Jump to content

Wikipedia:Move review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:MRNOT)


Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), 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 submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.

While the page 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

[edit]

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 page 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), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Instructions

[edit]

Initiating move reviews

[edit]

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 discussion.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion 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

[edit]
 
1.

Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move 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. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond.

2.

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 if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, 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
|page=
|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-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
|reason=
}}  ~~~~

If either the |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When

  • |closer= < closer's username > and
  • |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >

are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion.

If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.

3.

If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

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=5 July 2025}}. Do not tag the article.

5.

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

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 July}}
6.

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

[edit]

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 closer's 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 page 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 page 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 page move discussion.

Closing reviews

[edit]

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer 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, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer 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"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

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

[edit]

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page 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 closer's decision RM closer's decision Move review closed as Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse Moved / Not moved No action required Closed
2. Overturn Not moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM Open
Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM Closed
Moved Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate Open
3. Relist Moved / Not moved Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title Open

 

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
  2. ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussions

[edit]
Gamergate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Uninvolved in ths RM. Two main issues running against WP:IMR came up in this RM I just found out about today that focused on moving Gamergate (harassment campaign) to Gamergate by saying it was the primary topic over Gamergate (ant):

  1. The ant page was never notified of this RM focused on which of the two is the primary topic (hence me being uninvolved for this one but involved in the previous). This caused only WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in the close and surprise for those who don't watchlist the harassment page. The closer Red Sash insists that Only the pages being moved require notification. even when there are two topics repeatedly brought up in WP:PTOPIC disputes.
  2. The closure itself takes essentially the same arguments made in a November RM that had consensus against the harassment topic being PTOPIC and saying there is now instead consensus.

Summary of key issues (added July 3)

I'm adding this in after it seems like folks are missing the numerous issues came up below to help streamline a bit:

  1. No notification was given to the ant page, and the closer said this wasn't needed. This contradicts closing instructions at WP:RMCI that warns against creating such a local consensus despite claims no notification is needed. WP:RSPM is clear Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. Previous RMs indicated both pages should be notified due to past history of joint consensus.
  2. The RM followed the same track and arguments as the previous RM (harassment topic was not primary) except the entomology page not being invited and opposes not posting quite as in-depth information because of that.
  3. Closer indicated on their talk page that new information in opposition mentioned there would have influenced the outcome of their close. They still did not reopen even when the above issues with selection bias was brought up. That also means only assessments of the comments at the current RM are inaccurate (i.e., when we normally reopen discussions).
  4. Closer claimed "No supporter posted any evidence during the move request. . ." besides one opposer. Of those who did find the RM, there were 11-12 opposes with quite a few providing evidence. Less discussion than the previous, yes, but that ties into the notification issue and bludgeoning of RMs issue. That the closer viewed this as so one-sided misrepresents the actual comments at the RM.
  5. Arguments in favor just repeated what was said at the last RM. Even without the opposes and setting aside notification/local consensus issues, that should not have been enough to overturn the previous consensus. Normally in that situation a closer would say there isn't enough evidence to overturn previous consensus after seeing the previous RM.

Background

For background, the ant page had been the primary topic until Aug 2021 (7 years after the harassment topic started) where instead a disambiguation page was made for the two topics and a couple other lesser used ones. This was after many, many, RMs from the harassment page wanting to have it be the primary topic and failing to the point that a moratorium was placed on RMs in 2015 in part because the harassment page was bludgeoning the ant page with constant RMs.

Even before 2021, is was pretty clear both pages needed be notified in a PTOPIC RM as they had been heavily discussed as the main topics. There had been past problems with the harassment page deciding on their talk what would be on the ant page, but otherwise things quieted down after the 2021 consensus to bypass the dispute by disambiguating Gamergate with the two topics getting parenthetical titles. In November of last year though there was another requested move Talk:Gamergate/Archive_62#Requested_move_5_November_2024 for the harassment campaign to be the primary topic, but this was initially only discussed by the harassment page editors as no notification was given at the ant page. This was recognized as problematic and the RM was left open for about 10 days extra after formal notification was given. Consensus those handful of months ago was There is a consensus here that the harassment campaign is not a primary topic, and it was in part because editors from both topics were included.

1. 2025 notification issues

So for this June 2025 RM, the same thing happened as in November except no one caught the missing notification, so the conversation excluded those not watching the harassment page. I for one was surprised as I would've contributed as I had in past RM's if notified. This is adding to a sort of recurring "stealth move" situation in this article suite where if you don't notify other likely topics that might be primary, it functionally biases votes whether intentional or not. I alerted Red Slash to this suggesting to reopen for 7 days after giving the topic notification of primary topic discussion (mirroring the last RM), but that was denied. On their user talk[1][2], they made some concerning comments justifying not needing to notify the topic:
  • It's not a requirement to notify other pages prior to filing a move request; after all, Gamergate (ant) is completely unaffected by this move. This has not been the case in all of the other RMs where the harassment page has requested primary topic status over the ant page.
  • This was not a discussion on which of the two topics was primary, but on if one topic was primary or if there should be a disambiguation page. It had nothing to do with the ant's article at all. This statement was contracted by :their very close that did claim to weigh which of the two topics (harassment topic) was primary and could be moved to Gamergate.
  • I asked if the ant page had requested a primary topic RM first, could they have also excluded the harassment page (I don't think so). I also asked if the ant page requested an RM now since the page was apparently not relevant if they'd expect no complaints. No response on either. The former really creates a nefarious loophole where a topic can reach the point of being "equal" to a previous PTOPIC where the two are instead disambiguated after joint discussion. Then follow up with a "stealth RM" where you don't notify that topic because only it and the disambig are technically moved. That really seems to fly in the face of WP:NOTBURO policy to me.
  • Red Slash then gave an example of Phoenix where not all 200 items there should be notified as justification for denying. They had been alerted that this was only for two topics and ones that had been repeatedly jointly discussed on previous RMs, so that statement really seems to take things out of context.
  • Gamergate wasn't going to be about the ant either way. This really comes across as a personal notion about the ant that contradicts past RMs with personal opinion as a closer. The whole center of past discussions was that the ant was such as significant part of the Gamergate title that the controversy topic couldn't just take over carte blanche.
I've never seen a case like this where someone suggested a high-level topic should not be notified when weighing PTOPICs, and really seems to go against norms where if a closer sees a major group was excluded, it's usually super common to say let's get them in the discussion for a bit rather than keeping it closed.

2. Closure itself

This is secondary to the above since I just want to see pages notified properly before closure, but basically the same arguments were made in favor of the harassment PTOPIC in this close as in this recent November close that outright stated There is a consensus here that the harassment campaign is not a primary topic. This isn't going to rehash all the specific arguments in the RM, but most of the ones I see in this RM were addressed in the previous Nov. RM, so it should be extremely difficult to move to no consensus much less a full 180. In the Nov. RM, it wasn't until after the ant topic was alerted that context to some misleading numbers was given such as scholarly publication numbers.
Red Sash went on to say on user talk If someone would've posted that during the discussion, that could've certainly been influential. But when only one side posts any sort of evidentiary support for their position, it's really hard to rule against them. That's concerning as they had already been alerted to the bias created by avoiding notification to "one side", and yet refused to re-open the discussion to address that clear issue. I know I'd reopen a discussion in a heartbeat if I saw that going on in the background, so I am concerned from a procedural standpoint that there's a double standard being created here for one page while favoring the other even as a case of WP:BELLYBUTTON. Revelation of additional or missing information is one of the main reasons for requesting a move review at WP:IMR and the hope was to avoid that by discussing this with Red Sash by discussing that.

The lowest hanging fruit here though seems to be just to reopen the discussion with full notification like in the past, rather than going over the close itself right now though. It's been a messy topic with underlying history, but hopefully we can get the notification issue fixed (again) for this new RM. KoA (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closer - I think there's some confusion here.

    This was not a discussion on which of the two topics was primary, but on if one topic was primary or if there should be a disambiguation page. It had nothing to do with the ant's article at all. This statement was contracted by :their very close that did claim to weigh which of the two topics (harassment topic) was primary and could be moved to Gamergate.

    Notice the difference: I very deliberately said it had nothing to do with the ant's article. Obviously WP:PT requires you to look at the other topics to determine primacy. But that does not mean the ant article needed to be tagged. Anyway, these issues and the others raised on the talk page are irrelevant: I gauged a consensus from the people talking on the talk page. I challenge anyone to look at the request, look at which side produced sources to prove the primacy of their topic, and then come away with a different perspective on how the move should be closed. Red Slash 07:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I'm seeing reading this as someone who was not involved in this RM (I was in previous ones) is that Red Slash is functionally working very hard to say that despite all the history of the two articles and the joint consensus, the previous higher level consensus can be overridden by refusing to notify affected topics. The decision very much was relevant to the ant topic. When you have a joint consensus from previous discussions that the pages should be disambiguated and that the harassment topic is not the the primary topic, you can't later go off into a little corner and declare a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS while excluding one topic when it affects how the article searches are structured. If you want to overturn that previous consensus, you need to notify those same topics if you want to change the navigation structure.
    Seeing this response in addition to user talk attempts, I've seen a lack of engagement I wouldn't expect from a closer related to WP:IMR. Of those two criteria: 1.did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI and 2.unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion, we're looking at problems with both. For 1. WP:RMCI is clear that we try to avoid these types of LOCALCONSENSUS issues as closers when relevant topics are excluded. For 2. Even Red Slash indicated on their talk page If someone would've posted that during the discussion, that could've certainly been influential. If I were closing a discussion and acknowledging that last bit, I'd sure feel like I'd be putting my finger on the scale by insisting I'm only going to consider those who posted and ignore those who were clearly excluded. When those are already core reasons for why we reopen discussions, I'd sure be quick to fix that after finding out even before needing to go to move review. KoA (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Nobody "refused" to notify anyone! It has never been required of RM proposers to notify every single article that shares a name with the target. Never. That's not a part of any WP policy or guideline, and we've never enforced it, ever.
    2. Absolutely nobody was excluded! If an editor is interested in whether Gamergate remains a disambiguation page or not, they should put Gamergate in their watchlist. (If they're only interested in the ant, how does it matter what title the article on the harassment campaign has? The ant article stayed exactly where it was!)
    3. Frankly, it's wild to suggest I was unaware that there was a previous consensus that it should be a dab page. I surely don't need to be reminding you that WP:Consensus can change, do I? Red Slash 00:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep insisting no one is required, and that's not really engaging with the procedural issues here. Rarely do we spell out the needs or requirements for each varying situation (see WP:NOTBURO policy). Instead we use general guidance such as WP:RSPM directly stating that Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. This is one of those more complex cases that did need additional notification that our guidance refers to, especially given the past history where it was determined both pages should be notified. The whole spirit of that guidance is don't assume the bot is notifying everyone that should be (and not blaming those who get excluded if it's not followed).
    And yes, consensus can change, but that's not what happened here. Remember that WP:CONLEVEL is policy, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. You functionally used local consensus to override previous stronger consensus in terms of community scope independent of the content of the RM itself. That was a structural issue in both how the RM was set up and in the close evaluation. Below, Srnec gets more into the rest of the issues with the close beyond the initial structure of participants, but the two compound.
    The reality is last time the arguments in favor of the harassment campaign being primary were outright refuted. There wasn't "no consensus", but actual consensus against that idea. This time, basically the same arguments were repeated in favor, but that degree of refutation did not happen (along with a lot of other background topics) when the rest of interested parties were not notified. That should be a red flag to any closer. KoA (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I could see how you could punt and no consensus this, but the evidence is really strong that the controversy and not the ant is the primary topic. I also don't agree that Gamergate wasn't going to be about the ant either way. is an opinion of the closer, but rather noting that the move did not impact the page about the ant in any practical way, even though I can see how it reads as such. If this isn't endorsed, I think the next best solution isn't a straight overturn, but rather a vacate/admin close. The lack of notification on the ant page isn't a problem in this instance. SportingFlyer T·C 21:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist (involved). I would have eventually taken this to MR myself but KoA beat me to it. KoA's reasons are different and I do not completely agree with them, but I understand why KoA is annoyed. Primacy is stripped from the ant caste by stages in such a way that people only interested the ant are left out of the final discussion. Nobody who watchlisted the dab page may even have noticed the RM because the notice is posted by a bot and many users leave bots off their watchlist habitually. My argument with Red Slash was entirely different, however. He admitted that if someone would've posted the evidence I presented to him during the discussion, that could've certainly been influential. The RM was relisted on the 28th. Responses to my !vote came later and it was closed on the 30th. Srnec (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No supporter posted any evidence during the move request, other than you showing that maybe CamelCase could be used. That is an interesting idea but natural disambiguation is unnecessary for a primary topic. And the move was open for sixteen days! Red Slash 00:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No supporter posted any evidence during the move request. . . and that is the self-fulfilling and circular reasoning problem here when those who primarily would comment on that were not notified. KoA (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The severity of Red Slash’s quoted comment didn't fully hit me until now. They're now saying only Srnec posted evidence in opposition. Of those that did find their way to the RM, there were 12 opposes (including Blindlynx,[3][4] but they can correct me if I’m wrong). Picking just a couple randomly that mentioned more than just per X, Ethmostigmus[5][6], Woodroar[7], and others went into the disambiguation reasonings for just one example (a major reason for the past consensus). That's not to rehash the arguments themselves, but outline there were things we regularly weigh in RMs brought up by opposers contrary to Red Sash's comment. I think those editors would be concerned to see that comment from a closer.
    If it was just a matter of needing more depth (the same could be said for supports) then closers would normally relist or directly comment with such a note. Srnec brings up a really good point that the closer is now aware of information that would have altered the discussion. Normally when that happens (we've all had it happen in some variation), a closer usually acknowledges their close was problematic and acts on that rather than doubling down. KoA (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a logistics comment, but yes, most of my issue is focused on the first bullet of WP:IMR. I mentioned your discussion you quoted a bit too in the opening, and your issue is very much focused on bullet 2 of IMR. I didn't catch the second relisting by CoconutOctopus was only two days prior to close. That really looks like a rush when when the previous relister determined there wasn't consensus yet, but just two days later Red Slash closed it as consensus even with the context you mention. KoA (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved, discovered this while notifying the closer of an unrelated matter) I'm not convinced by the procedural lack of notification issues, but I simply don't see a consensus to move in that discussion. By the numbers there are 12 in support and 11 in opposition. And it's two sets of people largely talking past each other with incomparable arguments from completely different methods of analysis which can't be wedged in one direction. There's no definition of "long-term" in "long-term significance"; there's no underlying guideline saying whether 10 years is enough to count or whether the threshold should be closer to 43 years. So I think it's hard to say which one will have more long-term significance, but the evidence is clear right now about which one does completely misses the mark. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think relisting would be futile since there already isn't a consensus (and it's undisputed that the purpose of a relist would be to attract people more likely to have opposed the move), but I'd accept a relist as a second choice if that helps make closing this easier. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it would be - I wouldn't mind participating for a stronger consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not 100% sure about there being a consensus (I was actually surprised by the close given it seemed inevitable that it would just end with “no consensus, no move”) but I think there is no fair way to restart the process as it would inherently be biased towards people who favor overturning it. Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If this is relisted, at a minimum, there should be widespread notification to all WikiProjects that include every article listed at Gamergate (disambiguation) using the neutral {{RM notice}} template. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really familiar with either of these topics apart from the fact I have heard of Gamergate and have not heard of the Gamergate ant term. Reading that discussion, I would have moved the page, because I thought the arguments for moving were stronger - it's the clear primary topic in terms of page views by 20-to-1 and has been for a large length of time now, and the opposition either claim nothing has changed or that the controversy will clearly not be as long term as the ant, which I don't really see - Myceteae's stats do a good job of disproving that. But I wouldn't mind commenting, because after I made my initial endorse here I looked further into this - the gamergate ant page was converted from a redirect to a stub coincidentally three days before the controversy started in August 2014, and was not expanded until the week the controversy started generating a lot of page views. So this weirdly isn't an instance where one topic has displaced another, but an instance where a topic with fewer page views has benefited from sharing a name with something that has 20 times the amount of interest. I do not think it was coincidental that the improvement occurred the same week that the article about the controversy was at AfD. That's not an argument you can make at a move review, though - that's for an actual move discussion, so I would not mind contributing. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Relist or Weak Endorse - The close was correct, but there is no harm done by relisting with notice to the entomologists, just to allow them to make their case that there is no primary topic. Why are so many pixels being used when any resolution will permit gamers, historians of feminism, and entomologists to find their topic? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'll answer the question to try to shed more light, but setting aside problems mentioned with the close above, why wouldn't we keep it at the wider-scale consensus version that both pages already agreed on rather than this new more WP:LOCALCONSENSUS version besides the fact that policy cautions against this kind of override?
    This isn't the place to rehash arguments of the move discussions themselves, but to answer both your question and mine, one of the main reasons for the disambiguation besides primary topic discussions was navigation. There has been significant agreement that at least the harassment campaign should have a parenthetical title to reduce ambiguity on what that topic is about across the board. It helps with the ant too. If you want more background on that, I gave a very in-depth comment on that and other things at the bottom of the last RM a handful of months ago. This move suddenly changed and disregarded that. It also did a 180 from the previous more widely advertised RM saying consensus was the the harassment topic was not primary to now saying it is with comments in support basically saying the same thing each time. Some of this is legitimate and longstanding navigation issues the closer indicated in the conversation with Srnec above that they ignored as evidence in addition to other issues being discussed in that thread. KoA (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a holiday coming up here, so this will probably be my last comment getting everything out for awhile. Robert, your question of "why" did prompt me to think about mentioning a more meta-issue that colors what opposes said in the current RM. I mentioned it in my OP and the previous RM, but there's been a 10+ year history of editors at the harassment article wanting that to be the primary topic over the ant. Some really did not like they couldn't just move to the name Gamergate even after the last consensus. Some were reasonable in disagreement, but others would not drop that stick and were to the point of really bludgeoning the process to the point there had to be moratorium on RM's from the harassment page. That is not a sanction you see often.
    It's very clear the entomology folks who managed to find the RM are getting tired of that and other needling when you read the comments at the RM, and that's why you get comments like nothing has changed since a few months ago at the last RM or "see my previous comments". Can we really say the close dismissing them is correct with that context? I know you're being relatively even-handed here, but I am really getting worried about what seems to be a changing culture where it seems ok to keep pushing RMs restating the same arguments until those opposed relent, get tired, or are excluded through lack of notification. That definitely did color this RM, so I do want to be clear this isn't all on Red Slash with that elephant hanging out in the corner. It's something us entomology folks keep getting tossed into time and again (the ant topic is not a WP:CTOP unlike the harassment topic), so I do feel for whoever carefully assesses RMs on this intersection. That answers why so many pixels though because of all these issues happening on RMs reaching this point. And that's enough from me for awhile. KoA (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    why wouldn't we keep it at the wider-scale consensus version that both pages already agreed on rather than this new more WP:LOCALCONSENSUS version besides the fact that policy cautions against this kind of override? Because this is the opposite of local consensus, since “Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale” and this was a discussion open to the entire community? Because articles are not self-governing entities that can make and enforce treaties? Dronebogus (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous RM consensus that the harassment topic is not primary was joint consensus across that page, the ant page, and the disambiguation. This RM could have only resulted in a more local consensus (at best) across the harassment page and the disambiguation. KoA (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement I know of that every involved page has to endorse an action that affects it, especially since this doesn’t even directly affect the ant page. Dronebogus (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). 1) There was no need to notify the ant page, which is unaffected by the move. 2) Consensus can change. I don't find the arguments made by those opposing the move to be strong enough to overcome all the evidence indicating there is a clear primary topic here. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved), particularly per Jessintime's comments that "There was no need to notify the ant page" and primarily, perhaps, that Consensus can change. Fortuna, imperatrix 14:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) this whole meta-dispute has been allowed to go on for far too long. I’m glad somebody finally just put their foot down and said no amount of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling will make the ant the “co-primary” topic. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) Per the issues noted by Pppery and others. 11 to 12 with very different metrics and the entire Wikiproject that oversees one of the pages not notified. The slow burn campaign to refactor the controversy in to the primary topic has been a focus of editors for the past 3 move requests, with this request coming less then a year after the last and having very much the same commentary as last time regarding the denigration towards the biology editors.--Kevmin § 14:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse « involved » Notification was not required—Gamergate (ant) was not impacted by the move—and consensus can change. Reasonable editors can disagree on when it's best to notify unaffected pages. I tend to favor additional notifications, although in this case it might have raised canvassing/POV concerns as notifying the ant page could appear designed solely to attract ant partisans editors who are not otherwise interested in Gamergate. (The neutrality of the comment at Special:Diff/1298164119 is open to interpretation.) This RM was open for two weeks and had high participation, with 23 !votes plus additional comments, including editors who had participated in prior related RMs and contributors to Gamergate (ant) as well as fresh eyes. Notably, the latest RM had more participants than Talk:Gamergate/Archive 62#Requested move 5 November 2024 (15 !votes), despite the nom's contention that the older RM reflects wider consensus. The assertion that the RM was stealth and reflects only a biased local consensus is entirely contradicted by the facts. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Last comment before heading out the door for a few days, but this does highlight a complicating issue the ant editors are dealing with WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior like you can see with the ant partisan or comments about me finally neutrally notifying the ant page after the fact. I'm really concerned by the kind of spin going on to try to make it look like notifying the ant page would instead bias the discussion. That would be like having the interaction of two editors being discussed at ANI and saying it's improper to notify one of them because they might contribute information about themselves. That's in addition to Dronebogus' poisoning the well comment on stonewalling above, so Kevmin's comment about denigration really rings true here.
    For the core purposes of this page though, I see two things coming up in this comment:
    1. Declarations that consensus can change. No one disagrees with that, but declaring that doesn't mean consensus actually changed. Most people so far really looking at what was said at the current RM and especially weighing it against the previous RM aren't saying consensus changed. There were for instance a lot of things you repeated at the RM that I would have brought up as previously dismissed had I been aware of it, and thoroughly too. When nothing had really changed in the subject in the last several months (not who shows up to RMs), you've already got a big hurdle when previous consensus was that one topic was not primary. One can't just repeat the similar things as past RMs and hope it sticks the next time an RM comes up. Usually closers catch that when comparing to previous consensus. If I saw a case like that as a closer where there wasn't a substantive change in arguments, I'd have to relist or close such as discussion as no consensus because there wouldn't be enough for me to overturn previous consensus.
    2. Participation. Focusing on numbers is a bit of red herring here when a subset of editors were explicitly excluded unlike last time. Remember that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is policy and we can't override that on this page. We don't assess that based on numbers, but how wide of a categorical scale was included. The broader community (ant+harassment+disambig) agreed the harassment topic is not primary in the previous RM. In this one it was a narrower subset (harassment+disambig) notified. Generally you're going to see that if you notify only one topic, you'll get more people supporting that topic as primary or opposing the other. That's how the policy problem enters into move discussions. According to many here wanting to endorse, I apparently could have nominated the ant subject as primary before this RM and theoretically gotten local consensus that it can return to primary while completely avoiding notifying the harassment topic. That would exclude those who would be most knowledgeable on how the harassment topic stacks up against the ant topic. If I intentionally did that, it's WP:VOTESTACKING, but functionally the same dilemma occurs for the closer regardless of intention knowing that a major group was excluded. The closing instructions caution about those situations in needing to notify other pages. Regardless of outcome, I would be willing to bet we'd have ticked off people from the harassment article complaining they weren't informed of the RM in that scenario too regardless of outcome, so the criticism of being even-handed is perplexing.
    KoA (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck partisan in the interest of collegiality. Its impact did not align with my intent. I have rewritten this a few times in an attempt to be succinct but complete and respond to items you indicated were not properly addressed by respondents.
    • I maintain that there was no requirement to notify Gamergate (ant). WP:RMCI and WP:RSPM concern changing the title of another article or making a move that directly impacts another page that was not properly notified. Gamergate (ant) was not moved.
    • WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is when a handful of editors at a WikiProject or a single or group of pages decide to adopt a practice that violates the community-wide consensus established in overarching policies and guidelines that govern the entire project. Editors at one page determining that policy supports a move that does not impact another page is not mere "local consensus".
    • The quantity and quality of participation and the duration of the discussion don't support your assertions that the RM was stealth nor that the prior consensus was more wide-scale. The ant position was well-represented. That some editors declined to update their arguments and another missed the two-week window for participation is not an indication of impropriety.
    • To the extent arguments were repeated, this again is not evidence that such arguments were improper, especially when there was ample opportunity to respond—and a few opponents did. Key disputes in prior RMs concerned whether it was too soon to assess primary topic, whether the popularity or coverage would die down over time, the diversity of sources, and whether recent coverage included mere mentions or significant analysis. It is entirely appropriate to revisit these questions with updated sources demonstrating ongoing SIGCOV. Furthermore, opponents of the move were more likely to copy/paste their argument from a prior RM or reference the prior RM without providing any update. If these are to be excluded, that favors the supporters.
    --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A notice was placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Move discussion of interest on June 14, the day the RM was opened. This page is far more active than Talk:Gamergate (ant). This further refutes the notion that the RM was somehow hidden from entomology editors. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Partially striking previous vote to reflect notice on Tree of Life. A correct judgment call by the closer, and notice was given to entomologists by giving notice to taxonomists. No substantive reason to question the closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following is what I posted on the closer's talk page before this MR was opened by another editor:

    "Blackberry" gets 4,629 hits on JSTOR for the last 9 years the BlackBerry was available vs 1,332 hits in the 9 years before it was released and 2,674 in the 9 years since its discontinuation. You can do something similar with Apple. JSTOR as a repository is biased towards the humanities and social sciences. Wiley gives very different results [for gamerage]. I don't see that the harassment campaign predominates there. Nor at Springer. The number one discipline is "Life sciences", with 162 of 536 results.

    The RM was relisted by one potential non-admin closer only to be closed less than 48 hours later by a different non-admin. Yet the only !vote in the interim was an oppose. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. « uninvolved » I agree with editor Srnec. This RM was relisted because there was no consensus to either keep the current title or to move the article to the proposed title. Then two days later the closer thought consensus had been achieved? Sorry, no – there was if anything even more reason (continued opposition after the relist) to decide that there was no consensus garnered as yet in this RM. Reopen and let the relist continue, because this RM needs more time and discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Opposers did not cite a single PAG that not merely allows, but recommends, the existing title over the proposed one. Invalid or irrelevant arguments — such as those that were purely emotional, those that engaged in WP:WIKILAWYERING by ignoring the spirit of PAGs, those that were red herrings, those that were logically fallacious, and those that invoked IAR without just cause — should have been summarily discarded by the closer per WP:NHC. Although some opposers invoked WP:THE, their interpretation was demonstrably logically fallacious (affirming the consequent) and ultimately does not support their argument as it ignored a key word in the guideline ("only if", as opposed to merely "if") that established it as a necessary but not sufficient condition (I explained this in great detail here and linked to corroborating sources here, though some opposers responded by wikilawyering and WP:IDHT), i.e. it only permits the use of the current title but does not say it is preferable. Just because many people repeated the same flawed argument does not make it any stronger, or consensus any less clear. The PAG that should have been given the most weight when assessing consensus is our main WP:AT policy, especially WP:CRITERIA, not any other supplemental guideline and certainly not arguments that did not cite any relevant PAGs at all but instead resorted to personal opinions and emotional appeals. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (involved, opposed RM) per the OP, who conceded that WP:THE permits the article to be called "The Holocaust"--in other words, oppose votes comply with the relevant WP:PAG.

    Further, WP:THE says: "In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a" or "an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article only if at least one of the following conditions is met..." (bold added). "In general" doesn't mean "always with no exceptions."

    Further, one of the two conditions is met, the first one: "If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article..." This is true: "holocaust" has a different meaning than "the Holocaust". It's the same as the "crown"/"the Crown" example given in WP:THE.

    So oppose votes correctly followed WP:THE. They also followed WP:CRITERIA: for example, my oppose vote went through all five criteria. They were not based on emotion or opinion or devoid of support in policies (WP:CRITERIA) or guidelines (WP:THE). It's too bad the OP sees oppose votes like mine as wikilawyering, I see it as the straightforward application of the relevant policies and guidelines. In fact, if anything, I think it's the support votes that lack basis in PAGs because none of the support voters explained why the first WP:THE criterion didn't apply here--the only explanation I saw was the "holocaust" is different from "Holocaust" and while WP:THE says nothing about capitalization, some supporters argue (at the closer's talk page) that this distinction is in "the spirit of" WP:THE if not the letter. Well the same can be said about "crown" and "Crown," and that's the example given in the PAG! Anyway, editors can disagree about the "spirit" of a PAG -- it doesn't mean their votes are invalid. There was no error in closing this as no consensus. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, the first criterion of THE is only a prerequisite for the use of "the", not a recommendation that it should generally be used. In other words, it is entirely permissible to not use "the" even if the first condition is true: all WP:THE says is that we should not use "the" if the condition is not met, but it doesn't say anything about what to do in the opposite scenario. The closer should have recognized this as a weak argument.
    Your argument that the current title complies with CRITERIA is a new argument and not what MRV is for. Nonetheless, it is not useful to look at it CRITERIA simply on a yes/no basis, as it does not allow for comparison. The proposed title is clearly superior to the existing one based on CRITERIA, as argued by several supporters.
    In sum, opposers cited a PAG that permitted the current title (assuming the closer found their "different definition" argument convincing, which I neither endorse nor reject), while supporters cited multiple PAGs that recommended the proposed title. The two are not the same; the latter is clearly a stronger argument than the former. Yet the closer somehow found both of these arguments to be equally "robust", which is not an accurate reading of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a new argument, it's what I (and others) said in the RM. And I didn't look at WP:CRITERIA as a yes/no, I said (as did others) that "The Holocaust" is much more precise, natural, and recognizable than "Holocaust," meaning it fits the WP:CRITERIA better. Levivich (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse of course. « involved » Not only hasn't this been put to bed, there is yet another (informal) move request here on the talk page. This closure by an uninvolved admin is both reasonable and in line with the closing instructions at WP:RMCI. tOO mUCH IS tOO mUCH! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set aside / withdraw (involved/supported) My rational is a little different to that of the nom of the MR (see [8]). In the debate, both sides have relied upon WP:THE and the second of the conditions given. A superficial close, as we have here, would conclude that the augments presented are consequently equally robust (with a result of no consensus). However, it is the spirit and underlying principle of the guidance that is paramount and which view of WP:THE is consistent with the spirit of the guidance. The pertinent guidance (starting with WP:AT) sets a high bar for use of the. Therefore, it is not a case of whether we may use it but whether we should. While many of the comments may have superficially relied upon WP:THE, there are arguments that do address the spirit of the guidance. It is these that the closer was obliged to address and determine consensus accordingly per RMCI and DISCARD. The perinent question raised in the debate was: what differentiates the Holocaust, from the French Revolution or the United States and makes it more akin to the Crown.[9] Consensus should have been determined by the strength of arguments addressing this question and whether they survive the interrogation made in debate. This is not what has happened. I will not presume to litigate at this point where the strength of argument lies when view accordingly. However, from discussion with the closer, it is clear that they did not do this. Consequently, their close should be vacated for a more adequate close. Such a close may reach the same conclusion of no consensus but it will be for the right reasons. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, and I agree. Many opposers who cited WP:THE resorted to wikilawyering and misinterpretations that clearly contradicted its intents and purposes. This was a misuse of PAGs, and unfortunately, the number of editors who engaged in this activity was so numerous that it has created the false impression that their argument is "robust and reasonable", confusing the closer into believing there was no consensus. WP:AT is our main guiding policy when it comes to article titles, and any experienced editor who is familiar with its principles should immediately recognize that the proposed title is unequivocally the preferable option, as delineated by many supporters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:MRCOMMENT:

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 closer's 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 page move discussions.

Comments such as, "This closure was reasonable and in line with closing instructions" or "Looks like a supervote to me. Clearly there was no consensus." are reasons. However, without anything to validate these reasons, such as evidence drawn from the discussion or the closers comments, they do not fall above unsubstantiated person opinion. They do not reasonably meet the burden placed upon a commentor by WP:MRCOMMENT. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually they do, way far above. The reason reviews of RMs must be as concise as possible is because the larger the wall of text here at MRV, then the better the liklihood that the reviewer is rearguing the RM. You see, reviewers are not here to review other reviewers' reviews, we are only here to review closures of requested moves. Reviewers who can read with understanding are fully capable of drawing their own conclusions about closures without relying on the other reviews here. And they are fully capable of understanding whether or not a closure is in line with the closing instructions, which are not policy, not even a guideline – not vetted at all by the community. RMCI is just a brief guide for RM closers, nothing more, nothing less. You have a lot on your plate right now, so you are forgiven – fathomlessly! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:MR may not formally be P&G, it nonetheless documents this particular process and the communities expectations in conducting the process. It is highly viewed (and overviewed) by experienced editors and admins. The closer of an MR assesses consensus in the same way as any other close (eg as documented WP:RMCI). Evidencing where the strength of argument lies in the RM is not the same as rearguing the RM. Per WP:CONSENSUS: In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. The comments I exampled fall to "I just like/don't like it" - ie unsubstantiated personal opinion. WP:MRCOMMENT establishes an expectation that reviewer can distinguish the two and comment accordingly. We apparently disagree. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the word you're looking for is "evidently" rather than "apparently". Most of the time you post your characteristic "walls of text" (that's really a compliment because many of us here love to read), you dig really deeply into the value of P&G to the project. But you make it sound in my head as if you think you're the only one who knows and values this project's many-years-in-the-making community ideas of how things should be happening here. It's as if you haven't yet grasped that such ideas are important to all of us to one extent or another. I guess it's pretty okay to be reminded of it from time to time; however, there is a level of memory that gets pretty annoyed at the constant reminders, which I think you're finding out in certain venues of recent community treatment of your (as far as I'm concerned) just and thorough treatment of RM, MRV and other discussions. Some people get so annoyed that they push back, sometimes too alarmingly well. For some time now I've been hoping to see you uncover the fact that there are ways to step on people's shoes without ruining their shine. You are a good editor and you certainly belong here on a project that works to continuously improve this great reference work. So are a lot of other editors, some of whom are pitted against you in recent times. For me, it helps to remember that we are all volunteers here, and more importantly, we are all (or the vast majority at least) good people trying to hit the same target, the same bullseye. Geez, I think this is the tallest wall of text I've written in years! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) My reading of WP:THE point 1 (cited by many oppose votes directly or implicitly) is that it is grounds enough in policy to retain “the” if that is what editors agree. That is, I don’t read “only if” as meaning “only in the very last resort when all other options have been exhausted”. The proposed title, in my view, is also in line with policy and should be chosen if that is what editors agree. This is thus a straightforward matter of judging consensus, and no consensus was an entirely reasonable close. OsFish (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can make the argument that there was no consensus on whether to remain at the existing title, but there was certainly not "no consensus" on whether to move to the proposed title, because arguments in favor of a move had the support of WP:CONCISE, WP:TITLEDAB, WP:OVERPRECISE, WP:CONSISTENT, and other PAGs that unquestionably prefer the proposed title over the status quo, whereas opposers had the support of … nothing. Nothing except for the flimsy WP:THE argument and WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. The consensus is clear as day in support of a move, regardless of how many "oppose" !votes and WP:WALLSOFTEXT there were. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an argument to be had among editors in the discussion. Sometimes you can’t get everyone to agree with you. What you see as flimsy, plainly others did not. I don’t see it as so flimsy that something procedurally went wrong.OsFish (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying the closer should have compared the arguments of supporters and opposers and recognized that WP:AT most supports the former's position. Even if the opposers' argument were logically sound (it was not), WP:THE is a guideline, not policy, intended to supplement the main article-naming policy, WP:AT, which takes precedence. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The move request was based on WP:THE, so rejecting it as pretty much irrelevant doesn’t seem feasible in this context. In any case, Levivich made a reasonable case (in the RM and reiterated here) that WP:AT can be read to support retaining “The”. The bar for overturning is not that Levivich is in another editor’s view wrong, but that he is so egregiously wrong in his reading and application of policy that a procedural misstep has been made. I don’t see that.OsFish (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved), the closer did a good job in analyzing the close. Some of the comments here seem to be rearguing the RM rather than presenting a simple yes or no reasoning that the close was adequate. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) I would have closed this exactly the same way, I think it is very clear that it's a no consensus and even more so after the fact when you remove blocked users/socks. There are strong arguments on both sides, and logic alone is not enough to definitively prove our guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 13:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) Supporters argue that Wikipedia policies and guidelines demand a title change. I and others attempted to refute every point they made. The closer could reasonably have given enough weight to our arguments to find no consensus for supporters' interpretation.
As the closer noted, the closest thing to a consensus was that the plain text of WP:THE neither prohibits nor demands our article title. As such the closer could have given weight to the highly reliable external sources opposers presented that support the current title, including the OED.
In weighing the question of "plain meaning" versus "spirit," the closer could reasonably have concluded that Wikipedia editors are entitled to rely on what our policies and guidelines actually say.
The closer could have looked beyond the wall of ALLCAPS policies thrown up by supporters and noted that each one fails to provide the support they claim. For example, our closer could have reasonably found that WP:CONCISE does not clearly prefer "Holocaust" over “The Holocaust”. (A non-concise title might be “German efforts to exterminate the Jews in World War II”)--agr (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our closer could have reasonably found that WP:CONCISE does not clearly prefer "Holocaust" over “The Holocaust” – Yes, it does. As explained to you in the RM, CONCISE does not only apply to "very long" titles; it merely states that a title should be no longer than necessary, i.e. as short as possible. WP:TITLEDAB elaborates upon this further by specifically stating that there is no need to add an unnecessary disambiguator if a topic already is the primary topic of a term. For example, WP:OVERPRECISE gives the example of Energy being more concise than Energy (physics), and is therefore preferrred. This is the same situation here: Holocaust is more concise than The Holocaust, and is therefore preferrred. It makes no sense that The Holocaust should not be moved to Holocaust when the former already redirects to the latter! Thus, the closer should indeed have taken CONCISE and the other policies I listed into account, rather than give credence to opposers' misinterpretation and misapplication of PAGs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what WP:CONCISE actually says "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." "Balance" implies a judgement call and the closer could have decided that balancing based on what reliable sources say, rather than where Wikipedia editors have assigned a redirect, is reasonable if not compelling. I also note and take exception to the condescending tone of the final comment.--agr (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an age-old argument on WP, that between precision and concision. Even the greatest minds have bandied it about. Here's what Wikiquote says about words attributed to Albert Einstein. His saying is called "Einstein's razor"... The aphorism "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" is normally taken to be a warning against too much simplicity and emphasizes that one cannot simplify things to a point where the hypothesis is no more compatible with all observations. The aphorism does not contradict or extend Occam's razor, but rather stresses that both elements of the razor, simplicity and compatibility with the observations, are essential. That is what yanked me down from the fence many years ago. If we are to keep this article title "compatible with the observations", then the preceding definite article "the" is essential to present and future understanding of one of the most tragic events in human history. It would only add to that tragedy if editors decide to simplify the title of this article to anything less than "The Holocaust" – even if, in the eyes of some editors, we have to invoke WP:IAR and break the rules. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) – I still do not quite understand why opposers are compelled to prioritize the points they do over others in this instance, but I'm sure that's mostly a me problem. Per others, the system clearly does intend us to retain abilities like that to include The in article titles if enough editors agree. In this limited sense, Wikipedia is a democracy, one within which only those who were deemed to have successfully followed (and interpreted) relevant rules were considered to be part. Thankfully, something like a supermajority was required, but here it wasn't achieved. Remsense 🌈  00:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) -- might be redundant, dunno, but since I was the last one to post on the RM, and said it was a quite clear no-consensus situation, I may as well speak up here. Most of the arguing here is continued re-argument about the proposed move. This is inappropriate. The only appropriate question for here is "was the closing protocol followed"; it was. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "consensus among those who agree with my argument". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). I think almost any experienced closer would have come to the same conclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for at least two reasons. First, sometimes no consensus really should be closed as No Consensus. This was the correct judgment call by the closer. Second, MR is not RM Round 2, and this was not an unreasonable judgment call by the closer. Third, does it matter? Why are so many pixels used to argue over primary topic when both forms will get the reader to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the closer. There was no consensus, so I closed it as such, and going back and looking again I believe I got this one right. There's simply no other way to go. Big picture first: considering the readers - whether or not it is "The Holocaust" or just "Holocaust" - they'll find the article, written with care and integrity. As it should be. Beyond that - it might be more than a nit-pick to insist or not insist on "The", but ultimately it's just not that important. Some encyclopedias and other reliable sources do it one way, some do it the other way. Our WP:THE guideline, like most guidelines on the project, is not binary: there's always a gray area where a decision, or an article, can go either way. I think this was one. I followed the debate, as this article has been on my watchlist for more than 20 years, and was mostly agnostic throughout, i.e. I'd be fine either way. - I could have written more, and would have had the close been either To Move or Not to Move, but since it was no consensus decided to err on the side of brevity. Antandrus (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) because close was reasonable. I find the interpretation of WP:THE that opposers relied upon to be correct in this instance and not "demonstrably logically fallacious." This isn't RM 2.0. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Braucherei (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

A brief summary: Seven individuals voted against the move to Braucherei. Around the same amount voted for it to be moved to Braucherei. Many that voted for the move to Braucherei came from a WP:CANVAS request at the Indigenous Peoples of North America WikiProject page talk page, where the article title was called "cultural appropration", "inaccurate", and "possibly culturally insensitive": Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Proposed_title_change_of_article_Pow-wow_(folk_magic)_to_Braucherei. However, it is clear that the loan pow-wow has been in use for this topic use as the English WP:COMMONNAME since at least the 1700s. The Pennsylvania German word is Braucherei. One of the editors on the article talk page suggested I nominate it for a move review (@SnowFire:). :bloodofox: (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on WP:CANVAS about what you're saying: An inflammatory "discussion" that directly leads to a vote is also canvassing ("An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion ... Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion."). This was a call to action and it's no surprise then that these editors made numerous statements that were clearly aimed at WP:RGW ("cultural appropration", "incorrect", "potentially culturally insensitive"). One can also easily argue that this was Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking ("selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion") as the rallying call was worded with explicit attempts at WP:RGW. Honestly, there's no need to split hairs when the intent to draw other editors in the group to change the article's title on the grounds of "cultural appropriation" was made so explicit. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note'. To be clear, I said I disagreed with the close, and I said that the procedure for contesting a close (as there was some salty talk page dialogue) was to open a Move Review, as that discussion seemed to be going in an unproductive direction. SnowFire (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (preferred) / Allow speedy renomination (second choice). First, I don't think the canvassing discussion is productive. Yes, canvassing happened, but no, the mere fact canvassing occurred doesn't mean that any one side is "right" or "wrong", and canvassed votes can have a point too sometimes. It's a distraction. Anyway. I don't really agree with the closer that a consensus was found against "Pow-wow" and variants. Many of the arguments against that title were weak - even if we accept that the naming is cultural appropriation, so what? Wikipedia shouldn't "dress up" cultural appropriation when it does occur any more than articles on insults/slurs should be changed to be censored to be less insulting. That'd just be whitewashing. I would say that "no consensus" was more appropriate. If this is found unconvincing, then the closer cited WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, which usually ends up with a descriptive, neutral title due to wackiness. I think Braucherei is a poor choice as it has near non-existent presence in English sources - and the Pennsylvania Dutch live in Pennsylvania (/Ohio) and have plenty of English literature by and about them, so it's not like there's nothing to go on. As noted, there was substantial explicit opposition to "Braucherei" in the discussion. I would say that the NOGOODOPTIONS close would have been to move to the proposed Pennsylvania Dutch folk magic, which nobody can deny as a descriptive title. (Technically I suppose we could do a speedy RM as NOGOODOPTIONS notes that this is allowed, but eh, Move Review seems fine too.) SnowFire (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re:I don't really agree with the closer that a consensus was found against "Pow-wow" and variants. The close definitely didn't find consensus against variants, just consensus against the then current title ("Pow-wow (folk magic)"). They found "no consensus" on what to move to. They chose Braucherei bc they had to pick something and thought that title had the strongest arguments (not sure which arguments specifically they found strong, that probably would've been a good thing to ask about before the move review).
    Semi-side-note: I think a speedy renom is encouraged regardless since the close and the cited guidance say anyone who objects to the closer's decision may make another move request at any time, and is advised to create such a request instead of taking the closure to move review...we probably have to wait for this discussion to be closed before opening the next move request though :/ CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Going to Move Review is fine, if it turns out everyone agrees a speedy renom is fine, then let's just do a speedy renom, but we couldn't have known that before holding a public move review discussion. (Maybe everyone says that the close should be totally overturned, maybe everyone says that the close is totally fine and nobody should bother renomming.) SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) I think P.I. Ellsworth made a well reasoned decision, and there was consensus to move the page and most of that consensus stumbled upon Braucherei. I'm also incredibly concerned about bloodofox's conduct at the response to this at Talk:Braucherei#Article now entirely rewritten. SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (uninvolved). I see no consensus to move away from a "pow-wow"/"powwow"/"powwowing" title, and the fact that a few editors supported minor tweaks doesn't give the closer license to move the article to the one title they all expressly opposed. That isn't what NOGOODOPTIONS is about, and if it were, it would disincentivize people from proposing alternative titles at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow speedy renomination (involved). I don't think the closing was outrageously wrong. But if we're going to look at the decision again, then I would say I think "braucherei" was suboptimal because it really isn't the headline term used in English to discuss this topic. As such, !Votes in support of Braucherei based on COMMONNAME should probably have been disregarded as it plainly isn't the common name in English by any measure. I agree with those pleading for AGF in discussions on this. OsFish (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't make sense to me unless the speedy renom is for one of the alternative titles. Otherwise we'd just be wasting more time. SportingFlyer T·C 05:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been clearer: I think there was a consensus that "Pow-wow (folk magic)" wasn't the best title, although people had different reasons for thinking that. I wonder if it is possible to have a discussion whereby two or three alternatives are put forward - including Braucherei - so that editors can express preferences with these various options laid out from the beginning of the discussion.OsFish (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer:: In the "speedy renom" case where the closer's call that consensus against pow-wow and variants was found, I personally would suggest a new RM to Pennsylvania Dutch folk magic per above (which Pharos raised in the original RM anyway and some support was given toward it). This would fit with WP:DESCRIPTIVE where, as a fallback when the title is contested, a simple description of the topic is used. SnowFire (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any problem with that, but this was a contentious move and it would need to be done carefully and specifically. SportingFlyer T·C 14:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a RM based on three titles suggested based on these principles?
    - Braucherei (avoids any fears about cultural appropriation, is actually used, if sparingly)
    - Pennsylvania Dutch Folk Magic per WP:DESCRIPTIVE
    - Powwowing per WP:COMMONNAME
    ask people to rank (and hopefully explain). OsFish (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You might consider Pennsylvania German folk magic instead (compare). :bloodofox: (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) and suggest another move request per @Paine Ellsworth's suggestion (in the close and 6 more times in this discussion) and per the guidance at WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. There was consensus against the then current title, but there was no consensus on what to move it to. WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE says (in part) (There are good arguments for Y, and there are good arguments for Z, but there are virtually no good arguments for it to stay at X.) In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then make clear that while consensus has rejected the former title…there is no consensus for the title actually chosen…As this result does not indicate a consensus for the chosen title, anyone who objects to the closer's decision may make another move request at any time, and is advised to create such a request instead of taking the closure to move review. (emphasis added) Paine Ellsworth followed those directions exactly. I don't understand why this isn't just a move request for one of the other suggested titles. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow renomination and Overturn (Uninvolved, but I was alerted to this via an ANI post): I concur almost entirely with SnowFire. Canvassing on both sides is obviously frustrating, but I see this as a justification to restart discussion with a reversion to the status quo and initiation of another move. I do think some of the arguments at the first were a bit weak. I don't question the closer's call, but see opportunity for editors to really consider what they want and create stronger arguments for it, and get stronger consensus for an obviously heated topic in either direction. As of now, I like Pennsylvania Dutch folk magic as a descriptive title, and see much more positive reception for it here than was present at the original thread (a good thing IMO). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Edit: Rationale for striking below per Toadspike. Probably should just be another move request.[reply]
  • Comment: The close currently quotes WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE with "anyone who objects to the closer's decision may make another move request at any time, and is advised to create such a request instead of taking the closure to move review". Several editors (SnowFire, OsFish, and ImaginesTigers) suggest allowing a speedy renomination, but the close already does this. I am confused as to how this differs from endorsing the close. Toadspike [Talk] 18:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Toadspike, I didn't know about this because I have limited experience in this area. I've struck my vote because I don't think Paine Ellsworth misjudged consensus (it was just close, and the rationales weren't great). Looks like Paine Ellsworth repeatedly advised simply a fresh move request at the post-move discussion on the Talk. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(uninvolved) I don't have any strong opinion on which title would be best, but this move review seems a little pointless to me. The alleged canvassing of the RM sufficiently muddied the waters that any consensus, if there was one, may not be accepted. I suggest a speedy close of this move review and a new multiple-choice RM listing the three titles proposed by OsFish and bloodofox above [11], with neutral notification at all relevant venues. Toadspike [Talk] 19:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - The close by Paine Ellsworth is accurate based on the extended discussions and consensus on the article talk page that the title should not be Pow-wow (folk magic). I'm not opposed to alternatives to Braucherei, for example Pennsylvania Dutch folk magic. Netherzone (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). I think P.I. Ellsworth made a thoughtful decision as the closer and their review of the discussion. And I am open to alternative title suggestions, including the listing of three options so that editors can express their preferences as suggested by OsFish. Also, in both the previous and current discussions, I am not involved in WP:CANVAS or WP:RGW. Bcbc24 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (uninvolved) a consensus against keeping the current title does not equate to a consensus to move the article to Braucherei. In addition, the canvassing concerns are serious. It was a non-neutral message and the article is not listed as falling under that Wikiproject. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

See also

[edit]