Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 October#Twice

:{{move review links|Lekki massacre|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Lekki massacre}}|rm_section=Requested move 22 October 2020}} (Discussion with closer)

I believe the consensus for this discussion was improperly determined and thus against WP:RMCI. Of the !votes to "keep as is", I don't believe a single one was based on any policy or guideline. It was also closed as WP:SNOW, but with me and another editor !voting to move (and I even cited one of the naming convention guidelines), I don't think this was a reasonable candidate for a WP:SNOW closure. On the discussion, it did not seem like there would be consensus to move to the original suggested target, but there are WP:OTHEROPTIONS. The discussion was also only active for less than 24 hours. And it shows as a vast majority of the votes are from presumably Nigerian WP:SPAs.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

:This seems like wikilawyering because User:Bait30 doeen't like the word massacre. The SPAs are Nigerians who saw a move banner on the top of the page and were so strongly motivated to oppose that they edited Wikipedia, possibly for the first time in their lives. They should be listened to, not dismissed. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse.(disclosure: I created the article, then titled :Lekki shooting, I did not participate in the RM) The closure correctly assessed that this was a SNOW situation, that indeed elicited widespread IP and SPA editing due to the inflammatory nature of the proposed name. I do think that there is a possibility for a RM to a different title (possibly shooting or shootings), but the suggestion to name this as an "incident" had no chance of flying when reliable sources are unanimous in that protesters were shot (how many and by whom is a matter of some dispute and obfuscation). --Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 04:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen. This was by definition not a SNOW situation and so should not have been closed so quickly. Allow it to run at least seven days to garner more input from editors. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen This is again clearly not WP:SNOW. The discussion should be allowed to continue. Stormy Chamber (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse — Errr. Maybe not snow but the current title is the most appropriate to describe the events of that day.Celestina007 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn (to "no concensus") (much the same thing). It was definitely not SNOW. There was no consensus to move. However, this is a recent event, quickly all initial sources will be replaced by less-primary sources, and the naming evidence will change. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-open. Good points are made by everyone here and I'd like to point out a few things which may have flown under the radar.

:#{{tq|first time in their lives}}: {{u|Abductive}} is right here. As annoying as unconventionally formatted comments and !votes may be for the regulars, IPs are human too. Unless you think there's a sockmaster or co-ordinated effort to canvass, arguments should be taken not by number, not by who is giving them, but at face value, on their strength.

:#{{tq|not a SNOW situation}}, {{tq|discussion should be allowed to continue}} and {{tq|There was no consensus}}: {{u|Paine Ellsworth}}, {{u|Stormy Chamber}} and {{u|SmokeyJoe}} are all correct here. Notwithstanding the apparent validity of the IP !votes, there was no need to invoke the snowball clause.

:It's clear that in the aftermath of a recent event, details and naming will change, and that's okay. The IP input should stand, and if they're new or were only stimulated to edit because of a local tragedy, their voices should not be discarded by a no consensus closure. While, due to the amount of time since passed, a re-open or relist and a no consensus closure may be functionally equivalent, judging the closure itself, it is clear that the closure was simply premature. This, combined with the need to retain the IPs' input, is why I'd recommend overturning to re-open as opposed to overturning to no consensus. SITH (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Octavius (disambiguation)|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Octavius (disambiguation)}}|rm_section=}} (Discussion with closer)

Two people commented on my proposal to move 'Octavius (disambiguation)' to 'Octavius', with one agreeing and the other disagreeing. Rather than allow more people to chime in – this would've taken time as the page traffic is low – and even though I addressed the arguments provided by the only opposing voice in the discussion, the admin gave undue weight to said dissenter and closed it immediately after the 7-day period expired, with no further meaningful discussion allowed to take place.

The rationale given for the closure was "{{tq|A challenge to WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS still leaves the argument to change consensus to the challenger}}", falsely and bizarrely implying that I had not made an argument in the first place. The only dissenting voice in the discussion had already used a similar twisted and circular reasoning without actually addressing the subject matter. When interrogated on this decision, the closer was curt and dismissive, claiming (without explanation) I assumed bad faith and also claiming I was making personal attacks. He showed further undue weight to the opposing party, and demonstrated faulty understanding of WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY as well as of the discussion itself. He finished by baldly saying (without explanation) it was I who failed to interpret the rules properly. Avis11 (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. There was no affirmative argument made in favor of this move, either by the original proposer or the sole support vote. There was only a negative argument made that the other side had not proven that the current status quo was correct. This is not how we generally operate. The nominator needs to provide affirmative arguments for why the current status quo is not the primary topic, not merely challenge others to give reasons for why it is. The closer was correct in pointing that out. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closure was reasonable, and nom seems to practice a strange form of civility – learned perhaps by editing Britannica? or perhaps Uranuspedia? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 09:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. Weak nomination, strong oppose not well responded to, and the “support per nom” contributed nothing to countering the oppose. It could very well be a good move, you might try a better nomination after six months. Arguing “there’s no evidence” sounds like it’s all rhetoric. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from OP. Did any of you take the trouble to read the entire discussion, which is not that long to begin with? Then opposing party (Calidum)'s main argument (not addressed up til now) was that a Google search for 'Octavius' almost always returns 'Augustus'. This is not true, and the same entry on 'Google scholar' returns nothing of the sort. Thus, my argument trumped Calidum's per WP:DPT, but this guideline was ignored by the closer, who said "your non-collegial exchange in the discussion based on Scholar was balanced by the argument based on Google (search)". Said closer ignored me when I quoted verbatim the relevant passage in WP:DPT for him. Is there nobody here willing to look at this transparently, competently and entirely? Avis11 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse, having analysed this transparently, competently and entirely. No such user (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• You obviously didn't, nor did you address my case. Avis11 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Look up sealioning. No such user (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• No. His sole argument for closure was "your non-collegial exchange in the discussion based on Scholar was balanced by the argument based on Google (search)", which is at odds with WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Neither you nor anybody else addressed this. Avis11 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• See also WP:REHASH, WP:NOTGETTINGIT. If no one agrees with you, it may be that you're not right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Before saying someone is 'not getting' your disagreement you have to actively disagree, and to disagree you have to first address the argument in question. This is something you repeatedly refused to do ("move along") ever since you closed the original discussion. You, and apparently everybody who responded up til now, seem to think 'no evidence' was my sole argument in that discussion, or that 'incivility' takes precedence over any of those issues. Avis11 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• I hope this helps you {{u|Avis11}}... it is evident that you are either unaware of or in complete disregard of Wikipedia's policy on civility. Civility is part of our code of conduct and one of the five pillars and so actually does take precedence over many other issues. We treat each other with respect and consideration. If we don't, then we don't deserve to be here and just might get blocked from editing. That would be a shame, especially since I've found that nearly everyone is capable of improving themselves in this respect. The first step is recognition of one's own uncivil behavior, and the next step is stopping it. If one is smart enough (and wise enough) to do that, then one can easily figure out the rest. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• When the three participants couldn't agree, a relisting to draw further participation would have been the more sensible thing to do, especially given that evidence for the absence of a primary topic with respect to usage is so easy to come by, and given that people have disagreed about the target of the redirect in the past (there has been presumed implicit consensus for the current target since 2011, but it's not as strong as it appears, as there were disagreements in 2010–2011, and for the six years before that the title was occupied by an article, which is now at Eudaf Hen). However, I'm not too keen to see this discussion re-opened – what was written so far was thin on actual arguments and the argumentative exchange that took up its bulk was bizarrely centred on whose job it was to provide said arguments. Let's not get back to that, but if anyone would like to immediately open a new discussion, with new arguments, they should feel free. – Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Eric Ouma|rm_page=Talk:Eric Ouma|rm_section=Requested move 10 January 2020}} (No discussion on closer's talk page)

In today's game the back of his shirt says just Otieno, so this is obviously the last name of his choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikclaes‎ (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Omar|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Omar}}|rm_section=Requested move 19 September 2020}} (Discussion with closer)

Not enough number of users had participated in the discussion and apparently, not all arguments were evaluated, which is against the spirit of WP:RMCI. I have two reasons to request move review. Reason 1: In my discussion with the closer here, he gave the impression that apart from my first !vote comment, he did not read any of my arguments. He claimed there was "consensus" and that "the one oppose said "per above", but the "above" was changed to support." The truth is that when the first opposer changed his !vote, I did not change my !vote and kept posting opposing arguments. For example, I mentioned in the discussion that "most of the time, "Omar" seems to be used for persons other than the Caliph, while "Umar" is used mostly for the Caliph," implying that the article was not even the primary topic for "Omar", but no one satisfactorily answered this point. There was an abrupt closure without giving enough time to anyone to answer this point. Reason 2: It was closed merely two days after the nominator tagged the creator of the article to ask for their opinion. Khestwol (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. As much as I do not favor the change from "Umar" to "Omar", that was a reasonable closure. Consensus prevails. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment by closer. "Abrupt" closure of an RM that ran for the usual week? What makes you think not all arguments were evaluated when you were the only oppose and no one supported your point? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• The closing statement was terse. An explanation can be very helpful to far more people than toss who ask. It would have been helpful if User:Khestwol had reviewed their !vote and made their argument simple and explicit. Although terse, I find the close correct. User:Onceinawhile and User:Alivardi had a good discussion and their agreement is compelling. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse (Uninvolved). The closer could have provided a more in depth rationale, but the close wasn't unreasonable. The one argument against was that "Omar" is a commonly used name and "Umar" isn't, so it should stay at "Umar" per WP:NATURAL, but NATURAL is irrelevant here because the page remains at the base title and is not disambiguated. -- Calidum 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse (Uninvolved). The close was proper. Arguments presented in the discussion against the move were very weak. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Relist . The COMMONNAME evidence seems light. I think the discussion needs more input and thus more time. —В²C ☎ 22:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Relist (Uninvolved) - Not a clear consensus from the discussion. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Relist (Uninvolved) much of the discussion took place only two days before closure. Other editors should be given more chance to react on the arguments that were exchanged on the 24th. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Twice|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Twice}}|rm_section=Requested move 20 September 2020}} (Discussion with closer)

The closing user endorsed a moved from Twice (group) to Twice, despite twice (12 v 6, also a pun) as many users !voting oppose as keep. I believe the closer applied their own opinion as opposed to just looking for a consensus within the existing discussion. I also believe that too much weight was given to whether each oppose vote specifically cited to an enumerated WP policy. I believe this goes against the spirit of the move discussion and request a review. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Every time WP:NOTVOTE comes up, it seems the majority assumes bad faith of the closer, and cannot believe it was an evaluation of the arguments but must have been the closer's personal opinion or WP:SUPERVOTE. From my talk where this was piled on:

{| class="wikitable"

|+ Talk:Twice#Requested move 20 September 2020

:{{move review links|Coronavirus disease 2019|rm_page=Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 14|rm_section=Requested_move_16_September_2020}} (Discussion in archives)(Discussion with closer)

The close, and much of the opposition, was focused on the misconception that MOS:ACROTITLE forbids us from using acronyms as article titles (edit: in most, but not all cases), when it in fact says the opposite "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject." WP:NCMED likewise allows common names in certain instances. It was also pointed out in the RM that many medical articles (HIV and polio, for example) use acronym titles. I raised this point on the closer's talk page but it has gone unaddressed. -- Calidum 01:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

::I pointed this out below, but WP:POLCON ("if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence") should be noted up front. In this case WP:COMMONNAME is part of our article titling policy while the MOS is a guideline. -- Calidum 14:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn to {{big|relist}}. Such a discussion should be allowed to continue per Amakuru on the closer's talk page. A consensus might emerge if given the chance, so that RM should be relisted. At the time of closing I don't see a consensus either way, so there was definitely not a consensus to "not move" the article to the proposed title. And there is a possible consensus (rough?) to move the article under COMMONNAME, a title policy. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. I !voted in support of the proposed move, and am disappointed that this view did not prevail, but the closer in this case acted correctly. There is a clear absence of consensus for the move, and there is no particular trend in the discussion to suggest that a consensus would develop given additional time. Although any editor could have relisted the discussion once it elapsed, none did, and no discussion is entitled to relisting after it has run its allotted number of days without yielding a consensus. BD2412 T 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• I sound like a broken record having to repeat this frequently here and at WP:DRV, but consensus is not a vote. We consider the strength of the argument. When one side misreads guideline entirely, their comments count for less. -- Calidum 03:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. The claim that opposition votes "focused on the misconception that MOS:ACROTITLE forbids us from using acronyms" is entirely false. Zero editors made that statement. The first several opposers who cited ACROTITLE pointed out exactly which part of that policy supported their vote, and it's safe to guess that the few who cited it without explanation did so because it seemed covered by those above (a common practice in move discussions). It doesn't appear that there was any misreading of the guideline either, as claimed directly above. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn(relist) was Overturn. I was a bit surprised that WP:CONSISTENT didn't appear to be brought up directly in the discussion, though it was alluded to in the request itself: {{tq|The article on the pandemic has already been renamed to COVID-19 pandemic, so this article should probably be renamed as well.}} It did get brought up during in a discussion with the closer. I think arguments related to WP:CONSISTENT should be considered in the close. PaleAqua (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• :Changing !vote to relist on more thought. I think some more discussion in the RM could be helpful. PaleAqua (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). I think the argument that there are exceptions of WP:COMMONNAME for diseases name is true and that is reflect in vote before, which majority of users that involved oppose to move to just acronym title and i agree with BD2412 that opposition votes only focused by "MOS:ACROTITLE forbids us from using acronyms" in totally false. WHO and most of health agencies tend to prefer long-form names for all disease and virus names unless there can be translated into the native language for example SARS (in wikipedia title is Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, not just SARS). 180.241.205.155 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Eddorse but no consensus (involved) I opposed the move but on 2nd thoughts maybe this was weak since I was thinking about "coronavirus" in general rather than the 2019 one. The supporters pointed to COMMONNAME and the likes of HIV while the opposers pointed to ACROTITLE and the likes of Severe acute respiratory syndrome. While I agree with the idea that this shouldn't have been closed as "move" it wouldn't have been closed as "not moved" but rather "no consensus". I still (weakly) think the pandemic should be moved to Coronavirus pandemic (which was closed as consensus against) but that's different to this in that there was no "2019" proposed to be in the title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. I think the community made the wrong decision on this one, but community discussions are about what the community decides to do. The discussion was properly done and closed correctly. Note that the impact of this decision is trivial, I doubt any reader will be much hindered for very long. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

:: I think relisting from here is not a sensible option. The discussion happened and is now over. Too much time has passed. Also, the discussion was hindered by the weak nomination. “should probably be renamed” are not words associated with a well-prepared and persuasive nomination. From here, now, it is a better to give it the standard resting time, and then allow someone to re-propose a rename with a better rationale. The better rationale should address the objections evident in this completed discussion, with a view to moving forward. The standard waiting time is disputed, but between 2 and 6 months. That waiting time should count From the close of this review, as there is no strong argument of a severe problem with the current title, and these things tend to distract from content improvement. Allow a fresh proposal proposal after two months after the close of this review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse as no consensus (involved). Looking over the entire discussion, there was very clearly no consensus for a move. And it's always bad when a Move Review nominator begins with a false statement. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, none of the opposers in the discussion said that "MOS:ACROTITLE forbids us from using acronyms as article titles". Acronyms are certainly allowed in titles, but as MOS:ACROTITLE states, consensus has rejected acronyms in article titles even in cases where the subject of the article is more known by the acronym. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• You yourself wrote, "There's well-established precedent on Wikipedia of more common acronyms not being used in article titles as an exception to the general rule on using the most common name for the title." So while it might have been a stretch for me to write what I did, your and others' interpretation of ACROTITLE -- that it essentially overrides WP:COMMONNAME -- is still wrong. See also WP:POLCON, "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence." In this case the MOS is a guideline and COMMONNAME is policy. -- Calidum 14:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• WP:Article titles incorporates MOS:ACROTITLE by reference. The guideline does not override policy, it compliments it with additional details and nuances. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. This was a tricky one, and the closer missed it. The key is that opposition was mostly based on ACROTITLE, but ACROTITLE is not a basis to oppose here, and these opposes should have been (un)weighted accordingly, while the strong basis in policy favoring of the move should have weighted the supports favorably. Instead, the closer appeared to evaluate plain consensus (rather than WP:CONSENSUS) by counting !votes. It’s an understandable rookie mistake that needs to be rectified. —В²C ☎ 00:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• :ACROTITLE and the general titling policy does say that they should only be used if the subject is primarily known by its abbreviation and its primarily associated with it. The 1st is clearly satisfied but the 2nd is less so so I don't see a clear consensus either way to move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. Per Born2cycle Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 07:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Relist --IWI (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist due to all the pages listed at COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. We need clear consensus on this matter. Opalzukor (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

::I think reopening the old discussion is a mistake. The old discussion happened and there was clearly no consensus. It would be much better to just wait a couple of months and then open a new discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn ACROTITLE appears to be not relevant, common name argument could easily have prevailed if it hadnt been closed --49.180.100.63 (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)