Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 March

:{{move review links|Physical exercise|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Physical exercise}}|rm_section=Requested move 20 March 2018}}

{{user3|Artix Kreiger}} closed this move stating "NOT moved per WP:SNOW". The move discussion was open for about 3.5 hours and only 4 comments had been gathered. Also, per WP:RMCI it was a non-admin closure, but not that fact wasn't indicated by the closer. Unfortunately, this early closure has "snowballed" even further, leading to a related move discussion (Talk:Exercise (disambiguation)#Requested move 21 March 2018) to be opened premised on the contested close, and several voters in that are citing this close as justification. I believe, at minimum, the close should be updated to reflect the fact that it was closed very early and very few people had a chance to participate and changed to "no consensus" rather than "not moved". I don't believe it needs to be reopened directly, but I don't think there should be any prejudice if someone does in the future. -- Netoholic @ 14:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

::as the person who closed it, I will admit I think I closed it too early. Here is my reasoning. The physical exercise seem to be primary topic but not really big enough to dominate over the other ones to completely change it. Those others are decently but. Also a move would mean a ton of effort to change the redirects, alongside another rm at Exercise (disambiguation).

::Feel free to revert it. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse SNOW close. There was not a snowballs chance in hell of further participants swinging the discussion to a consensus to support. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse with reservations, since closer evidently does not quite understand WP:SNOW. This RM should have had significantly more than a mere 4:1 opposition ratio before closing after only three hours, twenty five minutes. "If an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." This MR raises a reasonable objection. Closer's crystal ball has a little crack in it.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

::{{U|Paine Ellsworth}}, why did I get a ping from your comment?? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

:::Responded on talk page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Re-list While I feel that the request would most likely be unsuccessful, it was not suitable for a WP:SNOW close. While Requested Move discussions sometimes receive less participation than most, a discussion with five participants is still on the small side, and certainly not a representative sample, even if you only consider the number of editors who regularly lurk around RM discussions.--Aervanath (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Re-list. Let it run the usual 7 days: comments might be useful in the consequent Talk:Exercise (disambiguation)#Requested move 21 March 2018. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC) (involved in Exercise (disambiguation) but not Physical exercise)

:{{move review links|Suzukake Nanchara|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Suzukake Nanchara}}|rm_section=Requested move 4 March 2018}}

Closed with the rationale "per WP:COMMONNAME", though a reading of the discussion shows (a) WP:COMMONNAME is an invalid rationale, despite being brought up by several early commenters (some of whom later recognized this fact), and (b) there was no consensus on what name the article should be moved to—there were several proposals, and several supporters of a move per se were opposed to "Suzukake Nanchara".
The closer appears to have given the discussion a cursory read and closed based on a show of hands, rather than following the instructions at Wikipedia:Closing discussions. I contacted the closer directly, and they confirmed that they closed on a mere show of hands and "merely stated what a lot of editors expressed" re WP:COMMONNAME. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment since the start of this Move Request, the alias redirects Suzukake no Ki no Michi de, Suzukake no Ki no Michi de..., Suzukake (AKB48 song), Suzukake no Ki no Michi de...Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono, Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shima have been created or updated. The full titles are of course retained. So those are now available to use at articles and the navbox per WP:NOTBROKEN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with {{u|Curly Turkey}}. Most editors supported a shortened title albeit what specific title was still discussed, but some editors did prefer the full title. The common name is actually the full title (shows up the most in the searches and on the charts themselves) so closing it to be a shortened title goes against common name. I'm surprised the WP:COMMONSENSE (IAR) line was struck as that could have been the reason to close. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• I don’t think the outcome was necessarily wrong, but the decision is very lacking in explaining the reasoning behind it. Although it’s a non-admin closure it’s not marked as it should have been, per WP:RMNAC, and does not seem like the sort of discussion a non-admin should have closed, per also that guideline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse closing as move Very deficient close rationale though correct on moving. I was planning on closing it but didn't get around to it, and was definitely going to close it as move, on the basis that supporters were based on or aligned with the WP:CRITERIA of conciseness mixed with a tad of recognizability while the opposition was weak - based mainly it supposedly being more encyclopaedic, "correct", or official to use the full name, which isn't a strong policy based rationale. Either Suzukake Nanchara or "Suzukake no Ki no Michi de..." could've been chosen since the evidence and !votes presented were mixed. I think I was going to go for the latter having a bit better rationale and as being likely less controversial, being just an ellipsed version of the previous name, and being recognizable to those who have seen the full name only. So perhaps change the move to the latter. I don't think common sense needs to be invoked when WP:COMMONNAME is just a good suggestion on what would meet our title criteria, not a criteria itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Galobtter: None of the proposed renames are valid WP:COMMONNAMEs, so if closed as "move", it must be under some other rationale. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Admonish closer for poor close but also reluctant endorse. Closers should, barring evidence of bad faith, not make fun of the "losing" side like this closer did, and it's even more alarming to rely on a non-criteria that nobody else brought up in the discussion. "Common sense" is a terrible, terrible criteria that is basically code for WP:ILIKEIT and shows a refusal to engage with the actual policy arguments. That said, the consensus was unfortunately rather strong in favor of "Nanchara", so even if the closer undid his close, there's not much reason to think a new close would be much different. So endorse, I suppose. (Full disclosure: I supported AngusWoof's proposal of "Suzukake no Ki no Michi de.") SnowFire (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• {{ec}} Endorse and move for a speedy close. If there was consensus to rename the article and yet no consensus for a particular new article title, the closing instructions are clear: "If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place." So any editor at any time may open a new RM to challenge the closer's selection of this article's title.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn to Suzukake no Ki no Michi de per AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC). That !vote made the most sense, and was universally agreed to by all who spoke to it. Alternatively, relist and draw attention to that late buried suggestion. The close was unacceptably poor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

::Not unanimously agreed that I saw it; I believe one person cited Nanchara having more google hits than thatGalobtter (pingó mió) 06:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

::: I count five in support (Aervanath (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC); SnowFire (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC); power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC); Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC); AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)), one I would call "supportish" (Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)), and can see no other comments on it. Ghits are terrible for comparing strings of different lengths. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

::::Hmmm? That I can see Aervanath appears to prefer Nanchara over the other Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

::::: Possibly, my point was meant to be that Suzukake no Ki no Michi de received multiple positive statements and none negative, while Suzukake Nanchara was controversial; and that many supports for a shortening did not differentiate between these two. I think a close in favour of Suzukake no Ki no Michi de would have been a better rough consensus reading. I strongly support Aervanath's "immediate new RM to discuss a move to Suzukake no Ki no Michi de", probably better than "overturn" because MRV is not meant to make titling decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

::: Galobtter: we don't use raw Google results to gauge these things—it's WP:RSes that count, and "Suzukake Nanchara" was shown to be rare in RSes—both the full title and abbreviated (non-"Nanchara") versions are more common. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

::::I said one person disagreed, not that I agree with their rationale. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Don't relist. I suggest opening a new request in the near future with the understanding that the new title is not a stable title (i.e., default to title reversion). The discussion in question was borked by being cited in an WP:ANI listing and the poor choice to list the article for speedy deletion because of its "nonsense" title. It did not reflect a neutral cross-section of interested (or uninterested) editors, so it would be difficult to get a good read on the progress of the discussion from reopening it. Now that the drama has died down, start a new request that will be likely to attract more policy arguments and less gut reactions. Failing this, my second option would be overturning to no consensus and doing the new request from there; but I think that might create more drama again. Dekimasuよ! 05:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Well, that explains the drive-by flavour of most of the early !votes—not only that, but it appears Beyon My Ken opened the RM after seeing the ANI. Looks like an RM that never should have happened. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• I do agree. On the other hand, at the shorter title I'm sure it wouldn't have scanned as nonsense and been given the deletion tag. Dekimasuよ! 17:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was a clear consensus amongst those who participated to shorten the title, as the previous version was a severe violation of WP:CONCISE. And yes, perhaps the arguments for the actual title chosen were not fully grounded in consensus, with a few alternatives proposed, but that's a topic for a fresh RM searching for an alternative, it does not take away from the overall consensus to move. With a contentious close like this I would have liked to see a lot more reasoning on the close though.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse I agree with Amakuru, who sums it up nicely. There was a consensus for a move, it was grounded in policy (even if the ALLCAPS weren't cited), and the closer executed the move (if with a less than ideal closing statement). If there are alternatives that would be better, they can be discussed in a new RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

:*I did cite WP:CONCISE in the discussion, even though I didn't !vote; too bad it wasn't in the close. Dekimasuよ! 18:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

::*Yes, my point is that in general people outside of the relatively small RM circle aren't going to know the ALLCAPS. Those who close regularly should be able to identify the policy-based arguments even if they weren't cited directly. Several other !votes appealed to the principle of concision, without the direct policy reference. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Trout for the closer, reluctant endorse for the close, immediate new RM to discuss a move to Suzukake no Ki no Michi de. I supported the move to Suzukake Nanchara, and reading through the full discussion, I see that this is the consensus, so I don't see a reason to overturn the decision, even with the severe deficiencies with the close. (The closing rationale reads much more like a WP:Supervote than a properly considered summary of the discussion.) In any case, I feel like the alternate proposal of Suzukake no Ki no Michi de didn't get a full and proper discussion, so I think there should be a new discussion to directly compare the merits of the two shorter titles.--Aervanath (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Question—lots of calls for "immediate new RM". Should that wait until this review closes, or could I do it right away? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Wait for the close of this review. Calls here for any action require the closer to agree that the calls represent consensus. The matter is not so critical that it can't wait a week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse close & support follow-on RM The close was… sub-optimal… but it did reflect the consensus to use a shorter name for the article. There was not enough examination, either in the RM or in the closer's reasoning, of truncation vs the Nanchara title and because of that I support an immediate follow-on RM to examine that question. I would hope that the issue of using a shorter title, whatever it is to be, vs the long title will not be re-litigated and those who feel strongly about using the full name would, instead, apply their experience and insight to choosing the 'least worst' shortened name. Jbh ^Talk 18:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Jungang Line|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Jungang Line}}|rm_section=Requested move 18 February 2018}}

Discussion still ongoing, and no consensus had yet been reached - which should mean the page stays where it is (long-standing name) until an actual consensus is reached. 2Q (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Paine Ellsworth closed ongoing discussion, and the result is unfair. The result must be no consensus under the present state . User:Paine Ellsworth is not an uninvolved editor per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Paine+Ellsworth&page=&year=2018&month=1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1]. WP:Requested moves#Closing instructions was not followed. Sawol (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

:Ref: discussion on my talk page. Yes, I have closed similar debates; however, if closing similar debates makes editors "involved", then we might soon run out of people to close debates. I remain objective on the subject of "proper names" vs. "common nouns" because I see the goods and bads of both sides. These debates have been decided in favor of lower casing "Line" based upon usage in reliable English sources, as well as AT policy, MOS guideline and naming conventions. The consensus of the community overrides any lack of local consensus. Also, I try to follow closing instructions to the letter. For example, those instructions for relisting, which link to the WP:RM page and relisting section. There it states that when a debate has been relisted it can be closed at any time when resolution is reached – there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

:: "can be closed at any time when resolution is reached" - which there hasn't been.

:: Something everyone's been ignoring is that there is little in English on Korea's railways, and what there is, will contradict itself sometimes [http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/gyeongchun-line-reopens-in-seoul.html even in the same article (see last paragraph)]. So... look at other countries for precedent. Japanese railway line names in English material invariably capitalise the "Line", as they are proper names, like "XYZ Street". News articles on CBC, Global News, etc., on Vancouver's SkyTrain lines - the Canada Line, Millenium Line, Expo Line, and Evergreen Line - always capitalise the "Line", as they are proper names. Other named lines in the US like the Southern Pacific/Union Pacific Coast Line - always capitalised. Chicago's elevated lines, e.g. Pink Line and Red Line, etc - always capitalised. All of these are easy to find with quick Google searches... and prove that, contrary to what the de-capitalisers are trying to say, these are indeed proper names, just like "Trans-Canada Highway" or "Channel Tunnel" are, and so should be capitalised. 2Q (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

:::If resolution had not been reached, the debate would not have been closed. The resolution was to move the page per community consensus. Your argument is a rehash of the RM rather than a review of the close itself. I was as clear as possible in my close rationale, as I've learned to be over time. Please state what it is about the close itself that you feel does not adhere to WP:RM and closing instructions.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  22:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn (to no consensus). NB this DRV !vote is in line with my RM contribution. I don't read a consensus in that discussion, and certainly not one to be called by an NAC-er. The cited WP:NCCAPS has always had conflict with proper names, and pushing the unclear proper name conventions into Korean, I think is a bit much for this close. User:2Q tended to bludgeoning in the discussion, which didn't help either side, but when I remove all his posts, there are several others opposing and not properly answered, though I guess that is because the proponents were being bludgeoned by 2Q? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• :I noted in the close that there was no general agreement (consensus) in the discussion, and that the community consensuses of the AT policy, the MOS guideline and the naming convention were strong among the support rationales. Instead of continuing to argue the merits of the RM, isn't this a place to argue the merits of the close itself? What is it about my close that moves you to want to overturn it?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  22:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• :: I think the close is a tad over-ambitious in reading the rough consensus, leaning to WP:Supervote. Over-ambitious because a casual reading doesn't confidently align with your decision. Even if an admin, that close is quite a stretch. Citing policy or guidelines is not OK to overrule discussion as the guidelines applicability were question. I think many admins might have closed another way, which makes it unsuitable for Non Admin Close (WP:NAC). A "Relist" might be a good idea, relist the discussion, ping all the previous participants, and ban User:2Q from further participation in the relisted discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse I feel that a number of editors participating in this discussion may need to WP:DISENGAGE. This was a difficult close. There was clearly a fairly even split on local consensus with editors both for and against presenting policy/guidelines-based and source-based arguments whilst also slipping into ad hominem comments. In this case, there was discretion for the closer to go with "no consensus" or to look at community consensus on this issue. Whether a true community consensus on this specific issue exists is debatable but there is definitely a progression evident toward naming as per this move. The closer should be accorded the benefit of WP:AGF and, in those circumstances, I think the close in reliance upon community consensus in the absence of local consensus was within discretion even if I may not have closed it as such. Shadow007 (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Shadow007, you feel a number of editors participating in this discussion may need to WP:DISENGAGE. I feel that number is precisely one. I've suggested relisting the discussion, asking that one editor to disengage, so that the other editors can advance their discussion. What do you think of that? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• {{reply|SmokeyJoe}} I am not going to name or single out particular editors nor suggest who among those making ad hominem comments was worse than others. At the end of the day, Wikipedia relies upon self-regulation to a large degree. In !voting on this move review I considered whether a relist would have been more appropriate. I noted that there was only one actual !vote in the third listing period (yours - which did produce significant comment/debate underneath it) so felt that sufficient time had been allowed for all interested editors to put forward a view. That said, if it is relisted, I would urge all editors to (1) take a deep breath; and (2) think about whether their continued participation is helpful and either moderate their tone or WP:DISENGAGE. Shadow007 (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (involved editor). Apologies for this big block of text. I will try to frame the reasons for this as neutrally as possible, however.
• The closing comments spoke directly to the applicability of the close to other similar pages. This discussion is a poor choice for setting a precedent for similar moves at other pages, because the closer recognizes that the discussion itself did not reach consensus in favor of a move: "see no general agreement here." In fact, it was noted at the beginning of the request that there would be more visible places to engage in such a discussion, such as Talk:Gyeongbu Line.
• Both those supporting and opposing the move request cited policy, but the closer stated that policy was on the side of those supporting the request ("supporters have the community consensuses in the style guideline, naming convention and AT policy"). However:
• Most of the supporters cited WP:MOSCAPS, which states: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Those opposing the move did not dispute this community guideline; rather, evidence was presented that attempted to show that "Jungang Line," like other lines and stations in Korea and Japan, meets this standard.
• WP:CONSISTENCY was cited, but at this point Wikipedia does consistently capitalize the names of lines and stations in Korea and Japan, for linguistic reasons brought up over the course of the request. This is even enshrined in some guidelines, such as WP:MOS-JP#Train and subway stations (a guideline that did not come up in the discussion; yet the close seeks to extend to articles under the scope of that guideline).
• I reread the discussion to be sure, but the only evidence of actual capitalization in real-world usage that was presented by those supporting the move was a single link by Dicklyon. There was basically nothing but assertion to indicate that the lowercase title was more in line with the evidence from reliable sources required by the naming conventions.
• One of the four editors who made support !votes said the support was conditional: "as long as it's not part of a proper noun." This editor did not reply to subsequent feedback on whether or not the article's subject is indeed a proper name.
• "No consensus" defaults to not moving a page because there is an assumption that it is preferable to retain the status quo rather than move against it. The discussion can be reinitiated in the future with new evidence, if necessary. Changing the status quo as a result of a no-consensus close invites the initiation of divisive move requests. I would question this in the case of any close, but particularly when the close is NAC. Dekimasuよ! 05:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. The !votes may have been split, but viewed through the lens of policy and community consensus in previous RMs, there is a clear consensus, as the closer intimated. In particular, it was shown that there are lots of sources which don't upper case it, so per the definition in WP:NCCAPS, it is not a proper noun and should be downcased.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

:*Sorry, but as I wrote above, I re-read the discussion twice specifically to look for whether there was any evidence of sources that don't uppercase it and only found one link to one site (which it was noted is internally inconsistent, capitalizing station names and decapping mountain ranges). Can you point out where the "lots of sources" are? Dekimasuよ! 18:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

::This isn't the place to rehash the RM of course, but having not participated in it (and not particularly caring about it), searching google books gives 95% for uppercase Line. Actually more like 90%. I wouldn't say lots of sources; there are a few that do Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse also per Amakuru. The question of whether to capitalize line is largely settled and per CONSISTENCY, a move was the correct close, even though it was numerically close. If there were strong arguments to overlook the consistency factor, that might have changed it, but I don't see them here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni, didn’t I see an argument that consistency sharply changed for Japanese and Korean railways? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Isn't it hard to argue for consistency when all the other korean railway lines are uppercased? It seems more sensible to lowercase all of them in one RM or not do any moves. I question whether it is appropriate to extend lowercasings of "line" in other countries's railway lines here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with this. This could be a precedent-setting RM for all Korean and Japanese railway line titles. I don't think the discussion has the clarity to merit that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Not exactly, because there are several other RMs in the past that involved decaps. Editors Dicklyon and feminist appear to be two interested parties as seen for example at Talk:Aljunied MRT Station#Requested move 7 January 2018, and they would know much more about the situation than I do. If I'm not mistaken, decap discussions have involved US, UK and Australian as well as Korean and Japanese lines/stations. I've yet to see any changes to Japanese articles, though. I think it may be an ongoing objective to bring consistency and MOS compliance to all railway articles.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Many countries have their own naming conventions for railways: WP:CANSTATION, WP:USSTATION, WP:UKSTATION. If these are to be standardized, it shouldn't be through individual move discussions. For Japan, the ruling guideline is at WP:MOS-JP#Train and subway stations and advises capitalized station names; capitalized station names are explicitly "MOS compliant" for Japan. The underlying point that we should avoid calling moves without consensus (or evidence) a standard for making further moves remains. Dekimasuよ! 06:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• That is correct, and that is not what I did – I wrote "Suspect these should also apply to all Japanese lines and stations, as well." And in this recent RM, I excluded the Japanese station and moved only the Korean for the very reason that WP:MOS-JP#Train and subway stations expresses that in Japan, "Station" is part of the proper name. Whether or not the Japanese MOS overrides the general MOS is a discussion for another venue, I think.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Note that all of the various countries' station naming conventions are consistent with MOS:CAPS in not capping "station" except in those relatively rare instances when it is clearly part of the proper name of the place. We've done the same on "railway" worldwide, with negligible pushback, and yes I would like for "line" to be similarly treated. 2Q keeps saying that evidence has been presented that Korea and/or Japan and/or China are special in that when their line names get anglicized they should be capped, or that they are linguistically "proper names" in some sense different from what they are in other countries. But all I see there is personal inference; where's the evidence? Lacking it, MOS:CAPS is the overriding consensus about how we chose when to cap things. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• There was linguistic evidence presented, but since I'm not sure what would qualify as linguistic evidence to you, I'm not sure how to respond. The normal standard is generally met in these cases: the lines in Korea and Japan are consistently capped in reliable sources. Perhaps you are aware, for example, that most streets are not given names in Japan; conversely, train lines are. The reverse appears to be true in much of the English-speaking world. (I do not speak Chinese and cannot comment on that case.) The MOS reflects this distinction and respects national distinctions in capitalization, as in titles of written works written in Romance languages. Please let me know what sort of evidence would make sense to you and I will reply (here or elsewhere). Dekimasuよ! 20:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Withdrawing I'd like to apologise to everyone for having lost my temper, but it was extremely frustrating to have tried to point out source after source after source to show that these are in fact proper names, only to be ignored, or have a "yes but MOS" handwave it away, and then be told "I'm ignoring this, but AGF on my part"... I've come to realise none of this is worth the headache for me... so I'm going to withdraw, and not contribute to any railway-related articles anymore, and just stick to football. Not out of spite or anything, but because I know myself well enough that eventually, seeing improperly capitalised names will drive me nuts again. 2Q (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• I hope 2Q will change her mind, but in either event, please let discussion of this close continue. Dekimasuよ! 06:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

:* I too hope 2Q will only moderately temper her interest in railway lines. 2Q made a number of quite valid points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close. There's not much evidence or consensus that "line" in this context is, or should be treated as, part of a proper name. Closer closed based on the arguments and evidence presented. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

:*I'm a bit surprised by this response. There's not much evidence or consensus that "line" in this context isn't, or shouldn't be treated as, part of a proper name–and the onus is normally upon those proposing a move to make a case for a change to the status quo. As far as I can tell, you were the only one who made a gesture toward providing evidence, but in the future I hope you will at least support a higher standard for what is considered sufficient evidence than what was presented here. Dekimasuよ! 20:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page of the closer {{u|TonyBallioni}}, under the section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TonyBallioni#Move_review Move review], the move in question should be reviewed on several grounds. Regarding the relation between the title and the content, it should be pointed out that the article in question is one of general denominational articles on negative sentiments and animosities towards particular communities, in this case towards the Eastern Orthodox Christianity. In other words, by its very content and previous title scope, it belonges to the same class of wide-scope articles like Anti-Catholicism or Anti-Protestantism. It should also be noted that earlier in February, a failed attempt was made to delete this article (see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy Articles for deletion: Anti-Orthodoxy]). Only after that, a proposal for the move emerged, from the same group of users who previously tried to delete the article. During discussion on the move, consensus was reached, in principle, to rename the article, but there was no clear consensus on style and scope of the new title, and therefore the closer was faced with quite a complex task. During the discussion, two possible solutions emerged. Initial proposal was implying change of style, and reduction of scope to "persecution" only. Unfortunately, during the entire discussion, proponents of the reduction did not state a single word of explanation, and they did not respond to any of the questions raised on the problem of reduction. In other words, there was no discussion on the subject. On the other hand, in order to preserve style and scope, the counter-proposal also emerged, based on official terminology used by the FBI as designation for negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christianity (see more than [https://www.google.rs/search?ei=tzaOWsDvDs3dwALbi4rgBQ&q=FBI+%22Anti-Eastern+Orthodox%22 800 hits] on Google Search for the FBI use of the official term for "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" sentiment). In spite of that, the reduction proposal was carried out, the style was changed and the scope reduced to the "persecution" only. It should be noted that during the discussion it was pointed out that similar denominational articles like Anti-Catholicism or Anti-Protestantism have not been subjected to such reduction, since Persecution of Catholics correctly redirects to Anti-Catholicism as a wider concept, and Persecution of Protestants correctly redirects to Anti-Protestantism, also a wider concept. Therefore, applying different criteria to similar denominational article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment could be perceived as an example of double standards and unfortunate violation of some basic values, as defined by Wikipedia rules and policies. Again, it should be pointed out that the closer had a very difficult task, since this was one of those cases when a very important and complex issue, regarding here the general article on negative sentiments towards an entire denomination, is discussed by only a handful of users, during few days, while it is clear that such complex issues require wider participation, longer discussion, and solutions that are based on the actual scope and contents of the article in question. Sorabino (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closers comment: I have no problem with a move review here. I didn't provide a rationale because it was fairly obvious to me that despite the long discussion, there was at least a consensus to move, and the question was between Persecution of Orthodox Christians and Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians. I went with Eastern Orthodox as there seemed to be little objection to it from those supporting the move even if some preferred Orthodox. As I noted on my talk page, the concerns were heard, and at least some supporters were fine addressing the issues raised still supported a move. These are largely issues that can be addressed outside the RM process on the talk page. I still see a consensus to move to this title, but if it didn't exist, I would still have moved it here under WP:RMCI: there was a clear consensus to move, and this seemed the most agreeable title. Even if it was consensus to move, no consensus to title, this would have been the landing spot. I think it'd be fine to have a new RM to directly test consensus between the alternatives and this (and think it would be done with quicker and be a better discussion than this move review, fwiw), but none of them achieved consensus as the title in this discussion, and I didn't see a need for a relist when a consensus to move was so clear. As I said, I have no objection to a move review, but having reread this now for the fourth time, I still think it was the right close. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

::Comment: Hm, just a second. Title Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians emerged in discussion as a more correct variant of the initial proposal, and within the scope of that particular problem you were right in choosing the variant that was correct from the point of denominational terminology. But, you failed to mention here that during the discussion some totally different counter-proposals also emerged, based on the original style and factual scope of the article, and also directly based on the official FBI terminology for the "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" sentiment. Besides that, it seems that everyone is avoiding to state their reasons for the reduction of scope to "persecution" only, since it is quite obvious that such reduction is in odds with the very content of the article. Not to mention here some recent deletions of entire sections, by the same users who initially wanted to delete the entire article. It is quite clear that this article is targeted, and the attempted reduction of its scope is just a part of that problem. So, the question of reduction to "persecution" only remains highly problematic, from the comparative point of view. In principle, we could ask ourselves, does anyone really think, in good faith, that the general denominational article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment should be reduced to "persecution" only? Would anyone reduce the scope of Anti-Catholicism to Persecution of Catholics only, or the scope of Anti-Protestantism to Persecution of Protestants only? Somehow, I don't think so. Therefore, full scope of the general article on "Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment" shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary reductions eider. Sorabino (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

:::And none of those proposals achieved consensus. As I said, you are free to request a new RM to test them directly. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse. Along with endorsement, I follow the closer's adherence to closing instructions, which state that when there is obvious consensus to rename an article, but no general agreement as to what new title to use, then the closer may choose a new title with the proviso that any editor at any time may open a new RM to perhaps find a better and more appropriate name for the article. So I call for a speedy close of this Move Review and, if so desired, a new RM to test the new title.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

::So, according to that logic, in situations like this closer can arbitrary change the style and the scope of the title, because that is what happened here. It has to be noted once more that during the discussion on the move, no-one offered a single word of explanation for the proposed reduction of the scope to "persecution" only, and therefore the question remains: on what basis did closer made his final choice? Between proposals based on official FBI terminology and non-explained proposals of users who previously wanted to delete the article, closer decided to chose the second option! Unfortunately, that question was not addressed by the closer, who did not explain the nature his choice in any of the consequent discussions. Since this is indeed the case when there was no consensus on the style and scope of the title, the decision of closer to change the style and the scope of the title was entirely arbitrary. Sorabino (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

:::{{gi|according to that logic, in situations like this closer can arbitrary change the style and the scope of the title,}}

:::Yes, the closer can make a choice of title when there is clear consensus that the title should be changed, but no clear consensus as to which title to change it.

:::{{gi|the decision of closer to change the style and the scope of the title was entirely arbitrary}}

:::Hence the clause in the closing instructions (at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Three possible outcomes) that allows any editor to immediately open a new requested move debate.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

::::{{u|Paine Ellsworth}}, in other words, you are avoiding the main question too. The section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining%20consensus Determining consensus] clearly states: {{gi|Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions}}. Closer has failed on all accounts. First, regarding the evaluation of arguments, he disregarded arguments based on official FBI terminology, and made his final choice on what bases? Were are the arguments for the scope reduction to "persecution" only? Not a single word of explanation for the reduction was stated during entire discussion. Since no arguments were presented for the reduction, there was no basis for the closer's final decision to reduce the scope to "persecution" only. Second, regarding the consideration for general policies and conventions, it was obvious that accepted solutions in similar cases do not favor the reduction: Persecution of Catholics correctly redirects to Anti-Catholicism as a wider concept, and Persecution of Protestants correctly redirects to Anti-Protestantism, also a wider concept. In other words, there was no basis what so ever for the reduction in this case. This article is dedicated to anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment, in general, including persecution, like in other denominational articles, and therefore it is obvious that closer's decision was arbitrary. I asked him, for the sake of argument, would he reduce the scope of Anti-Catholicism to Persecution of Catholics only, or Anti-Protestantism to Persecution of Protestants only, but he did not respond. So, here we might have an unfortunate example of double standards. Since there was no consensus on the change of style and scope, and there were no arguments made in favor of the reduction to "persecution" only, closer did not have any base for making the decision in favor of such reduction. Sorabino (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

:::::Not avoiding anything. Actually, it seems to be you who are avoiding the fact that instead of wasting time here, you could be preparing the next proposal to test and to challenge the present title of the article. What exactly do you hope to gain in this Move Review, which by the way appears to be leaning toward endorsement of the previous proposal's outcome?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

::::::Yes, you are avoiding the question of clear disregard for the actual scope of the article, made by arbitrary reduction of title to "persecution" only. Not to mention again the clear disregard for the official FBI terminology on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiments and animosities. But, some people here obviously think that they are better "experts" on the subject than the entire FBI. And regarding next steps, it seems that this entire problem will have to be raised on higher level of discussion within Wikipedia community, because it is clear that we have a case of double standards here, not to mention disregard for several Wikipedia policies. Sorabino (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

:::::::We'll have to agree to disagree, then, and meanwhile you might want to read/reread WP:BLUDGEON to find out why your efforts here have been ineffective.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

::::::::{{u|Paine Ellsworth}}, you are just trying to find new ways for your continual avoidance to answer the main question: do you really think that it was justified to reduce the scope of a general article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment to "persecution" only, contrary to similar articles like Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism that also have the same scope and therefore no-one is trying to reduce them, because such proposal would be correctly dismissed. So, it is obvious that something very wrong has happened here. The reduction of scope to "persecution" only was not only arbitrary but also a radical move, made without consensus.Sorabino (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::To answer your "main question" again, {{red|yes}}, the close was justified. My advice to you is to stop spinning your wheels and start a new Requested Move proposal. That way, you just might get what you want.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse. Closer was well within discretion. Judging by the prevailing sentiment of the discussion, a clear majority supported Persecution of Orthodox Christians, but this was clearly problematic as the article as it currently stands addresses Eastern Orthodoxy without including Oriental Orthodoxy. I think the closer should have left some sort of closing statement, though; while it is clear in retrospect, it is not an obvious close at first glance. I think the new title is acceptable according to the current scope of the article as is. If the aim is to have an article that includes general anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment as opposed to restricting it to persecution per se, then I agree that the title is insufficiently broad. However, it is still better than the previous one.Aervanath (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

::It is factually not true that "clear majority" or any majority supported "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" and it is also clear that the scope of the article already includes general anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. But, it seems that in this discussion facts do not count. We have come to the point in this discussion when "endorsements" are based on pseudo-facts ant the entire process is compromised. Since arguments based on the official FBI terminology and the very content of the article are being so bluntly disregarded, it seems that this question will have to be discussed on a very different level. In lite of recently attempted deletion of this entire article and disruptive deletions of several sections, followed by arbitrary reduction of title to "persecution" only, several questions relating to disregard of Wikipedia policies will have to be raised. Sorabino (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

:::Hi {{u|Sorabino}}, judging by your comments here, you seem to believe that this is the place to re-argue the move discussion. It is not. This forum is to review whether or not the closer followed procedure and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the discussion. The place to discuss the correct title and scope of the article is on the talk page. Based on the closer's comments above, my own reading of the discussion, and the standards for requested moves, the close was reasonable. I completely support a continued discussion on the article talk page about the desired scope and appropriate title of the article.Aervanath (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse, although some closing explanation should have been added, not just the result. I read a rough consensus for the move as implemented. The discussion was a little complex, but the result was fairly clear, I don't see more support for the other option, and none for anything else. The nominator speaks to style change options, which I read as being dependent on changes to the article to that end. "Eastern" or not? Does "Eastern" imply oriental too? These are possibly fair questions, and I think they are best addressed in normal talk page threads, not in formal RM discussions, definitely not at MRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

::So, you are not sure about the difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, but still you are passing judgement here. For any kind of reasonable judgement in this mater at least basic knowledge of denominational terminology is required. We are talking here about an article on general animosity towards an entire denomination, and it is clear that reduction of scope to "persecution" only had no bases in regard to the very content of the article, not to mention again clear examples of correct titles and scopes of comparative denominational articles like Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. But clearly, some double standards are at play here. Sorabino (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

::: No. The RM showed a rough consensus for the move made, even if it is just a step. The discussion was complex, and closing it at that point was the right thing to do. You are now free to propose a refinement, on the article talk page, not here. The closer can't act any further based on the closed RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

::: Whether or not you are right, this is not the place to discuss differences between Eastern and Oriental persecution. This discussion is only to discuss whether the process was correctly followed and then closed properly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

::::Would you please compare all three endorsements that were made here so far? By first endorsement, there was no general agreement of what title to use. By second endorsement, there was "clear majority" but that is obviously not true from the factual point of view. By third endorsement, there was "rough consensus" but that is also not correct because several users were also opened to various options, and obviously more discussion and more participation was needed in order to reach any kind of consensus. So, it seems that all three endorsements are in odds with one another, but they all have some common points of agreement: avoidance of basic questions regarding the arbitrary reduction of scope to "persecution" only, avoidance of questions relating to obvious disregard of the official FBI terminology, and avoidance of any response to comparative analysis regarding similar denominational articles like "Anti-Catholicism" and "Anti-Protestantism". Sorabino (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

::::: I didn’t even read the other “endors” !votes. Now that you draw my attention to them, I find no reason to alter my opinion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

::::::Do you really think that it was OK to reduce the scope of this general denominational article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment to "persecution" only, contrary to similar denominational articles like Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism that also have the same general scope and therefore no-one is even thinking on reducing them, because such attempt would be correctly dismissed at once. So, what happened here? The reduction of scope to "persecution" only was an arbitrary and also a radical move, made without consensus, that much is clear as a day. Sorabino (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

::::::: I think that you are not listening. The close of the RM discussion was correct. You are raising questions for continued discussion on the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Once again, if someone would try, contrary to facts and without consensus, to reduce the scope of Anti-Catholicism to Persecution of Catholics only, or to reduce the scope of Anti-Protestantism to Persecution of Protestants only, such attempts would be correctly dismissed at once, because such unjustified reductions would be recognized as clear violations of several Wikipedia rules and policies. But it seems, according to actions of some users, that those same standards should not apply to the article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. Contrary to facts and without consensus, the scope of that general denominational article was arbitrary reduced to "persecution" only, and not only that - such radical and arbitrary reduction has received some support here. This entire affair has shown that some double standards are at play here, and it seems that it will be necessary to take this to the community. Sorabino (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

::{{u|TonyBallioni}}, please go to the article and take a look at first consequences of the move: same users who wanted to delete the entire article in February are now starting to use the reduction of the title to "persecution" only as an excuse for radical reduction of the scope and content of the article! They are turning general denominational article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment into an article on effective persecution only, and now entire segments are being rewritten and referenced sections deleted! Such disruptive edits were occurring as part of the initial campaign to cripple the article and delete it in February, and now the same campaign is going on under the "blessings" of the reduced title! I would also urge users {{u|Paine Ellsworth}}, {{u|Aervanath}} and {{u|SmokeyJoe}} who endorsed the reduction of the title to take a look at recent developments, because it is quite obvious that we have some serious problems, that would have to be resolved here regarding the problematic move, or addressed elsewhere as a clear example of double standards and discrimination against one denomination. Sorabino (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Tea Party|rm_page=Talk:Tea Party|rm_section=Requested move 23 February 2018}}

Low turnout (only four other editors participated) and general lack of policy-based arguments on the "oppose" side should really have resulted in a state of no consensus per WP:NOTMOVED. Besides myself, only one other editor ({{u|Shadow007}}) used valid policy-or-guideline-based reasoning. Two other editors ({{u|Netoholic}} and {{u|Randy Kryn}}) argued that {{xt|Tea Party movement}} could not be the primary topic for the term {{xt|Tea Party}} because {{xt|Boston Tea Party}} was more significant. However, this ignores WP:PTM which makes clear that terms that are not likely to be confused don't belong on the same disambiguation page. A fourth editor ({{u|Certes}}) appeared to suggest that {{xt|Tea party}} was an equally valid primary topic, which is a case of WP:DIFFCAPS similar to {{xt|Red Meat}} vs. {{xt|Red meat}}. Both titles can be primary for their respective topics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse clearly the correct close, and a relist would have been pointless. NOTAVOTE does not mean MYOPINIONISRIGHTIFNOONEELSEAGREESWITHME, which is what it has become of late when people are contesting RM closures. People disagreed with you, move on. This is not the place to rehash every possible MOS objection to a title and why it should have been moved because no one else can read policy as well as you can. The close was good, the discussion was fine and policy-based (people are free to prioritize one aspect of the naming criteria over others and think it is more applicable to the situation). The attendance was more than many RMs. I see no need to change anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. While the nom makes good points that almost put me on the fence about the closing, there doesn't seem to be enough steam to convince other editors. In some respects the general agreement to oppose the page move could be called a "rough" consensus; however, had I closed the debate, I would have closed it as "not moved".  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. - Any other close would have been suspect. While higher participation would have been helpful, it ran over 1 week and the participating parties gave rational, common sense reasons for opposing the move. Sangdeboeuf's bludgeoning the discussion certainly didn't change the outcome nor add anything to the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. There is no minimum participation requirement for requested moves, so this is not a factor. Of those who participated, all gave reasonable explanations for their opinions. Consensus in this discussion was clearly against the move.Aervanath (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse, leaning to alter closing statement to "consensus to not move". "Not moved" is a statement of fact, not a summary of the discussion. Consensus was clearly against the move. This does not necessarily mean that the move is a bad idea, it may be that the nomination statement was so unpersuasive that the proposal was doomed. Do not start another RM for six months, and if you do, take care to to make a more persuasive nomination, including a summary of all points raised by the opposition to this proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)