Wikipedia:Move review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Move review is a process designed to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of a requested move (RM) discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page.

While the requested move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is not

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), Titling Policy, Manual of Style and Naming Conventions, or Consensus Norms should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.


Initiating move reviews

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

  • [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted.

Editors initiating a Move Review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review request


Before requesting a move review: Please attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer.


Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example:

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:move review list
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request.-->
}}  ~~~~

Inform the closer of the discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: {{move review talk|date=22 June 2018}}. Do not tag the article.


If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the discussions section.

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 June}}

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.


Commenting in a move review

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of Requested Move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the Requested Move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that Move Review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a Move Review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the Requested Move discussion.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.

Also add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.

Typical move review decision options

The following set of options represent the typical results of a Move Review decision, although complex Requested Move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV Decision RM Closers Decision Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer) Article Title Action at MRV Close (by MRV closer) Status of RM at MRV Close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title Moved to New Title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close Not Moved Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM
Open or Closed as necessary
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Moved to New Title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Closed or Open and relisted as appropriate
5. Relist Not Moved Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Moved to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open
7. Don't Relist Not moved or moved Not Moved or Moved No Action Required Closed


Active discussions

2018 June

FC Steaua București (closed)

List of Presidents of the United States

List of Presidents of the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

Although there were 11 13 supporters and six opponents of the proposed move, the closer ruled "no consensus to move" citing a "parallel" RM. This argument was mentioned by one editor in the RM and refuted by another, who correctly cited WP:OTHERSTUFF. Do we want users and closers to dig up precedents and argue over them like common law lawyers? A proper close must follow the relevant guideline, or at least explain any inconsistency. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC) I was a supporter in the RM. I recommend Overturn and move. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Endorse, The close was not just the one reason you mention above, the closer also says "per the discussion below". And that discussion shows that this was the correct close. Your summarizing sentence in your introduction above is incorrect because you print one part of it and leave out the most important finding, "per the discussion below", and might want to add that if something like this comes up again. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move – The closer's note "per discussion" was a bit vague, so that I asked for clarification on their talk page. Their explanation was essentially "no consensus emerged after 10 days", plus mentioning a parallel multi-move request closed two days earlier with no consensus. That is still no explanation: the closer is essentially saying: "I conclude there is no consensus because there is no consensus." Per our RM closing instructions, the closer must provide a reading of the discussion in light of policy. Except in the most obvious slam-dunk cases nearing unanimity, the arguments of the support and oppose sides should be analyzed by the closer, and this did not happen here. Consequently, let me propose a more detailed reading of the discussion.
  1. Numeric count is 13 editors supporting the move and 6 opposing (OP here has erroneously counted only 11 supports); this already shows twice as much support as opposition, but of course a simple count is not enough to carry the day.
  2. Now let's take a look at the arguments presented. Supporting editors mostly endorse the nomination based on the MOS:CAPS and WP:JOBTITLES guidelines, mentioning that a title in the plural form should not be capitalized because it refers to several individuals who have held that title. Opposing editors contend that by virtue of being the formal title of a head of state, "President" should always be capitalized. Several editors mention sources, contending that "most sources use the capitalized version" if opposing, and "it's very often not capitalized" if supporting the move. The book search presented by Dicklyon clearly shows that capitalization is evenly mixed among sources, with the gap between "of Presidents" and "of presidents" having narrowed in recent years compared with the 1960s,[2] and even more dramatically since the 1930s.[3] Therefore, any opposition to the move based on preponderance of the capitalized version in sources must be discounted: this nullifies at least two of the oppose !votes.
  3. When sources do not overwhelmingly use one form of capitalization over the next, Wikipedia defers to the house style, and our MOS:JOBTITLES guideline specifically outlines only three cases when formal titles can be capitalized, including When a formal title for a specific entity is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier, and is not a reworded description (emphasis mine). The title "President" here is used in the plural form, so must not be capitalized.
  4. Other oppose arguments were based on a simple dislike ("This is ridiculous", "Unnecessary and redundant", "The de-capitalization of that VP article noted above, and any other related articles is incorrect and should be rectified immediately, per BOLD and IAR, no RM or consensus required"); they should carry less weight than comments citing a sourcing or policy reason.
  5. Finally, the oppose !vote by עם ישראל חי looks like it was meant as a support !vote, because they say "per reasons stated on Talk:Living_presidents_and_vice_presidents_of_the_United_States", and on that page they had endorsed a rename to a non-capitalized version of the title.[4] A clarification from this editor would be welcome. This editor has confirmed that he meant "Oppose".[5] Striking #5. — JFG talk 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
For all these reasons, I read the discussion as a clear consensus to move the article title to the "List of presidents…" uncapitalized version. — JFG talk 10:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It would've looked quite silly, to have the article-in-question moved to List of presidents of the United States, while the other 'main' related article-in-question remained at List of Vice Presidents of the United States. What should've happened, is that all aforementioned articles should been placed in one RM. GoodDay (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned in the move request under review here, the parallel request for a mass-move of dozens of articles was probably too much to swallow, and it did not include this specific article. This review must consider this close on its own merits. — JFG talk 12:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: I disagree with this. The cases have to be treated together, otherwise we end up with a glaring lack of WP:CONSISTENCY. Also, on your "is not plural" point, that line was added only in October last year, and on the basis of a confusing RFC which barely discussed the plural issue at all. I think it's highly questionable whether it should be in the MOS in that format, because it clearly makes no sense for some examples. Would we really have List of dalai lamas? "President of the United States" is treated as a proper noun in the article President of the United States and its list form should be too, as it has been for years according to well established convention. There is really no good reason to move this list.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Two remarks: 1. Move Review is not the place to discuss MOS guidelines; we should only assess whether the closer accurately reflected the balance of the discussion under review. 2. You are pointing to the wrong RfC. The RfC that resulted in the MOS update to include "is not plural" gathered unanimous support of all participants for this exact wording, and was closed on 22 October 2017 with a "clear consensus to revise the third bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES as proposed."[6] If you disagree, you should open a new RfC and assert reasons why this particular consensus should change. — JFG talk 09:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: OK, but it remains the case that the plural point was not specifically debated by any participant in the RFC, rather they were presented with a fait accompli, and most participants grudgingly supported it as the best compromise rather than giving it a ringing endorsement. Also the rewording suggested in that article does not mention anything about decapping list article titles. And the only example given in that RFC suggests we should be using American presidents rather than "presidents of the United States". The move would actually be a lot more acceptable if it were to List of American presidents, because then it's no longer the job title as a proper noun but a concise descriptive title. And yes, MOS guidelines should be discussed here, because it's relevant to interpreting the close. The move request here and the one at the vice president pages show clearly that when push comes to shove the community is not supportive of that change to the MOS, at least as it pertains to page titles, however much you may celebrate a "unanimous" passing of the RFC.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Part of what many people are missing here is that JOBTITLES also has us capitalize such a title when the subject is the title/role/position itself, but this is not every context in which the same text string appears. E.g., we have Lord Mayor of London, but it's not capitalized when used in a plural or genericized sense as a classifier, thus List of lord mayors of London. See also the opening sentence of the former: "The Lord Mayor of London is the City of London's mayor ..." with "mayor" not "Mayor". [And "City of London" here is a proper name for the legal entity; by contrast, there is no such thing as "the City of San Francisco"; there's the city of San Francisco, a place where people live, and the City and County of San Francisco, the legal entity (a fused municipal and county government).] In short, whether something's a proper noun (or proper-noun phrase) or a common one is context- and construction-dependent. "I want to always capitalize job titles and always capitalize 'city of"' is a crude, Procrustean, and rather middle-school idea; it produces poor, amateurish writing that lacks nuance or even a clear logical understanding of the topic at hand.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
User:JFG you wrote above "3. When sources do not overwhelmingly ...." please show me to where in the WP:AT policy is state it has to be overwhelming. -- PBS (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
This isn't about AT policy, which is not a style policy (otherwise MoS would not exist, and AT and its naming-conventions side guidelines wouldn't ever defer to it even if it did – yet it does and they do). The wording you're looking for in AT is "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources", at COMMONNAME; this is about picking between two names (e.g. David Johansen versus Buster Poindexter), not two stylizations of the same name. Even then it's only about picking the first choice to test against the actual WP:CRITERIA; there is no guarantee the commonest name will actually be used. But it really amounts to the same criterion anyway; MoS, from MOS:CAPS to MOS:TM, wants to see consistent use of the style in modern, independent, English-language, reliable sources. We don't have that here. More and more of them lower-case such constructions, including the major style guides on which our MoS is based. We don't apply capitalization or other stylization unless it's the overwhelmingly dominant current-English RS usage (or unless there's a MOS:ENGVAR matter in play; e.g. whilst is permissible despite while being far more common and clearly understood cross-dialect, because the longer and more archaic form remains dominant [allegedly – this actually needs to be looked at] in some national-scale dialects).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (by involved editor) - I agree with GoodDay. The issues under discussion at the “Presidents” RM were identical to those at the “Vice Presidents” RM (as were the arguments for and against the move). The two should have been combined into one RM, as both were active at the same time. It makes sense that the closer combined them when closing. Acknowledging that the two RMs are connected was the right call. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you see any problem with the fact that the MOS calls for lower casing, but this RM has resulted in upper casing? Should the guideline be rewritten? If so, what should it say? I can't think of any phrasing that would accommodate the RM and not sound ridiculous: "Show some respect and upper case all references to U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Nope... no problem at all. The MOS itself says that there will be occasional exceptions. If you think of the MOS as a flexible set of good guidance, and not a firm set of “rules”, it helps.Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • This is not a rearguing of the issue, if it was then MOS calls for the most familiar use of the term, which is upper-case. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Are we looking at the same MOS? My version says, "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" (MOS:CAPS). The MOS lists various dictionaries we can refer to. Check one and see how this word should be capitalized. The MOS does not mention ngrams. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn. WP:BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move – There was a clear consensus to move this page. Every move request should be evaluated individually, so the result of the move request on the vice-presidents page was immaterial to this discussion. Note also that the user who pulled a non-admin closure on this move request actually !voted "oppose" on the move request on the vice-presidents page which suggests a bias in the user's ruling. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC) I !voted "support" in both previous RM's -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing out that smoking gun. Overturn is now mandatory. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn (I had supported the proposals to move to conform with MOS:JOBTITLES) – yes, the evidence shows that it was a very poor non-admin close. And yes, agree with JFG that move would have been the obvious correct reading. Once we fix this list of presidents, it will be easier to see and/or establish consensus to respect MOS:JOBTITLES more generally. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a request for those who were involved in the two RMs... please follow my example and identify your involvement. Right now, there is a distinct overlap between opinions here and opinions at the two RMs. This is to be expected... And is OK. But it would be helpful to distinguish any comments from those involved from those not already involved. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • mine was an oppose vote per oppose reasons stated List of Vice Presidents of the United States the link i put was a mistake עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying; I will update the above discussion summary accordingly. — JFG talk 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. No consensus seems a correct close, since the votes were split between those arguing that this is a descriptive title, and those arguing that it is a list of holders of a named title. The argument in opposition was that WP:JOBTITLES explicitly mentions "President of the United States" as a job title, and that this is the plural form. That argument was not overwhelmingly refuted by those in support. The main article is at President of the United States so it would definitely be odd not to have this list article at List of Presidents of the United States. I also think the move closure of the large number of articles with related titles was relevant, and the closer was within their rights to mention that one in the close here. WP:CONSISTENCY is one of the criteria after all.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • By that logic, it should be List of Writers instead of List of writers because the main article is at Writer, not writer. That... does not sound very convincing. I think the closer's obvious bias (having voted in the related move request) is rather damning and should be considered when evaluating his decision here. Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Your example is not equivalent, because "writer" is a common noun, whereas "President of the United States" is a proper noun. The only reason Writer has a capital is because all articles start with a capital letter. In running text the subject is writer. A better example would be List of Dalai Lamas, which is so-called because it derives from the proper noun "Dalai Lama". It is not List of dalai lamas. As for your other point, that may be valid, but the closer didn't actually vote in this discussion and it doesn't alter the fact that there was no consensus. If you really want to declare the close void on that technicality, then the discussion should be reopened and relisted. It certainly isn't a valid candidate for a straight overturn to moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
        • By this logic, it's "Presidents of the United States," but "U.S. presidents"? Oh my. Why don't you rewrite the MOS? That would give us a fighting chance to figure out what your rules are. Nine Zulu queens (talk)
          • Um... yes, we do need to rewrite the MOS... or rather, we need to u do a recent rewrite and return it to what it used to say. The MOS used to note a distinction between “King of France” and “French king”... analogous to the distinction between “Presidents of the United States” and “US presidents”. I would favor a return of this distinction. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
        • User:Amakuru, proper nouns cannot be multi-word terms, and should,not be confused with proper names. President of the United States is not a proper noun, and neither is Dalai Lama. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
          I'm not sure that distinction is widely accepted, most people would regard proper names and proper nouns as the same thing. But whatever we call it, it doesn't change the capitalisation rules. If it's capped in singular, it should also be capped in plural.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
          • "President" is capitalized when it is treated as an extension of a personal name, as in "President Trump." In other words, it is a job title and not a proper noun. "Dalai Lama" is capitalized because it substitutes for a personal name. How do we know which is which? You can't figure it out by speculating, but you can look it up in a dictionary. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (EDIT: Relist might be a better summary for clarity) (disclosure: voted no move on the VP RM, did not vote on the Presidents one which was frankly filed too soon and should have waited for the VP one to finish, would probably have voted no move had I voted). Well, the closer isn't wrong that it'd be a nonsensical split to have presidents and Vice Presidents. While consistency is not that important, that'd be super-weird. I am inclined to say that the VP debate, which had better turnout, is the better precedent to use, but this is clearly enough of an issue that it unfortunately might be worth reopening a third debate - maybe making a full RFC on the extent of JOBTITLES so that whichever stance prevails, there is some finality so that voting fatigue doesn't become an issue. SnowFire (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. (uninvolved) This RM was closed out of process, so its outcome should be overturned and the RM closed by an uninvolved editor. The closer was involved in the related RM about the same thing; therefore, the closer should have realized their involvement and should not have closed this RM.  Painius  put'r there  16:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be better if it is relisted for another week if that's going to be the case. I certainly wish to oppose the move.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not averse to a relist, and that might be the best idea.  Painius  put'r there  19:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: @Nine Zulu queens: Your opening of the move review does not specify what outcome you are advocating (Endorse/Overturn/Relist). You may want to make a clear statement before the review gets closed. — JFG talk 20:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn—or in my view, the RM process will lose credibility. Tony (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move per the actual consensus in the discussion. Some opposes by people who a) did not read the plain English at MOS:JOBTITLES, b) make assertions like "most sources use the capitalized version" without evidence and against already-supplied evidence to the contrary, c) offer WP:ILIKEIT arguments like traditionalism, and/or d) provide "rationales" that actually make no sense at all like "redundant" (someone doesn't seem to know what that word means), are just noise. These comments should have been discounted by the closer, yet even taken all together as if valid policy- and source-based arguments, there's still a 2:1 showing against them, and those in favor of the move had defensible rationales. This was a bad, super-vote close (whether it was an NAC or not).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic; MR is not for relitigation.
  • Given your very strong interest in the MOS subject of Capitalisation [sic], I think in commenting on this MRDA. -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Everyone commenting here is likely either in favor of "traditional" use of capitalization for what could be called "special signification" (i.e., a form of emphasis), or they're opposed to over-capitalization for emphasis as a general matter. The latter viewpoint has a basis in the guidelines (the first rule of MOS:CAPS, plus clear and specific instructions about this kind of case in particular, at MOS:JOBTITLES), while the former does not and is just an ILIKEIT argument. Both have some basis in source usage, but off-WP, modern, mainstream style guides are most often in favor of lower-casing that which can be lower-cased, compared to style guides of the mid-20th century, and actual usage in other RS (newspapers, book, etc.) is following this trend. It is not a trend WP invented, it's one that WP is complying with. The point you're trying to make amounts to "Of course you'd be opposed to venting 8 billion tons of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere, since you're one of those people concerned about climate change." Observing that someone has a position in no way invalidates it; that's a fallacy (several, actually, including the traitorous critic, the association fallacy, and Bulverism in this case, with ad hominem implications (in the strict sense), perhaps also with a hint of the genetic fallacy, i.e. it must be a bad idea because it originated from those people). More to the point, most RM and MR respondents have an opinion about the matter under discussion or they'd be unlikely to comment. Anyone in favor of lower-case here could also say "Well, of course you're in support of "List of Vice Presidents of Foo" because you're one of those over-capitalizers." It's just not conductive to resolution. The question before us isn't one of re-litigation of why to use upper or lower case, but whether the close was in error. What sorts of arguments were (past-tense) presented and what implications do they have for how to close such a discussion?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    Intellectualise it and call it any fallacy you like "he would say that wouldn't he" is frequently used in British politics, precisely because it is so useful. The process here is supposed to be a disinterested review of the close. You state "... actual consensus in the discussion. Some opposes by people who a) did not read the plain English at MOS:JOBTITLES, ...". If you are going to make such assertions then you are automatically rejecting as part of the consensus any view that does not follow the guidance in that guideline. As that guideline is not part of WP:AT it is not particularly pertinent to the discussion (BTW someone ought to point out that its mention in the RM which makes the requested move something built on sand). Further how do you know that those that opposed the move did not read the guideline and rejected it in this case? Personally if I had been involved in the RM I would have supported the move and based it on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), but I think you are stretching the use of this review to use it to push for a change based on the failure to follow a MOS guideline in which you have invested a lot of time, particularly as not one person who supported the move referred to the AT policy and its guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)) also as it is an American topic someone should have mentioned what is normal in US publications (WP:TITLEVAR). During the period August to November 2017 you made no fewer than 23 of the 24 edits to the naming convention, one of them (I think tellingly) inserted For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, {{crossref|see [[WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters]]}}. So yes I think in this case MRDA is justified.-- PBS (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    This argument is certainly clever. But I am thinking that such cleverness might be applied more productively to another problem. Good style suggests following a major style guide and dictionary, all of which recommend lowercasing "president" and other job titles. You can check CMOS, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, AP Stylebook, Oxford Style Manual, published encyclopedias, British dictionaries, or American dictionaries. Check out OneLook for a comprehensive collection of online dictionaries. No professional copy editor would treat ngram as a style authority! How does going against all the most authoritative sources improve Wikipedia? Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    And this isn't about British politics, so handwaving with Internet memes about that subject isn't of relevance here (and continuing to do it after how fallacious it is has been pointed out is just another fallacy: proof by assertion). I'm collapse-boxing this entire digression as off-topic. We're here to examine the close, not relitigate it. PBS seems to think that my observation that various rationales offered do not actually comport with MOS:JOBTITLES – i.e., this is why they were discounted by the closer – somehow needs further explanation than the observation, but it doesn't. Either the MR respondents will see and agree with this, or they won't, and everyone can add their own bullet-point comment here. I decline to respond to "tone policing" or to over-literal interpretation. beyond stating the obvious: It doesn't matter whether RM respondents who seem not to have read and absorbed MOS:JOBTITLES really did fail to do so or chose to ignore it; they offered no WP:IAR rationale for why it might not apply in this case, and instead gave arguments that just contradict it as if they either didn't read or didn't understand it. The end result is indistinguishable, so there is no semantic hair that needs to be split.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Endosrse Close As 'No Move' - As per all the sound and very persuasive comments posted above explaining why "Presidents" should be capitalized. This project-wide de-capitalization campaign is getting carried away. It is only supported by personal preference for a particular style-guide and needs to be reined in and reviewed as it's becoming quite disruptive. (imho) - wolf 22:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    This is just more re-litigation (i.e. "why I like capitalizing"), and is not responsive to the move review or what MR is for (which is examining whether the closer properly assessed consensus, not whether you agree with the result and with people who argued for it). The entire reason we're here is that arguments for the capitalization are not sound or persuasive under policy- and source-based reasoning; this is exactly why the close was challenged. Simply asserting that they're sound and persuasive, without substantively refuting the evidence to the contrary, isn't an actual MR position, but a distraction.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Notifications: Some concern was expressed at WT:MOSCAPS that this MR might not reach a clear consensus, so I've posted additional neutral pointers to it there, at WT:MOS, and at WT:NCCAPS, the three guidelines whose wording could conceivably be affected one way or the other by the outcome. It could be "advertised" further, but I'm skeptical that, say, the village pump should be notified about something this trivial in the site-wide scheme of things.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move per JFG and given the revelation the closer was not an uninvolved party. —Joeyconnick (talk)
  • Overturn and Move, Please! for the love of all that is holy and the fate of written English grammar!!! and as stated by me in too many, numerous, and redundant discussions of this issue, per MoS and our own Style-Guide. The size of the article count affected by this IS NOT a case of IAR, it's a case of Wikipedia Integrity to the written word and good grammar for future generations. (Oh, and per BADNAC too). ~GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - whatever the rights and wrongs of this individual move closure, I think it's sensible that this list be treated alongside the long list of similar articles at Talk:List_of_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_21_May_2018, and not as an isolated case. WP:CONSISTENCY suggests that we shouldn't move just this one, leaving it out of kilter with the vice president list. Might I suggest that the best way forward now would be to neither endorse nor overturn the previous RM, but instead reopen it with a new request, including List of Presidents of the United States as well as all the pages mentioned on the other move request. The new RM can then be closed by a properly qualified admin, or a panel, and we can put the matter to bed once and for all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    Or, alternatively, we could just do what MOS:JOBTITLES, WP:NCCAPS, and hundreds if not thousands of previous de-capitalization RMs have directed us to do: stop over-capitalizing. We have guidelines and RM precedent so that we don't have to keep re-re-rehashing the same thing on a page-by-page basis. We have better things to do with our volunteer time here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Consistency is much easier to achieve when it's consistent with the agreed guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The policy to decide on the appropriate article title is Article Title policy and its naming conventions (the guidelines that support and interpret the Article Title policy -- In this case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)). The MOS guidelines cover content not article titles, so all those who are suggesting overturning this close using MOS guidelines are not basing their arguments on the Artile Titles policy and its guidelines, therefore they ought to be ignored here just as they ought to be in the RM. It seems to me odd that people who argue for overturning a close because guidance was not followed do not themselves bas their arguments on policy. -- PBS (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should look at the close. It says, "per the discussion below and the parallel discussion at Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States#Requested move 21 May 2018." Which one of these is a valid reason? "Per discussion"? The discussion is overwhelming in favor of moving. Per "parallel discussion"? We should not be citing other discussions in this way, according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not only that, but the closer himself was a participant in the "parallel discussion." If we consider the two discussions together, as the closer encourages us to do, it follows that he is WP:INVOLVED. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
      And it's a specious argument anyway. WP:NCCAPS is the application of MOS:CAPS to WP:AT concerns (and NCCAPS defers to MOS:CAPS for the details and the general avoid-unnecessary-caps rationale anyway). A key idea of the titles policy, the naming conventions, and the style guidelines is that we should be consistent. A quick review of WP:RM results also shows that the idea that MoS concerns cannot be applied to article titles is farcically wrong; they're collectively the no. 2 thing that is applied to article titles, every single day, in the course of moving them around (WP:COMMONNAME is no. 1, of course). The idea that there's a fight between these WP:P&G pages and one wins is a strange WP:BATTLEGROUND fantasy. They're explicitly designed to work together. At WP:POLICY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:GAMING, WP:Common sense, WP:WIKILAWYER, etc., we're instructed to interpret our P&G pages as being in concert not in conflict. The community does not intentionally create WP:POLICYFORKs, and trying to manufacture one by willfully misinterpreting P&G material and its interrelations, just to get victory in some over-capitalization cause, is not how we do things.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like everybody has made their case. Close requested.[7]JFG talk 11:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 May


Kshmr (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

The closure is unreasonable because the arguments for supporting the move are stronger than the opposes. The support-oppose ratio is 3:5 but there should be more due weight assigned for the support votes that are policy-based than the oppose votes that are based on the MoS which does not explicitly support the spelling of the current title. Overturn or relist. The editor whose username is Z0 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Endorse one of the most reasonable closes I have seen in a while. The interplay of policy, guidelines, naming conventions, and MOS is difficult and complex, and it is up to the participants in the RM to determine how they interact with the specific title. The participants here decided to appeal to the logic of the MOS, which while not strictly part of the title policy, is certainly worth considering. They also gave significantly stronger arguments in my opinion that were supported by sourcing and logic and sourcing. There is no possible other way this could be closed, and since all the arguments were played out, a relist would have been ridiculous. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. (Uninvolved) Per TonyB, this close was righteous. There was much passion shown by supporters; however, the rationales of the opposers carried.  Painius  put'r there  19:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn or relist. I've looked at this one, and had a scan of the sources, and I've got to be honest, with all due respect to some of those opposing and to the two endorses above, I think the "oppose" voters have called it wrong and the consensus should probably have gone with the much stronger arguments of the supporters. Other than a few rare exceptions, sources online are absolutely overwhelming in using "KSHMR" rather than "Kshmr" or "Kashmir" for this person, so this is a very clear example where the "Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent sources" clause form MOS:TM kicks in - and those in support of the move made this point in the discussion. Yes, there were a few examples presented in the discussion, but those were from fringe publications and deviated clearly from the overwhelming majority of other sources, a point which was made several times in rebuttal, and which was never addressed by the closer. When the proposer of the move made valid policy and MOS-based points, for which opposers didn't have a policy or guideline answer, regarding sourcing and common names, those points were often rebutted with unWP:CIVIL responses such as as "You do not even understand the policies you are thumping like a bible and preaching about." or "The fact that you continue to "believe" you are correct when someone with may more experience at you says otherwise is indicative of the problem here. It's a personality problem, not a titles or policy problem". Ridiculous and un-called-for rudeness given the weakness of the opposers arguments. Examples of the poor oppose rationales include:
    1. "not an acronym, unlike LMFAO, just a stylism for Kashmir (DJ)" - irrelevant because there is no rule that non-acronyms are not capitalised if the sources call for it.
    2. "It absolutely, positively is "marketing caps" stylization" - it's not just marketing stylization if the sources follow suit. See also eBay, SMERSH, vi etc. for other examples where we depart from our usual MOS with regards to caps because all the sources do so.
    3. "Otherwise we would immediately move Sony to SONY to mimic their logo" - this case has nothing in common with Sony, as reliable sources and even the company's legal name don't typically present it in all caps. That really is a stylization, hence why we don't use it.
    4. "In this case, the all-caps appears to be an invention of editors who are either trying to boost their favourite pet, or being just careless" - no. In fact the opposite is the case. The Kshmr form is the invention of editors, given that the fact that almost no reputable sources use that form. I normally think we should stick to our MOS wherever there's any doubt, but this is one of those few cases where there isn't much doubt.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think those would be strong arguments at an RM, but I disagree with your assessment of the consensus at the discussion. The consensus there was that the name was Kashmir, and that he was stylizing it without vowels. I also disagree that the supporting arguments in the RM were more persuasive: the points were talking past one another and the COMMONNAME point doesn't address the issue of this not being an acronym but being a stylization of another word. Based on the discussion, I don't see how Primefac could have closed it any other way. Your argument here might be grounds for a new RM in a few months. A relist is a possibility, but I'm not sure an additional week relisting, even with your position above, would change the outcome beyond no consensus, which would end in the same result. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Well perhaps you're right, but I'm not sure I've actually made any new points in my argument above, most of them were made by those in support, and the "talking past each other" was mainly because those in opposition were engaging in personal attacks and unfounded assertions rather than actually giving policy-based reasons why the points made in support were wrong. If consensus is a battle to see who can shout the loudest and boast the longest record at RM, then sure, there was no other way to close it. But if the arguments made are verified and viewed through a lens of policy, then the supports should have carried the day.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you made it more clearly and actually addressed the points. Consensus is not a shouting match, but when there are valid points being made you need to take them into consideration even if the form they are written in is non-ideal (and I think those in opposition did make valid points, even if you can argue against them) There may have been some behavior that was less than ideal there, but I still think the arguments made on the oppose side had value to the point where even if we were to weight the support ones higher because of policy (which I'm not yet convinced we should have) this would have ended as no consensus and not a relist as most of the issues had been fleshed out. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: what were the good arguments of the oppose side? I barely see any, apart from the appeal to three fringe publications to back up the claim that occasional sources do decapitalise this name. So perhaps you could use those three to make an exception but I just don't think it's enough to counter the well-reasoned and policy-based arguments made in support. The notion that we don't capitalise according to sources per WP:COMMONNAME, and SMcCandlish's self-written essay at WP:COMMONSTYLE, cited below, which attempts to establish that as a guideline, is quite simply false. eBay, iPhone and SMERSH are good examples of that, and I'm sure I could come up with others. MOS:TM is crystal clear on this matter - we don't make up stylizations that aren't found in sources, and the only argument you could make against that is those three fringe sources do call it Kashmir. But neither you nor the closer have said that the close was no-consensus because of the three fringe sources, instead you're saying the close was crystal clear not-moved. It really wasn't, in my view. Anyway, it does'nt look like this MRV has much legs, so perhaps I will come back in 3-6 months and see if I can make a better case for moving. Thanks again for your reasoned responses.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse, and this is already open as a broader discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Trademarks. I'll repeat what I just posted on the closer's talk page in response to the same party who opened this MR: "the oppose votes weren't based on policy and their comments were just their opinions" is blatant misrepresentation and just plain ol' projection. The supporters of the "KSHMR" over-capitalization are simply sorely misunderstanding WP:POLICY, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:GAMING. We do not, ever, pit one set of WP rules again the other in an attempt to WP:WIN, but always interpret them together in the sensible way that produces a compatible result, following their intended meaning, not lawyerish attempts to twist their wording. "I like this rule better because it's a policy, and that other one is just a guideline" is ass-backwards thinking at WP. It simply does not work that way. But the situation here is far worse. What happened was the "KSHMR" boosters saw one sense of the word "trademark" in WP:AT, referring to organizations and their products/services, and addressing one thing and one thing only: spelling (i.e., "do not respell it 'Kashmir' because you think that would be better English"). They wanted to apply some of the wording there over-broadly in two different ways: to individuals, and to all style matters of any kind, such as capitalization. But AT is not, never has been, and never will be a style policy. In another (MoS) page, they saw a completely different usage of the word "trademark", explicitly broadened to include individuals, yet specifically saying not to mimic capitalization gimmicks and other logo stylization. These rules are not in conflict in any way at all. So, they simultaneously tried to import the very different MoS definition and scope (with a reversed result) into the AT rule and declare the MoS rules invalid. This is just so logically fallacious it should be in a textbook as an example of reasoning failure. It's about the same as simultaneously arguing that a local ordinance should be ruthlessly enforced nationwide (but in perverted form), and arguing that the reason to do so is because it's supposedly an unconstitutional and invalid law (but really isn't). It's not just a reasoning failure, but a cascading series of them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse—per RM discussion. Tony (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse – the winning arguments and the close aligned with wikipedia's longstanding practice of avoiding unnecessary caps, caps for style/attention, and such. It's OK that Kshmr styles Kashmir by omitting the vowels to make his trademark, and we respect his spelling; and it's OK that he styles it with all caps, but we don't have to, just as others don't have to and some don't. These arguments were all made and weighed, and the article what left where it was. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse RM result of "not moved", with the caveat that a "no consensus" reading would have in my opinion better reflected the discussion (with the same outcome). But notwithstanding the OP's bludgeoning of the original discussion, there is no way this request could have been closed with a move to all-caps. Obviously, I also agree with my esteemed colleague Amakuru that consensus can change, and there may be a future path to moving to all-caps after 6–12 months, if indeed most sources consistently apply this style. — JFG talk 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Courtesy relist or allow fresh RM. While I don't think that Primefac could have closed it differently based on the discussion at hand, the debate was a classic example of a shouting contest. I don't see much "arguments made and weighed" there, but more of a "because MOS!" points by, erm, usual suspects, that did not examine the evidence and sources even in passing. My thanks to Amakuru for being a voice of reason. No such user (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Allow relist per Amakuru. There is a certain hardcore "house style guidelines always win" viewpoint which has gotten Wikipedia into trouble before, most infamously with deadmau5 and ~*~StAr TrEk into DaRkNeSs~*~. I'm not familiar with this artist, but this looks suspiciously similar from a quick look at the sources. Per Amakuru, supporters were making a strong argument based on Wikipedia guidelines that, whenever tested in publicized cases, tend to generate overwhelming support for the name as it is used in reliable sources rather than the house style guidelines. This MR was low-turnout enough that it's worth another look. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Except neither of those cases "got Wikipedia into trouble", they were just argued about a lot for a while; nice attempt to appeal to consequences, though. Interestingly, and despite what you're trying to imply, none of the current WP:AT/WP:MOS regulars that I know of would be in favor of moving Deadmau5 to "Deadmaus", or moving Star Trek into Darkness to "Star Trek: Into Darkness", which is what those old fights were about. The first, because the actually correct interpretation of WP:TITLETM is (and only is) to not do spelling substitutions, so "Deadmaus" would be against policy given that virtually no sources refer to him as that. The second because there's no evidence the title is or ever was "Star Trek: Into Darkness"; that was just an incorrect assumption by people going by the earlier films' names, and not counting on the fact that the makers of the newer film (which hadn't even been released yet when that squabble started) were playing on words and conventions a bit, which we now know to be true (i.e., it was a WP:V and WP:NOR matter of people advancing their assumptions as if they were sourced facts). So, they're not comparable at all to "Kshmr" vs. "KSHMR" (it's false equivalence, via the incomplete comparison tactic of avoiding crucial differences that demonstrate that the analogy is faulty and superficial). The only way in which they're conceptually comparable is "I love to mimic logos", which is a) what MOS:TM says not to do and b) what WP:TITLETM in WP:AT doesn't authorize us to do (no matter how badly a handful of people want to try to warp its meaning). You, and No such user, and the opener of this MR are engaging in a double guilt by association fallacy with a topping of appeal to spite, which boils down to "The close must be wrong because MoS types support it, and they piss me off", plus "The close must be wrong because it's about funky trademarks and someone somewhere was wrong about another funky trademark once upon a time". Not valid reasoning. PS: I also detect inflation of conflict at work here (attempt to discredit what a group of opponents say and agree upon, on the bogus basis that they have not always unanimously agreed about everything).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, I advocate for application of MoS myself whenever in doubt (and have asked for your and "MoS types" advice on style more than once), and I don't dislike the "MoS types" until they start exhibiting en bloc voting like here based on virtually no evidence. In the RM, statements by Tony1 the all-caps appears to be an invention of editors, Dicklyon The current version is common enough in sources and Andrewa The existing name is well attested in sources seem pulled straight out of the ass; out of 41 references in the article, title-case "Kshmr" appears only once, and when you examine it you see that the original is actually written uppercase [8]. To your credit, you did dig up three sources from India (!) that downcase it, but frankly, calling that well attested in sources is WP:ILIKEIT bullshit of worst sort. No such user (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
        • That's the rub, though. Any time people who read and follow MoS agree, someone who wants a variance they can't quite justify enough to gain consensus can just declare there's a conspiracy. WP doesn't work that way, or every actual consensus could be dismissed as a bloc vote for something that one doesn't personally buy into. And this isn't an "evidence" matter, it's a rules applicability one. The policy in question is about spelling (only), and just with regard to commercial organizations and their products/services, and it wants a frequency analysis (evidence), because it's ultimately just WP:COMMONNAME in a TM-specific application. COMMONNAME isn't a style policy either; it's the policy that tells us the name is "Kshmr" (in one stylization or another) rather than "Kashmir" or "Rmhsk" or "Niles Hollowell-Dhar". The style (capitalization, etc.) guideline isn't calling for a frequency analysis, and just doesn't want us to mimic over-stylization of trademarks or anything like them, unless the "plain English" version is pretty much unattested in any RS, with all of them using the stylization with essentially uniform consistency. We don't have that in this case, only consistency in the entertainment publications, which have a WP:INDY problem: they're almost all dependent on media (music, film, etc.) advertising dollars, and bend over backwards to mimic logos all the time to keep their revenue source as happy as possible, even at the cost of really stupid-looking output not used in any other genre or register (like capitalizing a/an or in or of in the middle of a song title just to make it look like how it was printed on the over-capitalized, attention-screaming CD cover). Basically, we've been over this hundreds times. Again and again we see RMs to over-capitalize (or something else unnecessary, from bogus superscripting to mëtal umlaüts to backwards letters and so on) with the name of some entertainment-industry output or producer thereof. SSDD, and the answer's always the same: not on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
          • That's a hostile reading of my comment, SMcCandlish, which was not remotely intended? I'm not alleging conspiracy, or inflating conflict, or trying to use an occasional exception to mean that lol the rules mean nothing let's do whatever we want. The oppose votes are all fine and good faith. It's ridiculous I have to say this, but to any "MOS types" reading this, I am not spiteful, I am happy for your input it and encourage it, I certainly don't reflexively oppose all MOS-arguments, and don't take what SMcCandlish wrote about me seriously. As I said, this issue strikes me as the type of case where low-turnout can have different results than high-turnout, which is a solid reason to bring a case to Move Review.
          • As far as "appeal to consequences", uh, yes? If said consequences are "Wikipedia looking silly and getting articles written up on the Internet making fun of those crazy editors who debate obvious issues and still get it wrong, hahaha," followed by the article moving to the spot anyway. ("When it comes to world class pedantry, few groups can challenge the prowess of Wikipedians...") But even if this guy is too minor for that to happen, doesn't he deserve the same treatment that a prominent musician would from WP:TITLETM? This is a perfectly high road justification.
          • Also, apologies if you were intentionally trolling, but FWIW, if you're claiming that "none of the MOS regulars would support moving away from Star Trek into Darkness", uh, that was the bad title that absolutely no sources used, and was roundly criticized by rando-editors who knew the movie but not the MOS. I would hope that would be considered a mistake in retrospect. It's also directly comparable to this case, since that was a case of the MOS suggesting at the time that "Into" should be de-capped as "into", but absolutely no sources backing that capitalization up. SnowFire (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)unless the "plain English" version is pretty much unattested in any RS – And there's another other rub: no, I don't think that it's enough to pull a couple of "reliable sources" from a random location that use the "plain English" version and then claim the victory. To default to MoS, you need to demonstrate that there is an actual mixture of styles "in the wild", and in absence of that we should go along with the majority of sources, lest we astonish our readers and look like an outlier in the world. Where's the threshold for this being called a "mixture" is a gray area, but three Indian newspapers do not make one in my book. We do have the "deadmau5 standard" to use as precedent. No such user (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Reclose (clarify and expland the closing statement. Is that a consensus or a no concensus, allowing a renomination after six or two months? The non explanation is woefully inadequate. The close should be understandable at face value to non-RM-regular Wikipedians. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Closing admin comment - at the time of the close I felt the result was clear enough that I did not need to add further explanation, but it seems that it is not as cut-and-dry as I initially thought, so I have expanded my close with additional rationale. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    @Primefac: thank you for adding the explanation, but there is one thing there which I think is incorrect. You said "with the opposition also using the Manual of Style to support their position", but the support camp cited the MOS in the very first response to the first oppose, saying: WP:TRADEMARK and WP:COMMONNAME states that "when deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources...Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent sources". That comment not only quotes the MOS, it quotes it correctly, which the oppose votes do not. Respectfully I think you have made an error here, in interpreting the discussion, and I'd ask you to please reconsider your close. At the very least it should be relisted so we can continue this discussion properly at the RM. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    I will not contest the outcome of this review. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment and polite request to the closer of this MRV - I've changed my !vote above from "overturn or relist" to just plain "relist". Obviously I respect the opinions of my colleagues above who say that the conversation in the RM is sufficiently confused that a "moved" decision could not be undertaken. I don't necessarily agree with that, because to my eyes Z0 made the arguments as well as they could, given the rudeness and refusal to listen of those in opposition. But since there's clearly no appetite for a close-as-move, I'd like to please request the closer here to allow a relist of the RM, as myself and a couple of others have suggested above. Generally, if decisions are made which don't make sense to me, I like to understand why, and as such I think there is more to say on this subject in the RM. I didn't participate in the original RM myself, so at the very least would like the chance to put a "support" vote in during a relist, and discuss the point further. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Instead of !voting, I'd like to ping closer Primefac with a question. You closed with the majority, the majority provided good persuasive arguments, and they provided three links as persuasive evidence that "Kshmr" and "KSHMR" are merely alternate styling by various sources. I almost surely would have closed the same way. I was about to !vote endorse. But as a last step, I checked on the opposing claim that sources used "KSHMR" effectively 100% of the time. I went to Google News search for Kshmr and I scanned all 333 hits. I only found 9 using lowercase. That's 97.3% KSHMR vs 2.7% Kshmr. The argument for KSHMR merely being a "styling" suddenly looks rather weak, and the claim that sources use KSHMR effectively 100% of the time is looking rather solid. That leaves me in a conundrum - your close appears to be both reasonable and potentially wrong? Do these figures impact your closing analysis? Alsee (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, I did a GNews search of various combinations of terms, and results ranged between about 10% and went as high as about 40% depending on what got searched for. Location and language could also affect the search. It's certainly possible to have a "reasonable but wrong" close of a discussion, but I guess that's what MRV is for. I based my close on the arguments presented, and as you say the majority provided good persuasive arguments - a rebuttal was never given with stats or other metrics to indicate the links provided might have been the exception rather than the rule. I still stick by my close based on that, but I can see how other arguments could be made that might tip the balance. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Relist Just as Alsee has said above, a simple Google search will show that an overwhelming majority uses the term "KSHMR" when referring to the artist (reliable sources with Billboard, Dancing Astronaut, Rolling Stone showing that this is the case). One can argue that it's a stylicisation, but this isn't something like A$AP rocky where the dollar sign equals to a S. An example, Billboard uses "ASAP" while referring to the artist, thus proving that it's an attention-calling stylicisation. This is not the case for KSHMR, where "KSHMR" refers to the artist in whole, and shouldn't be in lowercase for the sake of some vague Wikipedia policy. Listeners know him as "KSHMR", rather than an invented "Kshmr" which is never used by reliable sources when referring to him. Like I've said earlier, this case can be compared to the LMFAO page, where the group's name isn't a stylicisation, but the actual term for the group. You don't see sources describing the group as "Lmfao", so why shouldn't this be the case here? aNode (discuss) 16:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (closed)

Aloy (Horizon Zero Dawn) (closed)

Involuntary celibacy (closed)


January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

See also


Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Move review"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA