Jump to content

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2025 May Move review archives 2025 July >

2025 June

[edit]

The Holocaust

[edit]
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 [1]). 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.[2] 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]
  • 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]

Braucherei

[edit]
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 [4], 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2025_June&oldid=1297910486"