Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 November#Hindko dialect

:{{move review links|Tropical Storm Jebi (2013)|rm_page=Talk:Tropical Storm Jebi (2013)|rm_section=Requested move 7 November 2016}}

:{{move review links|Typhoon Son-Tinh (2012)|rm_page=Talk:Tropical Storm Jebi (2013)|rm_section=Requested move 7 November 2016}}

:{{move review links|Typhoon Sanba (2012)|rm_page=Talk:Tropical Storm Jebi (2013)|rm_section=Requested move 7 November 2016}}

:{{move review links|Tropical Storm Rai (2016)|rm_page=Talk:Tropical Storm Jebi (2013)|rm_section=Requested move 7 November 2016}}

This was a non-admin closure, and the closing editor is currently unavailable. The discussion was closed as no consensus. However, the only oppose !vote was made against deletion of the articles, indicating that that commenter probably misunderstood the point of the discussion. That comment should have been discounted, and the request treated as being without opposition. Paul_012 (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Reopen and relist: while it is clear that the only commentator appears to have thought this was an articles for deletion discussion, because only one person commented on this move request so it would be wrong to say that there is consensus for the move. The discussion should have been relisted given that it had only been up for seven days and only had one single off-topic comment. That being said, despite knowing very little about this topic, it only took me a couple of seconds to come up with a number of objections to this move, Tropical Storm Jebi and Typhoon Sanba are redirects to dab pages, it appears that naming conventions for naming tropical storms and typhoons have recently changed, meaning that all of these storms/typhoons actually do have predecessors with the same name, its just that name is spelled slightly differently, and that there are likely to be future storms/typhoons bearing the same name with the same spelling. Whether that is enough of an objection to prevent the move I don't know, but it is the kind of thing that should have been discussed in the original move request. Ebonelm (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and rename all as proposed. The proposal to rename was non-controversial, would have been appropriate to boldly move. The objection by User:Typhoon2013 confuses the removal of unnecessary paranthetical disambiguation with deletion. There was thus no objection to a routine rename per policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  Withdraw that, Amakuru's point, which I failed to look at, that a target is a DAB page, with multiple entries, implies that there is ambiguity at the base name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:*Overturn and allow resubmission of RMs. I disagree with "relist"/"reopen" because I think fresh, better, RM proposals would be greatly beneficial. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Relist per {{u|Ebonelm}} - there is an issue here, namely the fact that the target is currently a dab page, and that other articles such as Typhoon Chebi (2006) are legitimate contenders for the base title (a typhoon is ipso facto also a tropical storm, after all). Neither the nominator nor the opposer addressed that point at all, and as such, a discerning closer should request clarification on primary topic and relist. I would also like to respectfully WP:TROUT {{u|Andy M. Wang}} for failing to read the discussion properly, and therefore not realising the oppose was based on a misunderstanding. We absolutely categorically need non-admin closers, they are essential to keeping the RM backlog down, (and I used to be one myself for several years before getting the mop). But in the absence of any minimum requirement for a closer, it is really up to every individual to self-police in this regard. Andy is a very experienced editor, so I'm sure he's well capable of determining consensus and understands WP policies/guidelines, it just needs a bit more care and attention in this case. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - {{ping|Amakuru}} {{ping|Ebonelm}} {{ping|SmokeyJoe}} First of all I am really sorry I did not reply immediately plus I made the opposition and my reasoning unclear. Ok so because you guys aren't really familiar with tropical cyclones, I opposed, because the names did not get retired or they are not a significant storm. The (anon) user requested a rename, or to take out the "year", stating that it is because it was the only name(s) used so far. So for naming typhoon/TC pages, we do not keep the year if the storm is significant (eg: Typhoon Haiyan) or the name was retired (eg: Typhoon Vicente). But for this case, these names were used for the first time, though they were not retired and significant, therefore, those names will get recycled until we get to the season where we might use those names again. I hope that makes sense now. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• :Fair enough, {{u|Typhoon2013}}, although your comment in the RM still clearly talks about a deletion, and it wouldn't really be clear to a requested move closer that the above was the case. I am aware that names are sometimes retired and sometimes not, but that's not really the question we're asking when deciding whether to remove the year. We do'nt include the year just because the name hasn't yet been retired, instead we apply the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rules as we usually would; that means there may be a consensus that a particular storm merits primary status even if it hasn't been retired yet. Similarly, the first storm to use a name would not need a year even if the name was not retired, because there would be no ambiguity. However, in this particular case, I think more discussion is needed because there are other contenders for this name, and those weren't realloy mentioned in the RM. Thanks .  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Reopen and relist. The closure was confused and from the discussion above, there is obviously a need for further discussion. I would have closed this MR myself, but I am unable to figure out the template syntax. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Reopen and relist as per the discussion above, clearly a more thorough discussion should take place before closing. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Reopen and relist - Just one vote and "no consensus" for one week? Maybe we should have non-admins be more careful with closures in the future. --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Oleh Sentsov|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Oleh Sentsov}}|rm_section=Requested move 21 October 2016}}

To start with, the discussion should not have been closed by a non-admin, and it is unfortunate that the closer instead of just conplying with the policy and unclosing the discussion instead insists they are experienced enough and that the case should be taken here. Next, they say the consensus is move, whereas in fact there is no consensus. They do not even care to discuss the arguments. Third, as far as the discussion goes, there is one oppose (mine), one comment which reads as an oppose, one support which is not policy based (it does not address WP:COMMONNAME, and I refuted it), and one more support which is lengthy and looks like very detailed, but if you read it it is also not much policy-based but reads more like "I need to have the page moved period". The closure should be undone and ideally reclosed as no consensus - not moved. Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. The single opposer above, in a very old proposal that also had three supporters including the proposer, was kind enough to bring their disagreement to my talk page. I explained that IMO consensus was clear to change the spelling of the subject's given name from "Oleg" to "Oleh". The opposer cited no policy nor guideline in their initial rationale, but only later as more of an afterthought in response to a supporter. In my opinion the supporters had the stronger arguments in favor of the page move. When I came to this discussion it was the oldest requested move in a long list of backlogged proposals. After my analysis I made my best call to close the old request in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's closing instructions, so I stand by my decision. Thank you for your consideration in this.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 14:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus this is a fairly close one, but I don't see a consensus to move myself. The opposers make a strong WP:COMMONNAME argument, which as a policy should usually trump any local guidelines such as WP:UKRAINIANNAMES (which, according to its page header doesn't even have the status of guideline yet). When it was relisted there was a request for more analysis and harder evidence that the move was justified. Given that there wasn't much further discussion (other than the long essay at the bottom), and the common name issue, raised by two commenters, was never really refuted properly, I don't think there was enough consensus before or after the relist for this to be moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• {{gi|The opposers make a strong WP:COMMONNAME argument}}
• :The opposer (singular, who opposed the support of three other editors whose rationales in my opinion were superior to the single opposers late COMMONNAME argument. When I did the research on this month-old request I found that COMMONNAME could apply to either spelling of the given name, "Oleg" or "Oleh".
• :{{gi|...there was a request for more analysis and harder evidence that the move was justified. Given that there wasn't much further discussion (other than the long essay at the bottom),}}
• :The so-called "long" essay at the bottom takes less than a minute to read, and was full of the evidence required to make the call and go with the consensus, the strong consensus, to move the page. I can't believe this. This was the oldest move request in a long list of backlogged requests. Just the kind I like to tackle, I went to it, researched it, and made the best decision. Where were you? Why didn't you just close it? You left it for me to close, and now you actually side with the single opposer who had an easily refutable rationale late in the game? Why do you seem to make it so very hard to take on the tough decisions, Amakuru?  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 14:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• ::: Thank you, Ymblanter, for removing your comment and for your recognition that closing old arguments is not the easiest job for page movers nor admins. If the job I did was "lousy" then it was lousy; however, in my humble opinion you have done a magnificent job of pulling the wool over everyone's eyes by using COMMONNAME when it may apply both ways, and by using WP:NAC when it doesn't apply at all. Contgratulations for making a very tough job even harder for those of us who love to stab away at those backlogs.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 17:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn: no clear consensus. While only one editor formally opposed, two editors actually contend that 'Oleg' is the more WP:COMMONNAME in English sources. The two editors in supports argument is purely based on WP:UKRAINIANNAMES, which is only a proposed policy and no justificaton was provided by these editors citing it as to why it should override the form of the name more commonly found in English language sources. The closer appears to have fallen prey to WP:!VOTE and not actually assessed the strengths and merits of the various arguments put forward. The 'discussion' section was actually just one long comment from another user who actually makes points both for and against the move, ultimately concluding that we should use reliable sources. A large ammount of the debate was centred on how the name was spelt on other langauge versions of Wikipedia and only ended up demonstrating that different languages have chosen different names. Ebonelm (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn (to no consensus). No clear consensus, a complex argument with too few participants and a disturbing false-policy argument reference to the MOS, underexplained at a minimum. Also comment again that non admins are supposed to be more conservative in calling a consensus. That was not a consensus. Calling a rough consensus so as to make a decision for editors to move on to other things is a privilege of administrators. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Respectfully, I would love to see where that is written in policy, guideline or even essay form, SmokeyJoe. As long as an editor is experienced and trusted to make good decisions by admins and non-admins alike, I see no harm in them taking on the tougher decisions to leave other admin-only decisions to admins. If page movers aren't here to ease the load on admins and help clear the backlogs, which are usually the tougher decisions, then what are we here for?  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 22:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• The essay is at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, although it requires gentle generalisation to read it as applying to WP:RM closes. The spirit is exactly the same. Look especially at

  Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures
  "2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator."

  The problem here is not that it was a "tough call", as in requiring incisiveness, expert knowledge of policy, and of precedent, but that this call contained arbitrariness. Arbitrary in calling and end to the discussion (I reckon it could have benefited from more time), arbitrariness in calling consensus (I think reasonable people could read "no consensus", I do for sure). The baptism of fire of RfA, and extra accountability of admins comes with a right to call "admin discretion". Yes, Wikipedia:Aministrator discretion might be a missing essay, but it is a very well used and understood term of art on Wikipedia; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&profile=advanced&fulltext=Search&search=%22admin+discretion%22&ns4=1&ns5=1 a Wikipedia / Wikipedia_talk search for it has many hits]. In the end, hindsight is clear, if your close sees the matter come to WP:Move review, you did not ease a load or clear a backlog. Why are you not an admin? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• :Exactly this. Page mover is a *technical* privelege, which of course helps non-admins reduce the backlog because there are many even straightforward closes that previously required admin assistance to carry out. The bar for gaining the privelege is very low, however - just one admin needs to approve it, often just by ticking a few rudimentary sanity check boxes. This does not currently match the rigour of an RfA bid, in terms of earning the trust of the community. As I said above, I would never discourage a non-admin closer, and I've done loads of them myself, but the really controversial line calls are better left for admins.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

::::: I certainly agree with all that you and SmokeyJoe have said; however, part of the problem seems to be that, while I have developed the balls to handle tough decisions, and have done so pretty regularly, my balls aren't made of crystal. Vastly most of the tough decisions I've made at RM and in other situations have not needed the light of day of a move nor any other type of review. When I see a decision might be tough, I do as much research as possible before I make it. And I'm not so sure that others here at MR do a whole lot of research before they choose to overturn. What we have here is a 3:1 !vote to support, with supporters having the superior arguments. Nothing more, nothing less, with the exception of a single objector who just won't accept that there was consensus to rename the article. And all this for going from one common spelling of a given name to another. I will continue to stand by my close as the right thing to have been done.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 18:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:::::: This is unfortunate you continue to defend your bad decision and to make ad hnominem arguments even in the situation when you were told by everybody who commented that (i) the decision is bad and (ii) you should not have been the person to take it. What you write about the situation is just a misrepresentation. If your other closures are similar to that one you should stop closing discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:::::::What is unfortunate is that you obviously don't see that you have here some very heavyweight support in your bid to have my decision revoked. So you don't have to resort to even more unfortunate suggestions. All you and I have to do is to do our best to agree to disagree. I promise you this, that no matter how this MR turns out, I will weigh your comments against all the positive ones I have received over the years, and I will continue to do the best job I can to improve this encyclopedia. And I expect you will too.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 19:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::Sorry, you still did not get the point. Fine, let us leave it like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus, unfortunately. I just don't see a consensus to move here. As {{u|Amakuru}} says, the WP:COMMONAME argument is compelling and wasn't really countered.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I can understand how this can be read a few ways and it is a fairly close call. I don't think it's an egregious error, but rather a simple overturn. I would consider relisting it, but that has already been done once already. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus - In other words, revert back to the original title. IIO's arguments have been weak as often; this is no exception. Two arguments are mixed and strong, but no sources have been provided. George Ho (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Hindko dialect|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Hindko dialect}}|rm_section=Requested move 26 October 2016}}

Of the five participants in the discussion, two (Yoyi ling and 39.50.84.196) turn out to have been socks, while the closer of the discussion, for all their otherwise thoughtful comments, appears to have misunderstood the arguments for the move. – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Note Given the article's move history, it would be helpful if participants endorsing the "no consensus" close could indicate what the article's title should default to. – Uanfala (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

:Hindko seems to be one of the dialects that is part of the Western Punjabi language. Our article on Western Punjabi currently states it is a 'macro language' consisting of a series of dialects spoken in Pakistani Punjab... It says "The emerging languages of this dialect area are Saraiki, Hindko and Pothohari". Later it says: "Sindhi, Lahnda, Punjabi and Western Punjabi" form a dialect continuum with no clear-cut boundaries."

:A similar issue recently occurred in a move discussion at Talk:Saraiki dialect#Requested move 21 September 2016. In that case User:Smsarmad was asking for it to be changed from Saraiki dialect to Saraiki language. The request was closed as No consensus by User:Paine Ellsworth. This was appealed at MRV, by User: 39.37.36.15, but the closure was endorsed at Wikipedia:Move review#Saraiki dialect (closed) by User:Salvidrim!. Perhaps that gives you the idea that there ought be a general RfC somewhere to decide the language versus dialect issues for all these subunits of Western Punjabi? I certainly agree. I also assume that most of the IPs participating in these discussions are socks, so if I have occasion to close one of these again, I might be tempted to listen to the IP arguments but not to give their opinions any weight in the close. In any event, I would argue that my No Consensus verdict for the proposed move of Hindko dialect to Hindko was within discretion and that relisting just this single move is unlikely to come up with a better answer. I have no objection to a wider RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

:: There is one specific proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Language vs. dialect in South Asia: can we choose a single authority to apply across the board?. – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. The suggested title was too ambiguous to use alone as is done with Arabic, where there is no doubt that the subject is a language. "Hindko" may also be applied to people, and in this the naming convention is very clear:

:{{gi|Where a name is shared between a language and the corresponding ethnic or national group, as is the case with most such names in English, experience shows that a search for which of these has "primary" status is most often futile. Therefore, barring exceptional circumstances, a pair of disambiguated article titles of the format "X language"/"X people" is generally recommended.}}

:This would have made a "Not moved" decision within the discretion of the closer, let alone a "No consensus" decision. Therefore, this particular page move close should be endorsed, and "Hindko" should be converted from a redirect into a disambiguation page.

:Opinion. This endorsement is suggested to be without prejudice toward a centralized discussion/RfC to garner consensus as to when a dialect should finally (if ever) be considered officially as a language on Wikipedia – "officially" meaning that an article may be moved from "(Named) dialect" to "(Named) language".  Paine  ^u/c 09:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

::Well, there is one very simple criterion for deciding that – usage in relevant reliable sources. Attempting to ignore that (as happened throughout the discussions at Talk:Saraiki dialect) and trying to come up with our own criteria is pure WP:OR, and one made possible only by a lack of familiarity with linguistics. – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

:::Perhaps, and yet several have disagreed with you, including me. Most sources, whether reliable linguistic sources or otherwise, seem unsure themselves if "language" (or "dialect") is the primary topic, which is precisely that to which the quote from the naming convention refers. So it's clear to me that 1) Hindko is an ambiguous, imprecise page title, and 2) until consensus is formed otherwise, our best calls will be made by adhering to present a) policies, b) guidelines and c) reliable linguistic sources in that order. And we should continue to make those best calls in good faith, as did EdJohnston, the closer of this requested move proposal.  Paine  ^u/c 12:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

::::This is the case for Hindko, but there is much less of this ambiguity in the case of Saraiki. Yes, several editors have disagreed with me on that one, but as far as I remember not a single one of them has backed up their claim with a source that has stood up to scrutiny – not that it would have been difficult, there do exist sources (if less numerous) that refer to it as a "dialect". Otherwise, I absolutely agree with you that we should adhere to our policies, but I don't think I see which policy in this case trumps the one on verifiability. – Uanfala (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::Please be more explicit, as it is not clear whether you are talking about "Saraiki", the language vs. dialect challenge or "Saraiki", the ambiguous vs. unambiguous page title. If the latter, there is much more competition than with the Hindko title, for there are the dialect, the people, literature, culture, diaspora, alphabet and cuisine. If the former, that ship has sailed, and until you or someone garners a consensus at a centralized RfC that would better define how Wikipedia handles languages and dialects, then you're just bangin' your head against the wall, Uanfala. Build a case, a consensus, perhaps at WT:Naming conventions (languages) that will support the manner in which you think all this should be handled. The controversial subjects discussed in the recent past might serve as rungs on this ladder. Who knows? A more community-oriented, centralized discussion might just surprise us all.  Paine  ^u/c 13:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, I was referring to Saraiki: the language vs. dialect question. I think there's fair consensus about what general rules to follow: there's WP:V and the WP:NCLANG, but I just don't see them being followed. At any rate, yes, this isn't the place for me to air my grievances about previous discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::::I think that we follow the policy and guideline as well as they can be followed in these cases. The policy requires verifiability, but in some of these cases either language or dialect is verifiable. The guideline says {{gi|The term dialect should only be used for distinct but mutually intelligible varieties of a language,}} and a case can be made for Hindko and Saraiki as "distinct but mutually intelligible varieties" of Punjabi. We can only do the best we can with the tools Wikipedia has, and we cannot give in to every speaker of every dialect who wants to read "language" after the name of their tongue. Maybe we should just rename all the language and dialect articles to "(Name) tongue"? (TIC)  Paine  ^u/c 14:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

::::::::It's not about what speakers want (per WP:NPOV), or how close or distant the language varieties are (trying to evaluate that ourselves and coming up with a judgement would go against WP:OR). It's about the terms used in relevant reliable sources. And the latter fact has to be verifiable; that's obvious by itself and I only mentioned it as in the case of Saraiki, every single reference that has been adduced by the proponents of the "dialect" view has failed verification (see for example Talk:Saraiki dialect#Further bogus sources and some of the following threads there, like this one). – Uanfala (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::"Every single reference"? I have read several of the references in question, and there are those that list Saraiki as part of the Lahnda continuum of Punjabi dialects. I've read them myself and have listed what I've read elsewhere. How could you possibly say "every single reference???" You're beginning to sound as if you have trouble being objective about these dialects.  Paine  ^u/c 06:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::: Of course there are sources (if not numerous) out there in the world that do support this view. It's just that the ones I've seen in the discussions so far have failed verification. This is explained in the two links above. It's possible that I might have made a mistake or missed anything, so if you point me in the direction of a ref that you've verified, that would be helpful. – Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes there are those sources, which makes your "every single reference" sound very one-sided and ill-conceived. It doesn't really matter how numerous or not numerous the view supporting sources may be. What matters is that they exist, and some of them have already been linked and discussed in other debates, so it would be off-topic to continue with that here where only the close of the Hindko dialect requested move is on-topic.  Paine  ^u/c 17:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well, everything I've seen discussed so far has failed verification (and that has also been discussed – I've linked to two relevant threads above). But I'm genuinely interested to hear which sources you have in mind: I've been working on the Saraiki dialect article and I don't really want to be missing something important. This conversation of ours has long been off-topic, but if you don't want to make it even more so, please write on my talk page. Cheers. – Uanfala (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. Hindko is an ambiguous, imprecise page title. Let title remain Hindko Dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)‎
• Endorse. Yes, a complex case, very easily defendable as "no consensus" and very very easily within admin discretion. A future RM should ideally be opened with a comprehensive and persuasive nomination statement. A consensus to move will be most evident by your ability to get others to agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you for your comment, {{u|SmokeyJoe}}. I was wondering if you had any thoughts which title should "no consensus" default to, given the article's turbulent move history. – Uanfala (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• First non-stub version is the fairest to non-game-playing editors. I haven't worked out what that was. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse and leave as is currently named. While it could be argued that even a 'not moved' would be appropriate based on the reasoning provided by the closer, so a 'no-consensus' is even more easy to support/endorse. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)