNAME, particularly “Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious“, is exactly what I argued in my !vote, but I did not name the policy section. Closers should not use policy links as trump cards to supervote, doing so undermines a purpose of the discussion, the purpose of mutual education through discussion. Closers should not be playing the adult adjudicating children participants. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t intend to comment here because I participated in the request, but closers are supposed to base their closes on policy. So, how is it inappropriate for a closer to reference a policy (POVNAME) that nearly every supporter implicitly raised in their comments? Your argument boils down to a policy doesn’t apply in a particular discussion unless someone explicitly links to it, which is not how things work. -- Calidum 21:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How policy applies to a particular case, and how to read it (Black letter law?), etc can be subject to discussion, and so it is not appropriate for a closer to be the first and only participant to cite a particular policy line as decisive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me anything that supports this absurd interpretation. WP:POVNAME isn't some obscure page. It's part of WP:AT. Anyone participating in move requests should be familiar with that page and closers need to consider it when making closes. -- Calidum 04:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, the closer should not be coming in with a decisive new argument, including a decisive new policy argument. Here, the policy argument was in play, but not cited. Overturning for this reason might be considered "absurd", I won't disagree. POVNAME being a WP:AT section surprised me, although in hindsight it should not have. I will disagree that anyone participating in move requests needs to be conversant with every line of WP:AT, title discussions are not just for policy wonks. Ideally, the nominator would have cited POVNAME upfront, educating all as to the support from policy. I suspect that if that were done, the discussion would have been better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add this to my above comment but got edit conflicted, but it is important to remind you of WP:NOTLAW, Wikipedia "is not a quasi-judicial body" and "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." This will be my last comment here. -- Calidum 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While it would have been ideal for the nomination to cite WP:POVNAME, POVNAME was argued from first principles, and the closer did better to cite it than to not. I Endorse the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe - I think the SUPERVOTE nature of the closer's raising of WP:POVNAME is particularly highlighted by the closer's answer when I pointed out that "Telephone" is also a POVNAME (it represents the North American POV): "If you thought telephone was a POV name you should have stated that in the discussion, yet that was not an argument made by any !voter". This is obviously a bad argument - the point could not have been raised if POVNAME itself were not raised, and if the closer was to employ mind-reading to adduce it being raised by the support !votes, and it was common-ground between the two sides the "Telephone" is the name used in No0rth America and as such not a neutral name.
The two sides of the discussion were clearly not being treated fairly in the close, which moved heaven and earth to adduce a POVNAME argument for support but didn't at all try to adduce any counter-argument based on POVNAME for oppose. FOARP (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a ridiculous argument to suggest that POVNAME applies in cases where we are choosing between American and British titles. Quite frankly, in the years that I've participated in move requests I can't remember that argument being made once. -- Calidum 15:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the close was based on POVNAME and this is a choice between Commonwealth and North American POV titles, so why, other than bluster, does it not apply? And if it does not apply then why was the close based on it? FOARP (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). In light of my other comments, above this, I am formally endorsing the close. The closer was correct to use WP:POVNAME to determine that we shouldn't be using racist articles titles, an argument addressed by nearly every supporter of the initial request. I'd like to remind everyone that is not a requested move part 2. -- Calidum 15:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming POVNAME does apply it shouldn't have been used as the only (or even main) factor when first of all FOARP provided sources to show that the term is more common and secondly it should have taken into account ATDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your points repeatedly in the RM, on the closer's talk page and here. You might consider stepping away from the dead horse you've been beating. -- Calidum 18:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to relist to allow more discussion on the POVNAME point but I'm skeptical that there would be consensus for the move even with that discussed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the RM. As the closer said in your discussion on his talk page, "Multiple users actually expressed concern about the POV of the name, in slightly different words." It was discussed, you just disagree. SnowFire (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether POVNAME applied to the new name (it clearly does since it's the name used only in North America) was not discussed, and would have been if POVNAME had been raised as a !vote rather than being adduced out of discussion about whether the present name is racist or not. That each name is only common in part of the English speaking world was common ground between the two sides so, had the closer been willing to be as understanding on this point with the oppose !votes as they were towards the supporters, they could also have adduced that out of the discussion. FOARP (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does POVNAME really apply anyway? in addition to FOARP's sources that do show "Chinese whispers" as being more common its not really POV since the article is about a game not about Chinese people's speech anyway. There are multiple reasons for requesting review of this close and even if some are not considered appropriate to overturn I doubt all will be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Clipper#Requested move 28 November 2020 as another example, the side against the move mostly asserted without providing evidence primacy while it was shown in the nom that page views don't show a primary topic and the close was no consensus partly due to the (probably valid) concerns about correct terminology. You could argue that "no consensus" means no primary topic similarly but there hasn't been a consensus for that yet. In this case though it was a discussion in favour of a move so the support generally has to make the stronger case even if in a majority so this close should have been the came as the clipper one for similar reasons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Closure was adequate, and what is all this about POVNAME? That was implied in the RM if not expressly cited, and closers are also responsible for implied policies and guidelines when they evaluate consensus. No !supervote here, just good closing. This was a close that should be endorsed by all!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 23:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: I'm not here to bludgeon the process but could you please explain why you think this should be endorsed with respect to POVNAME? POVANAME says "a significant majority of English-language sources" although 30% more may not be "significantly more" it does at least question if we should have moved (and as noted I'm not sure POVANAME applies since it is about a game not about Chinese people's speech). Although the comment was the 2nd to last !vote supporters had 13 days to counter it. If it wasn't for FOARP's argument then I would have accepted that although I may have given good arguments there was a consensus to move among the majority and sources at the time. I agree PAGs don't always need to be explicitly stated to be counted but the policy doesn't clearly apply here, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be endorsed because it was a good closure. I made the crack about POVNAME because of those who would call the closure a !supervote just because the closer mentioned it. I made no opinion about how much POVNAME actually applies to the discussion; however, we should note that whether or not it actually applies, some editors in the discussion seemed to think it does. I'm not expert enough on the subject to know for certain either way. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 02:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should also say that whenever I've seen neutrality discussed, there are some who holler "POV" and others who holler "NPOV". It just has to be hashed out among editors and we have to live with whatever consensus prevails. In this case the prevailing consensus so far is that the previous title was not neutral. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 02:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
John Boyd (footballer, born 1929) – Agree to Moving article to John Allan Boyd per Weak CONSENSUS. Though several names are recorded for this idividual, the new evidence offers the simplist solution, per OTHERNAMES, and an over-ride of bureacracy-laden opposition seems reasonable in that light. Using his full name for the article is most inclusive for possible search terms in the future. Starting a third proposal is pointless navel gazing at this point. No need to let this proposal further languish in the close que (93 days and counting). GenQuest"scribble" 03:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Non-Administrative closure[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Only one source, which is an archived dead link, calls this man 'John Boyd'.[1].
Two call him 'Alan Boyd'.[2][3]
Three call him 'Allan Boyd'.[4][5][6]
Three call him 'John Allan Boyd'.[7][8][9]
It is therefore clear that the commonest name is 'Allan Boyd' or 'John Allan Boyd' and the least commonest name is 'John Boyd'. Clear evidence was provided that the article is not at the common name. No argument or evidence was presented by opposers regarding the common name. The single opposer only spoke about an unrelated discussion regarding the year of birth, which was already resolved. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - good close. The discussion was open for 2 months, with minimal input and no clear consensus on where the article should be located. GiantSnowman 14:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Discussion had been relisted once and languished in the backlog for weeks, seems reasonable. I can't discern a consensus so I'd have done the same. I think renominating a bit later would be more reasonable, move review is the wrong venue for this. SITH(talk) 21:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved Its a difficult one, the oppose !vote doesn't appear particularly valid, saying that the RM was recently closed but the issue of name (instead of birth year) wasn't brought up doesn't make sense, bringing up a new issue with a completely different proposal is OK IMO however this had been open over 2 months so relisting doesn't appear an option since we probably shouldn't close as move when there is an oppose. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move. The sole oppose vote was procedural ("we had another RM recently"), and failed to even address the substance of the proposal. The proposer brought new evidence supporting an entirely different name, and it was not refuted in any sensible way. It would make sense even to move to his full name John Allan Boyd which has apparently been used by the RS. No such user (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. <uninvolved> Article should be moved over the Allan Boyd redirect per No such user. Apologies closer, however this one shows to me a clear consensus to rename the page. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 21:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user and Paine Ellsworth: my concern is that he is called John, Alan, and Allan in different sources. Where is the clear consensus that one is correct over the others? GiantSnowman 21:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: It's not about consensus, it's about evidence. The two very authoritative sources (obituary and architect society page) make it clear that his full name was "John Allan Boyd", and the proposer analyzed which form was most commonly used in sources. Rather than engaging with that evidence, you pulled up a procedural argument that a RM was held recently (yeah, so what? The subject is not exactly famous so we all learn as we go along). We are supposed to make a consensus on presentation of known facts, not a "consensus" made out of thin air and with limited evidence. No such user (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - but where is the evidence that he was known as 'Allan Boyd' rather than 'John Boyd'? GiantSnowman 21:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the very top of the linked RM, conveniently repeated at the top of this MR. In case you missed it, here it is again: [10][11][12]. No such user (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be a dick, I've seen the sources, I've been editing the article since I created it. PS one of those sources says 'John Allan Boyd'. What about the other sources that say Alan/John? GiantSnowman 22:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown absolutely no sign that you have seen the sources, so a degree of dickishness of mine was IMO absolutely justified in face of your apparent obtuseness. No such user (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor GiantSnowman: yes, I see the RM as a consensus to move because the nom laid out a decent argument and was supported by another editor, while your opposing argument called it "pointy", with which I disagreed. Nothing pointy about it, because it was a new and different argument for a new and different page title. Had I closed it, the article would have been moved to the nom's suggested title. Then it might be you bringing it here to review my closure. The page really should have been renamed, and the nom's args plus Nsu's args above clinch it for me despite SmokeyJoe's arg below. Sincere apologies to you and to the closer, but there definitely was consensus in that RM – consensus to move the page. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 23:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Insufficient participation, and arguably too soon after the previous RM. The nomination was reasonable, perhaps more participation could have been enticed with a nicer-formatted nomination, or by pinging the participants of the previous RM, or other WP:Publicising discussions. It is clear that relisting of discussions does not do it well, I still think relisting without meaningful comment is useless or worse. There is enough doubt in the facts that the conclusion is in doubt. Not meaning to criticize the nomination, by suggestion for moving forwards is a fresh RM nomination with a more comprehensive rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Participation was insufficient indeed, but then WP:NOTAVOTE. We've moved RMs with no participation at all if the nominator presents a compelling argument. When we have a well argued nomination for moving supported by 8 sources (plus one "support per nom"), and a single substance-free oppose, I would have little doubt about the correct closing. I find "too soon after the previous RM" entirely unconvincing – it was about a different aspect entirely (DOB), and nobody even mentioned "Al(l)an" there except for DrKay. This one was an obvious good-faith nom, nowhere near a repetitive Kyiv-style disruption. No such user (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The critical difference, between no participation and this one, is the explicit oppose. I would not argue “too soon”, but someone did, without being countered, and the fact was that participation was far below the preceding RM. And, to my reading, I find the facts of the spelling to not be as clear as the the nominator does, I really think a bit more support was wanted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] It's a borderline call, but the closing admin is well justified int heir choice of close. MRV should not be re-evaluating the facts to overturn a “no consensus” in anything short of a gross error of judgement by the closer. The response to an unsatisfying “no consensus” should be to wait a couple of months, and then make a new, better proposal, than was made last time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move. Following a "no consensus" close, it is a common occurrence for a new RM to be started, citing new evidence or requesting for a new target. This RM satisfies both. It provided evidence for the proposal, and it was for a different target from the previous RM. The sole "oppose" !vote did not address the merits of the case at all, instead simply citing the fact that an RM had previously closed and that the previous RM didn't discuss the Allan option. Well this new RM was discussing that, and two supporters opined that it was the correct name. After being relisted, and with no further contributions other than those three, there seems little reason why it shouldn't have been closed as move. — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move. Low turnout and a pointless "objection" that is just procedural handwaving do not trump WP:COMMONNAME policy (or any policy). If one person provides a good policy- and sources-based rationale and even 10 people just make meaningless noise, then the argument that has an actual basis should prevail. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved), and start a new discussion forthwith. The close was within the closer's discretion in evaluating a low-participation discussion. I would suggest that the minimal participation indicates a minimal interest in the community in favor of moving the article. The lone oppose !vote was lazily written, but can be read as saying that the issue of the subject's given name, which was discussed in the previous discussion, was settled there. I expect that a new discussion initiated now would receive for more input. BD2412T 20:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Rise of the Evangelical Church in Latin America – No consensus. It is unfair to even open open a move review for a RM without a proposed target, no clear alternative proposed, and then blame the closer for picking up a reasonable one (while they quoted WP:NOGOODOPTIONS). Now, I'm closing this as "no consensus" as well, since there is no consensus what should be done about it either. Should anyone think of a better title, they are free to open a new RM. No point keeping this open further, the issue has been dragging on for 6 months now. No such user (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
No consensus was reached, the title is missleading as the article do not deals with any kind of "rise", in many countries the Evanglical Churches did not "rise", they are still marginal or fringe movements followed by a minority. The title is also non-neutral as it stablishes the Evangelical Churches as something that is "rising" which generally has meaning of victory or success, which is not the case. Among other problems. Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Just wondering why you didn't first discuss this with me on my talk page, and why you didn't just open a new move request as I suggested in the closing statement? Move reviews are notorious for staying open for several weeks. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 22:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth because I was part of the original discussion opposing the change, or at least that change so I don't see what else could I said to you if my first argument was not convincing to you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand. You appear to want the page title changed back to what it was, Evangelical Christian politics in Latin America, and according to NOGOODOPTIONS, no request to bring it back should be made lightly. So if that is the case, then I understand why you want that closure to be reviewed here. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 05:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily renamed back, I do understand that the original title might not be the more accurate, I do think the current is missleading and having a lot of problems. If I did something wrong with openning this it was unintentional, I thought that contacting the mover was something that only those who hasn't partake in the discussion should do. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the future, the closure of a requested move discussion should always be discussed with the editor who closed the discussion on their talk page. Then, if you are still unsatisfied, you have the option to bring the closure here to Move review. If I may make a suggestion, you can withdraw this move review and open a new move request to any other title of your choosing by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you would like me to help, I would be glad to be of assistance. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 06:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for now I'm going to keep this open to see the results, but next time if there's one I will do that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that by "rise". Rise is just how I translated the Portuguese word "ascensão" (ascension, literally). I wasn't trying to suggest that the Evangelical Church won anything, just that it became more popular and influential over the past few decades. If that's the main problem, it can easily be fixed without moving the page back to the original title (which doesn't correspont to the actual content of the article, imo). --Bageense(disc.) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble points. The close is wrong in using the word “must” in the closing statement; the closer was not compelled to do anything. The NAC was in poor form to make a preemptive argument to an objector, NAC-ers are not helping in closing discussions in which an objection is foreseen; implicitly and necessarily, WP:Supervote applies. It is highly unadvisable to close as a rename to something that no one suggested. Maybe I need to read it a few more times, but I don’t see a “strong agreement ... that the current title should be changed”. I am leaning “overturn”, no consensus to have done anything. Bias: I strongly dislike move proposals that don’t give a suggested target, for these it should be a simple talk page thread post. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. While WP:RMCI states "the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title," it does not say the closer can invent a name of their own choosing. Unfortunately, that is the case here. -- Calidum 15:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The name chosen for the closure was invented by the RM's nom. I'm surprised that neither Calidum nor SmokeyJoe were able to discern that fact: The phenomenon is much wider, it is not all about politics. I've translated this article to Portuguese with a new name. Loosely translated, it is called "Rise of the evangelical church in Latin America". That name is more appropriate, for it also suggests that it is an unusual phenomenon. I mean, evangelical Christians haven't always had influence in politics, but all of a sudden they do. — Bageense, and then there is this from Calidum: it does not say the closer can invent a name, and this from SmokeyJoe: It is highly unadvisable to close as a rename to something that no one suggested. From exactly where did the idea that the closure's rename was invented by the closer emanate? P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 20:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And not one other person supported that name in the discussion. -- Calidum 21:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the closing instructions: In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available,. Nothing about the choice being supported by more than one editor, not even anything specific about whether or not the closer can invent a new title (which I didn't do). P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 23:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He mentioned it, but did not actually suggest it, and no one commented on it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he suggested it when he wrote, "That name is more appropriate..." P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 23:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That language was conversational, very weak. Others don’t seem to have considered it. It was never bolded. I don’t think it overcomes TITLECHANGES. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Either it shouldn’t have been closed, or should have been closed with a “do nothing” outcome. No consensus that the status quo was not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Youse guys messin' with me or what? I seldom endorse my own closures anymore; however, it seems that editors want to drag this MRV out for weeks. My closure was strictly by the book. All the opener of this MRV had to do was to open a new RM. That was suggested by the closer and by the closing instructions. Perhaps because of a small, tiny language barrier, the opener of this MRV did so unintentionally. So now, a move request that is at present nearly three months old will be reviewed for who knows how many more weeks here at MRV. So I strongly move for a speedy endorsement of my closure and the opening of a new move request to what might be the highest and best title for that article. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 20:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be way more conservative in your closings. In this one you even explicitly anticipated objection. This contribution’s net productivity is negative. You should have !voted, and made it easier for someone else to close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're inventing a problem where there is no problem. The closing instructions are explicit in these cases. It was by the book in every way. You've even suggested I made the new title up, which is far from the truth, and tells me you didn't even read the nom's statement. It helps to do that, you know, before you make inaccurate accusations. I'm done with this. Happy Veterans Day to all!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 23:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paine Ellsworth I don't think you should take the discussion personal. Don't take it as an attack on you or your decision. I do think the change was rushed, there was certainly no clear consensus before (nor even for change much less for the current name) and I think the chosen title is very missleading to say the least. But I don't think for a second you acted with bad intent or against WP's guidelines. And in any case is something easily fixable. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dereck, it was so rushed! Bageense opened the RM on the 27th of June, it was relisted on the 25th of July and I closed it on the 15th of August. And here we are three months later discussing it again. So rushed. As for personal, if I were to take move reviews personal it would drive me crazy! The problem is that no matter how good is the intent, when honored and revered editors give your closure a bad review, it makes you question the very words in the closing instructions that you try to stick to like glue. With a review like this, it really makes you want to go elsewhere and dig ditches or serve coffee. But no, it's not personal. Frustrating yes, head-scratching most certainly, but not personal. Thank you very much for your concern, Dereck, it's all good, so no worries my friend, it's all good. And certainly it's a good learning experience!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 09:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright but then would you agree to a change? Because certainly that the current name sucks. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will go along with whatever consensus results from this review. I don't particularly care how this article is titled and only went with a title that was suggested in the request. I still say we would all be better off if you would withdraw this nomination and open a new move request to a title of your choice. Time would be saved, and if other editors agree that your choice of title is best, then the article would hopefully be named well and appropriately. That will all likely happen a lot sooner if you withdraw this review and open a new requested move. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 07:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I really don't have any suggestion, I didn't agree to the change in the first place. I'm not againts changing the original name but I don't have to suggest a new one because I wasn't the one who changed it. IMO should be return to the original name and further discussion can be done in the talk page. Either way, currently is terrible. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, let's see what happens here at this review and go from there. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 07:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). It's closer (pun intended) than most RMs, that's for sure, but I too would probably have interpreted this to be a NOGOODOPTIONS case, especially after a relist which didn't generate much more input. SITH(talk) 00:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOGOODOPTIONS speaks of options X Y Z. This implies X Y and Z are on the table. “Rise of the Evangelical Church in Latin America” was not formally proposed by anyone. When someone raises it as an idea they had, but do not propose it, that implies that they don’t support it. If the closer makes up their own Z, that’s a Supervote. It might be acceptable for the close to have done the move BOLDly before the RM happened, but a closer should be more conservative than a BOLD renamer who may be freely reverted. Given that the outcome is now directly criticised, and it had zero support in the discussion, the closer should have reverted their close promptly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on two counts: there is nothing in the closing instructions (NOGOODOPTIONS means NO GOOD OPTIONS in case you're confused) that instructs that closers cannot choose a title that has not been expressly proposed. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available,... does not exclude options that the closer invents, so there is no supervote. Your second mistake is your opinion that the move requestor did not suggest the chosen title: I've translated this article to Portuguese with a new name. Loosely translated, it is called "Rise of the evangelical church in Latin America". That name is more appropriate, for it also suggests that it is an unusual phenomenon. I mean, evangelical Christians haven't always had influence in politics, but all of a sudden they do. That is an explicit suggestion that "Rise of the evangelical church in Latin America" should be the article's title on enwiki. Also, you remarked, "the closer should have reverted their close promptly". The nom of this review did not even ask me to revert on my talk page. They didn't even discuss it first with me before opening this MRV. Exactly what in your opinion would have spurred the closer to revert the closure, promptly or otherwise? P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 08:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The weakly suggested new title, which you Supervoted in, was countered better-than-weakly by User:Dereck_Camacho’s argument against changing “politics” to “church”. You are clearly an adventurous closer if you think that if NOGOODOPTIONS doesn’t explicitly instruct you not to do something then you may cite it to do that something. True, User:Dereck_Camacho did not discuss with the closer, and it is very likely that this would have resolved more easily if he had. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...if NOGOODOPTIONS doesn’t explicitly instruct you not to do something then you may cite it to do that something.
Since you have not cited any policy or guideline that says closers cannot choose any title when editors will explicitly be allowed to immediately open a new move request, then NOGOODOPTIONS is all there is to cite. And NOGOODOPTIONS certainly does not exclude closer invention. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 00:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Since it is still so close to Thanksgiving Day, thank you for the compliment! PS by P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 00:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Thanksgiving! As best one can in these difficult times to be thankful. I think this MRV really could use more opinions. Surely the other two participants, User:Red Slash and user:Unreal7, have some opinion? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Thanksgiving right back atcha! Even in these difficult times I thank the Universe each day for every beat of my heart, and for every breath I take. Those two are very near the TOP of my list !>) P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 02:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If, indeed, it has not yet "risen", then I support the move. Unreal7 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
