As I indicated on the user's talk page, I did not consider this was a suitable move request for a non-admin to perform. It is clear from the extensive discussion and commentary that this was not a simple move request, as such it would fail on the following grounds of WP:NAC.
1. Although the closer did not participate in the discussion, the closer demonstrated a lack of impartiality by explaining their closure was down to personal belief that "Article titles should be in sentence case and not in title case." (I am quoting from their talk page). As such their closure represented a supervote that did not properly evaluate the concensus of the discussion.
2. Outcome was not an easy call, as such again a supervote from a non-admin to close.
The article itself concerns the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories [1]. The UN treats this as a proper noun [2] in their style guide, the literature on this topic is utterly dominated by UN literature [3], which follows this style. Academic literature also follows the same convention.
The phrase non-self-governing territory would also cover places like Tibet but as this isn't on the UN list it is not an NSGT, hence it may be described using the lower case version. Territories on the list can be described as a non-self-governing territory in the literature using the phrase as an adjective but if you refer to a specific example it is capitalised as per UN designation e.g. Montserrat is a Non-Self-Governing Territory.
This distinction is important and leads to 3rd reason why I suggest an admin closure should have been important. When I attempted to explain this based on my experience in this topic area, I was literally harangued by editors who argued their Ngram analaysis showed I was wrong. I do note that none had ever edited in this topic area and they relied solely on Ngram evidence. When I say harangued, I was constantly pinged by a number of editors who appeared to be acting in a co-ordinated manner and for only the second time in my wikipedia career I have switched off notifications from these users. I don't wish to imply they were acting in bad faith, I believe they may genuinely think they are improving the encyclopedia with copy editing. However, I comprehensively demonstrated their approach to Ngram analysis was flawed.
Hence, I am requesting a move review on the following grounds.
1. This was not a suitable candidate for a NAC due to the nature of the discussion.
2. Closer demonstrated a lack of impartiality with their interpretation of the style guide trumping the consensus in the discussion.
3. Multiple arguments in favour of move were based on flawed Ngram analysis and not domain knowledge. WCMemail19:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Article titles should be in sentence case and not in title case" is not just a personal belief, it's policy as per WP:TITLEFORMAT. That doesn't mean all words should start with a lower case letter though. (This is not a comment on what the capitalisation should be in this specific case though.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out and allowing me to clarify, in the context of this list NSGT is a proper noun and as such should be capialised even with the current MOS. WCMemail19:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) It's important to note that MRs are not about relitigating the RM discussion, which is clearly what you are trying to do here. That said, I comprehensively demonstrated their approach to Ngram analysis was flawed is laughable because the non-ngram evidence you pointed to showed that the term is generally lowercase.
You provided two sources but couldn't point to specific instances of capitalized uses of NSGT that were not capitalized because they were in a heading or in an excerpt or quotation from nonindependent sources. I provided a comprehensive review of every usage of NSGT in the two sources you provided. My review showed that every instance of NSGT in the running text of those sources was lowercase. The only capitalized usages occurred a) in a heading, and thus capitalized because headings receive headline style–capitalization; or b) in a quotation or excerpt from a UN document, which are not relevant to an MOS:CAPS discussion because they are not independent.
You replied to that analysis by claiming that I erred in my treatment of a single usage of NSGT of the many that I listed. When I asked you to point to which usage you were talking about, you ignored my request.
So no, the outcome of the RM was not solely based on ngram evidence, because the domain evidence you yourself provided shows that NSGT is lowercase when used in the independent, reliable sources that CAPS refers to. I have pointed that out multiple times, to which you've responded by pretending as if you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT.
I'm sorry you WP:DONTLIKE the outcome, but this MR is a bad-faith attempt to waste the community's time.
I don't agree with your claim that this RM wasn't suited for an NAC—if only admins could close RMs that were the least bit controversial, nothing would ever get done—but even if you were correct, this is obviously a WP:SNOWBALL for the reasons I've described above. Wallnot (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, I provided multiple clear examples. You then harangued me constantly until it got to the point I simply ignored you. Thank you for providing a clear example of precisely the sort of conduct why I believe a NAC was inappropriate. WCMemail19:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could point to where you provided a page number for one of those examples, as I requested; as I explained, your Google Books links don't go to specific pages. Wallnot (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does actually, multiple pages are linked showing examples where lower and upper case are appropriate. That's why I chose it. I'm happy for anyone to check and make up their own mind. I would appreciate it, if you would stop pinging me. But again thank you for an example of the kind of conduct that concerned me. WCMemail19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on those links, they go to search results that list every instance of NSGT that occurs in those books, rather than to specific instances. Perhaps my computer is quirky—could you please provide page numbers in light of my inability to get your links to function correctly?
Endorse (involved) close as move. WCM doesn't seem to understand the relationship between the evidence and our P&G, either at the RM or the MR. The book he cites, that Wallnot asked about, uses this term more often in lowercase than in uppercase, which certainly does not support the idea that it's "consistently capitalized in sources", even in this one non-independent source. Sure, an admin closer might have been nice, but I don't see grounds either that this was inappropriate for a NAC, or that this closer did anything wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) As per MOS:CAPS, it matters more how words are used in independant reliable sources than the official (in this case written by the UN) sources. The official use was the argument of multiple of the oppose !votes, which therefore should carry less weight. Overall though, there is some inconsistency in capitalisation, outside of headings/titles, suggesting the default should be sentance case. The rough concensus seems to be to move. I agree WP:BADNAC#2 is a factor though, which led to this MR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) – The local consensus seems clear and is in line with the relevant guideline. The affirmation of our existing policies and guidelines obviously does not constitute "bias" on the part of the closer (when closing a discussion whose scope doesn't include changing our policies and guidelines). Graham (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) Addressing the OPs rationale for this MR and referencing their numbered points:
3. In respect to ngrams, Dicklyon made an initial reference to them here, stating: ... that distinction wouldn't be evident in n-gram stats. So I will try to understand if he's correct, by looking at sources ... While there was an extensive exchange regarding ngrams between WCM and the OP (Wallnot), no other editors would argue the point of ngrams. Late in the discussion, I observed here that: Your [WCM's] assertion that "the case for a move [here] was made solely on Ngram data" is an incorrect representation. In my observation, the substantive evidence offered was inconsistent usage in independent sources (per DL) and inconsistent usage by the UN. IMO, WCM has failed to grasp that the ngram evidence is of little consequence (perhaps because of their extensive exchanges with the OP) or, this point is a red herring argument.
2. Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. Per WP:NHC (and similar advice at multiple places) comments are weighted and even discarded according to their strength. Strong arguments refer to established criteria (particularly WP:P&G) and evidence. Arguments based on WP:P&G reflect the broad community consensus and are weighted accordingly. The prevailing P&G is MOS:CAPS (through WP:AT and WP:NCCAPS). If there is no consensus that capitalisation is necessary, then by weight of the broad community consensus at MOS:CAPS, the term is downcased. The guidance is quite clear. The evidence provided shows that the term is not consistently capped in independent sources and is not even consistently capped in UN sources. Some comments would argue from a basis of grammar. Where those opposing the move would say it is a specific category, a category name, specific or not, is not a proper name. The arguments presented, when reasonably weighed support a consensus to move. Where WCM would quote the closer: Article titles should be in sentence case and not in title case, proper names are capitalised is sentence case. To say that this represents bias is IMO, to misrepresent the statement. I can see no evidence that would support an allegation of bias on the part of the closer or an allegation that the close was a WP:SUPERVOTE.
1. A NAC is not intrinsically a reason in itself to overturn a close.
Endorse (involved): As far as I can see, the complaint is mostly re-arguing the merits of the discussion, along with the idea that a non-admin should not have closed it. As for the former, "Article titles should be in sentence case and not in title case" is just a reiteration of the longstanding and well-established WP:TITLEFORMAT policy, and that statement was not part of the closing summary. As for the latter, the mere fact of a closer not being an admin is not sufficient justification for overturning. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). MRV is not for re-litigating the merits of a move proposal. We're here to determine whether the closer clearly erred, and there is no evidence to suggest that they did. Cinderella157 has already dealt in detail with the weak accusations of bias, so I won't repeat that. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
IMHO Robertsky did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he didn’t adequately weigh the content of the discussion by looking at the arguments and naming conventions in particular WP:NCLANG#Language families in closing this requested move discussion. This after it became clear during the discussion that there are plenty WP:RS that the Aramaic languages are indeed a language family. S.K. (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> While there were excellent arguments made for both the present title and the proposed one, the closer assessed consensus correctly. This closure was a reasonable interpretation, all things considered. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there13:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if closed without moving it at least shouldn’t have been closed as Not moved since this indicates consensus to not move. But there certainly was no consensus as the two persons endorsing the move provided RS for Aramaic being a language family while the majority for keeping provided arguments based on lesser principles and OTHERCONTENT. If closing without moving it should have been as No consensus. S.K. (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). There were good arguments on both sides but most editors expressed a preference for the status quo. Even if it could have also been closed as "no consensus" the outcome would be the same. Vpab15 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The immediate effect of not moving would have been the same. But while it’s considered bad form to re-request a move in the future if consensus is found, this is not the case if the outcome is no consensus. So no, the outcomes are not equivalent.
And all the majority opinions with the exception of Apaugasmas were given before the most explicit sources (Huehnergard, John; Rubin, Aaron D. (2011). "Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages". In Weninger, Stefan (ed.). The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 259–278. and in particular Gzella, Holger (2021). Aramaic. A History of the First World Language. p. 4—5. ISBN9780802877482.) establishing that the Aramaic languages are indeed a language family have been found. And those votes have statements like keeping the current title is good because one doesn’t have to settle the question language family or not (AjaxSmack) or "it's no more a language family than English" (SnowFire) which lost their base once those RS where found. But those participants never reacted again after those RS where presented. And since it’s not a vote this development of the discussion should have been considered during closing.
Also the closer didn’t explain at all while despite this situation he came to this conclusion. Which in a disputed and long discussion should have been provided. S.K. (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) Whilst the closer should certainly have provided some kind of explanation into their reasoning for the close, in the end they closed it with the same result as I'd have done. It had been relisted twice, but the overall consensus was not to move, even in light of the reasoned arguments presented to move. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you’d have come to the same conclusion I’d be very interested in your reasoning, how you evaluated the arguments and assigned weight, since the closer didn’t provide that:
Would you have questioned that the discussion sufficiently established that the Aramaic languages are indeed a language family? Not sufficient RS for that? Despite the RS explicitly cited?
Would you have questioned that WP:NCLANG#Language families unambiguously says "Language families and groups of languages are pluralized"?
If not, I can’t see why you would have decided anything else but that the title must be "Aramaic languages". NCLANG leaves no alternatives.
The remaining point of the discussion would then have been if "Aramaic languages" is the primary topic for "Aramaic" or not. Once that discussion would have been decided either "Aramaic" would become a WP:DAB page or a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to "Aramaic languages" with a {{redirect}} hat note.
Because that’s what WP:RMCI requires from a closer: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general. S.K. (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the WP:NCLANG guideline. The question isn't primarily whether it's a lanaguage family or not, or whether it should be plural, it's whether the title of the article should be "Aramaic" or "Aramaic languages", though that may have been a factor in some of the oppose !votes. Other than S.K. and one other editor tentatively, the local concensus was there's no need to move the article as it's currently sufficiently WP:PRECISE, even though there is some potential merit to moving in terms of consistency. It's also approaching on being a WP:BROAD topic article. What the WP:COMMONNAME is is also a factor. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your evaluation.
What is a naming convention then for you? I‘d consider it what is called relevant consensus of the Wikipedia in WP:RMCI. And if it is established that an article falls into its domain, the content of a naming convention does play a relevant role in settling the question at hand. And deciding between the title "Aramaic" and "Aramaic languages" is absolutely in scope of NCLANG. Isn’t it?
may have been a factor in some of the oppose !votes is slightly underestimating it, IMHO. From the 5 oppose votes at least 3 reference in more or less explicit form to the question language family or not:
Srnec (e.g. in this article isn't about the singular Aramaic language)
AjaxSmack (Its advantage is that the arguments above don't need to be settled here.)
SnowFire (no more a language family than English is)
And the tentativeness of DeCausas Support also referenced the question in that he wanted to see more scholarly sources besides the 4 he found himself that the Aramaic languages are seen indeed as a group of languages.
For one it says itself in its second paragraph that explicit naming conventions take precedence. With which we‘re back at NCLANG.
Secondly the precondition for applying PRECISE is that the title should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. But there was for one the precedence of ISO disambiguating the name for arc from Aramaic to Imperial Aramaic in 2007. And then there’s the RS Gzella that explicitly states the historical-linguistic abstraction "Aramaic" needs to be made more clear by using specific names for different language varieties, culminating in the last sentence cited.
A closing should take these aspects into account beyond simply counting the number of votes that reference this criterion, shouldn’t it? And even only counting one would be at about 2:2 once weighing in the language family points above.
The BROAD topic is the article about the language family/group the whole discussion is about. It describes the "historical-linguistic abstraction" Aramaic.
The COMMONNAME used by the 3 RS provided in the discussion is "Aramaic languages" whenever they are precisely talking about the language family (I don’t re-cite them). S.K. (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Fatima – Closure endorsed. A large majority of participants agreed that Paine Ellsworth's closure was a reasonable reading of the consensus. There was considerable discussion over the nuances of applying WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, and those challenging the closure argued that the arguments supporting a move were in various ways erroneous or inadequately addressed the opposers' arguments. However, with the exception of plainly erroneous or irrelevant arguments, it is not the closer's job to evaluate the merits of the proposal, only what sentiment prevails among participants (WP:DISCARD), and MRV is not a forum for re-litigating the underlying proposal. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727(T·C)22:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The daughter of Muhammad was moved to occupy the base name at Fatima, which was previously a dab page. A lot of the supporting comments only dealt with the issue of common name of the historical figure. They didn't explain why it should be the primary topic. Some did consider the primary topic issue and they showed page views that supported their view. However, some editors found that data problematic because it excluded Our Lady of Fátima, which has similar page views to the daughter of Muhammad. There was also data from google books that showed overwhelmingly the Portuguese town of Fátima to be the primary topic, with eight results vs just one for the historical figure out of the first ten results. As an aside, it could be argued the results were not about the Portuguese town but about the Sanctuary of Fátima or Our Lady of Fátima. The three topics are very closely related, which is why removing one of them from the page views is problematic. But the most important piece of evidence in my opinion was from wikinav. It clearly showed that most readers who landed on the dab page then clicked on the Portuguese town. We are now redirecting those readers to a page they are not looking for. With all evidence available, it is very hard to argue the historical figure is the primary topic. Also hard to see how the move will improve the reader experience. The evidence against the move was just dismissed as "incomplete" and not properly evaluated. A fair evaluation of the evidence should result in not moved or at least no consensus. Vpab15 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved editor statements (Fatima)
Could have been closed either as “no consensus” or “rough consensus to move”. Unqualified consensus, no. Non admins should not be doing these contentious closes; if you hold the experience and respect to exercise admin discretion in closing, prove it by passing RfA. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the closer should have given a more detailed explanation, even though I endorse the closure. WP:RMNAC allows for experienced users to close RMs and I think the closer in this case is experienced enough.VRtalk04:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(uninvolved) Endorse closure. Vpab's contention that "Our Lady of Fátima" might be a contender for "Fatima" was responded to by Iskandar323, Albertiran etc during the RM with the argument that RS do not call generally refer to Our Lady of Fátima as simply "Fatima", hence it is not relevant. Vpab's contention that "But the most important piece of evidence in my opinion was from wikinav" was disputed by several users who convincingly pointed out that there is more than one way of determining primary topic. The latter opinion is supported by WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, which lists several ways of determining primary topic. In this case, pageviews and google scholar were used to show Fatima as the primary topic. Vpab did try to use the first 10 results in google books as evidence, but given the thousands of hits for Fatima looking at just 10 results seems pretty weak (Apaugasma, by contrast, suggested looking at 100). In the end, it seems most users, by a margin of 2:1, considered Fatima to be the primarytopic (Iskandar, BD2412, Albertiran, Nableezy, Mhhossein, Al Ameer and possibly Srnec) vs a few who didn't (Vpab, Uanfala, Crouch Swale). That constitutes WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS.VRtalk04:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nobody claimed google scholar supported Fatimah as the primary topic. Quite the contrary. Apaugasma said: I think Vpab15 may be right: from both Google scholar (filtering out authors with the name 'Fatima') and Google Books, it would seem that there are enough Our Lady of Fátima-related results (as well as result pertaining to Fatima Mernissi) to conclude that the daughter of the prophet Muhammad is not the primary topic.Vpab15 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gentle reminder that one reason I sometimes close backlogged, contentious RMs is because presently admins are limited to 1,030. That magic number of mostly hard-working editors is less than 1% of active users (121,836), so I figure... why waste all that larnin' I've picked up when I can be of help. As for RfA, as you know I've been there, done that, and I'm too old not ready to do that again. Yes, I do realize that for every contentious decision I make, probably at least one is threatened by an editor to take to MRV. But with my boyish charm and good looks I can usually convince that editor I'm right. All that means is that I rarely find one of my closures here even though I close the tough ones on a regular basis. I'm not perfect by any means; however, must be doin' sumpin' right, b'gosh b'golly!>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there16:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paine Ellsworth, you, like a very few, are a well-experienced NAC-er. I’m wondering about a possible process for experienced NAC-ers to close contentious backlogged discussions like this: (1) When it is ready to be closed, list it at WP:ANRFC, noting it to be a backlogged, completed but contentious discussion (thus warning and advising other experienced NAC-ers); then (2) if it remains listed there 7 days (168 hours) and no admin has closed it, you may close it, even invoking the normally admin-limited “WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS” style of closing.
Separate question: Do you admit that others may see the discussion not as an unqualified “consensus”, but as a “rough consensus”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Others may indeed see the RM as a rough consensus, because that's what it was, as noted on my talk page. However, consensus is consensus whether it's rough or unqualified, and that RM's consensus, while rough, just wasn't all that rough. And it was in my mind most certainly a consensus to move.
As for your idea to give admins a better crack at the tough calls, it might be a good idea and worth a try; and yet, that is what the backlog section on the WP:RM page is for. Closers are given plenty of time to decide whether or not they want to close any given RM. Special handling designed to persuade admins to close a contentious RM is probably unnecessary. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there06:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rough consensus is not the same as consensus, and your assertion otherwise is a worry, in regards to your competence to call a consensus in contentious cases.
Days on, the RM closing statement is still inadequate, and I am leaning starlight “overturn” due to the brevity of the closing statement alone. Better explanations on your talk page does not suffice. Would you like to amend your close, or stand by it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I say here or on my talk page doesn't or shouldn't matter. Agree with me that the close was reasonable, or not, either way you teach me. Good lord willin' and the creeks don't rise, we'll both still be here tomorrow. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there09:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I read conflict between your statements that you wouldn’t have intended. At the RM you assert there was a consensus. On your talk page you assert it was a rough consensus. Here, you repeat what you wrote on the talk page. My problem is that the RM was, at best, a rough consensus to move, and your closing statement does not say that but asserts a consensus. My advice to you, in order to smooth this over, is for you to improve tha closing statement, and then invite any admin you counter sign your close, which puts and end to any BADNAC allegations. I suspect that the over-brief declaration of an unqualified consensus prevents any admin from countersigning your close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that I did not intend there to be any conflict. My close noted consensus, which my analysis did uncover. I did note on my talk page and in the post-RM commentary that it was a tough call, which it was. I am not conflicted about the close, I am merely conflicted that my usage of "rough consensus" to equate to "tough call", may have been misunderstood by editors other than the two most ardent opposers of the page moves. So to be clear, imho the RM survey and discussion yielded an unqualified consensus to move the pages. It was a tough call due to the compelling rationales of the opposers; however, the even more compelling arguments of the supporters tipped the scales. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there10:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). First, just to clear what wasn't the main point of contention out of the way: Participating editors reached a consensus that Fatima is the common spelling, and that it was best not to rely on using the spelling Fatimah to distinguish the topic from other topics. The disagreement was mainly over the primary topic. Participants considered many factors, including whether to discount certain topics (mainly Our Lady of Fátima) as partial title matches, page views, Wikinav, Google Books search results (and to a lesser extent Google Scholar), and long-term significance. Editors can exercise significant judgment in evaluating and weighing the various forms of evidence, among which none takes absolute priority over any other. While there is a scale between reasonable judgment and unreasonable "cherry picking", in this case the position in favor of the move was adequately supported by reasoned explanation (as Vice regent writes in more detail above). The closure should be upheld. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Although it's not directly relevant to the review of this closure, I'll add that editors are free to start another RM about Fatima bint Muhammad. The 16 July 2022 RM had no consensus and much lower participation, and the 24 July 2022 RM mostly stayed focused on the Fatima proposal. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: Supporters, citing WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, contested opposers' general conclusion that Wikinav data is the most relevant and page view data is largely irrelevant. (DETERMINEPRIMARY, by the way, is not one of those cases where written guidelines and de facto community practice are divergent.) If opposers' conclusion is at odds with DETERMINEPRIMARY, then one should reconsider the premises that led to that conclusion. Usage is about what readers are seeking; I think that is generally agreed. However, supporters made the point that the guidelines do not require usage to be narrowly construed as readers searching/arriving in a particular way, and readers looking in a particular way are not necessarily representative of interested readers more broadly. These points are valid. Opposers took a narrower view of what can properly count as usage. It is one thing for opposers to argue for the merits of that interpretation; it is another thing to argue that it is the one true interpretation and that a closer is compelled to discount any view to the contrary. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand you dismiss wikinav data because it gives a narrower view of what can properly count as usage. Yet on the other you take the narrow view that Our Lady of Fátima should not be included in the page views analysis. You also take the narrow view that only pageviews are significant and google scholar and google books evidence can also be dismissed. I find that very contradictory. Vpab15 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that wider interpretation of usage is not in the guidelines. The primary topic for a term is defined there as one that is most likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. What matters is readers who search for that term, not readers who have arrived via a link, and not readers who search for other, similar, terms. Uanfala (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse (uninvolved). Whilst this does seem like WP:BADNAC#3 potentially to me, if I was forced to determine the outcome I'd have gone with WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS (though I am also not an admin). As per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, tools "may help to support the determination of a primary topic", but there was more support for moving than not moving, and there was a significant level of participation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham: I don't really buy that. The RM took place on the talk page of the article which ended up being moved to the primary topic, which means the people watching that page are always going to be predominantly those who think the article is the most important one. You can't just dismiss WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY like that as it's central to the argument as to why this shouldn't have been moved, and we don't just count votes when there are policy or guideline reasons for or against... — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An enlightening response that brings out one of several reasons why I agonized over this one. I finally decided that the wording at DETERMINEPRIMARY was noncommittal enough to be overridden by the local consensus. Thought that was justified by words like, "no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists". Also, "decisions are made by discussion among editors" and "not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons" helped turn me. I wondered when and if someone would call me on this aspect of the closure. Actually a good catch whether we agree or not. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there17:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As P.I. Ellsworth said, I'd interpretted that as noncommittal, but good point that the people most likely to be watching that page may have a bias, which I had not considered. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC) P.S. As also mentioned above, I meant WP:BADNAC#2, not #3. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such "involved editor" bias is always considered in RM closes, along with the fact that RMs usually get advertised to WikiProject denizens, as well as to editors who keep up with the WP:RM listing, which include many uninvolved editors who often give their opinions in RM surveys and discussions. All of that can make life interesting for closers, eh? P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there18:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. There is lots of support for the proposal at the RM, but it is not really backed up by solid reasoning. From the evidence presented it is clear that the topics covered at Our Lady of Fatima and Fatima, Portugal enjoy a similar status in terms of significance and page views with the Islamic figure. The closer doesn't seem to have given any solid reasons behind the close either, other than that they find the argument that there's no primary topic "compelling" but that the other arguments were "stronger", without any reason why that aligns with our policies. At the very least it should be relisted and then re-closed with a detailed rationale that we could all understand and agree on. — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Involved editor comments (Fatima)
I opposed the move and I see the close as blatantly incorrect. An article got promoted to a primary topic despite the absence of agreement that it has greater long-term significance and, surreally, in spite of the fact that it accounts for less than 20% of the usage (as shown by Wikinav). A lot of bizarre claims around that usage were made by some supporters of the move (for example, that we should ignore the actual data on what readers seek on Wikipedia and instead rely on what we imagine that data could look like if we were judging from unreliable and indirect proxies, or that because an article is the primary topic for one term it should also be the primary topic for another term, etc.), but nothing that made any sense. It's abundantly clear that there's no primary topic for the term, and the only thing that needs to be decided is how best to disambiguate the title. Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent and Adumbrativus: your statements above seem to imply that you'd support a change to the guidelines so that a primary topic with respect to usage is no longer understood as the one that's sought by the majority of readers, but as the topic that has the most hits on the internet or the one whose article is the most popular. Is that correct? Uanfala (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, Uanfala. I think the issue here is the application of WP:PTOPIC's first clause "Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic...". There are two questions here: (1) whether a phrase refers to a topic, and (2) whether that topic is primary. The policy WP:PTOPIC address question #2 and says very little about question #1. In our case, the question was whether "Our Lady of Fátima" could be referred to by "Fatima", and most users seem to have felt that not many sources use the single word term "Fatima" for that. I suspect this is also the case where New York City is not usually referred to as simply York. This may be why the primary topic of York is the tiny British town and not what is the one of the most important cities in the entire world.VRtalk02:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
#1 has nothing to do with this RM, and the "Our Lady of Fatima" thing is a red herring. The crux of the problem I've been trying to point out so far is that among the topics that we all agree can be referred by the dab term, the one that got promoted to the primary topic fails (by a large margin) the threshold for usage as set out in the guidelines. Uanfala (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second RM had more involvement than the first, although the underlying motivation of each was the same. I wonder if it wouldn't be best to have an RFC on the two options, Fatima and Fatima bint Muhammad? I am fine with Muhammad's daughter as PT, but it is a close call and I would be equally fine with Fatimah moved to Fatima bint Muhammad and Fatima left alone. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Endorse:) The volume of traffic going through the page when it was a disambiguation page was negligible compared to the traffic heading daily to the present article - the pageviews have always and continue to speak for themselves on this. The move was a timely, if overdue, correction based on reader priorities. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Overturn into no consensus. About this CfD (4 categories). Closer Qwerfjkl did not process arguments appropriately, since the argument "proposed new names do not reflect category content, i.e., they are wrong" was not weighted at value. The claim them being incorrect names was not challenged or disputed. With this, hard to see how a consensus can be called to ignore a stated error. (I posted that argument). -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(by participant in discussion) During the discussion, requests for substantation of the claim that it was an error were ignored by OP, by so-called lack of time. At the same time they did find more than enough time to bludgeon the discussion and now to iniate a move review. This is borderline obstruction of the process. Imho the discussion could not have closed in any other way. By the way, in a fresh discussion, OP can still propose a better alternative if they are willing to provide proper argumentation, so nothing is lost by this closure. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: "so-called lack of time" and "found time top bludgeon the disussion ,.. borderline obstruction" is aspersing bad faith—please redact. I already had to ask you about this in the CfD; now please stop it.
Re: Now, the "substantiate or else"-reasoning is not warranted. The category situation is complicated, and this is adstructed by the fact that no editors started to research this themselves. Why not conclude: "Ah, if that's the situation, let's find better names first"? If editors cannot accept the "wrong names"-claim at face value, why would alternative names be accepted as proof? And, a proof provided by the very editor they express distrust in? In short, re Marcocapelle: how does current absence of alternative names make the new names correct? DePiep (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are grave BF accusations. Enough of this. Marcocapelle makes explicit accusations of bad faith towards me, and after being challenged still has not based nor redacted; that means they are intentionally; imprecision is no excuse any more. It shows intentionally misreading my posts (so-called, bludgeon the discussion); and earlier in the CfD for example I am surprised this opposition comes up only now. That is: casting aspersions. Meanwhile—that is, in between their posts there and here, they did WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT not respond to actual contentual responses and questions. For example, already I have noted that the XfD process does not allow for guaranteed extra time, and had Mc been interested in such improvements they could expressed that by !voting "fair enough, close unchangeing & back to the Talkpage for constructive development". And "you did not gave better nammes so I !vote for the bad ones" is nonsensical. Marcocapelle has shown that even had I (or someone else, why should it have to be me?) had I proposed acually better names, Mc would have ignored their rationalisation and would not have supported those anyway. Too much self-contradiction in there, and PA's are preventing us (poster self-included) from discerning & improving any useful argumentation. Concluding: since Marcocapelle spoiled their own arguments with BF accusations and aspersions, I reqeust any closing administrator (and any editor visiting here) to strike their posts and ignore as if not written. -DePiep (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). A few editors argued that the proposed names are more accurate and easier to understand, particularly regarding a relationship with Template:Infobox element. Another editor argued to the contrary that the proposed names are not correct descriptions of the content and that they are harder to read. Consensus was in favor of renaming as proposed. (Editors also discussed procedural matters, which had no bearing on the substantive outcome.) In future discussion, it would be advisable to focus on clearly and concisely explaining one's preferred names and why they make the most sense, rather than reasserting the conclusion that "the proposed names do not reflect the content" which other participants didn't find convincing or self-evident. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus you see was for wrong names; can consensus decide on flatness of the Earth too? As noted, hard to come up with new names enforced with a weeklong deadline, while having to convince editors who noted no interest in the correctness-issue in the first place. Also, just close as "no consensus, no prejudice against change" would have the same effect. Wiki does not have to be finished tomorrow. How would "easier to understand" work out while wrong? Incidentally, glad with your notion re procedural matters; I can agree with. DePiep (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(closer) @DePiep, there was no "week-long deadline". The discussion opened on the 28th June, and you first commented on the 2nd of July. Your latest comment was on the 7th July, and I closed the discussion on the 2nd August. ― Qwerfjkltalk15:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: TL;DR: XfD does have a deadline, which cannot be extended at will. Then, how would proposed alternative good names be accepted, given that editors choose to !vote for bad ones? None came forward with a "fair enough" understanding.
Longer: an XfD may be closed after 7 days. There is no way an editor can preventy closing. Had I embarked on researching & developing good category names using extra time, any moment a closer could have come by an legally cut the process short. So, a deadline it is, and an unpredictable one at that. "2nd August" does not mean anything: that's only time in hindsight, not an intended guarantee. On top of this, not one editor came forward to conclude "fair enough, let's make time to find those better names". Why not?
And, given that these editors obviously choose to !vote for wrong names, why or how would they agree to any other name? Name quality did not seem to be an argument. This is the wider picture: this enforced editing ("prove that the proposal is wrong or else ..", apart from the open oportunity for everyone to discover this themselves) is not how Wikipedia is being build. More like: it is up to promotors of the change to convince others that the change is an improvement. Or conclude a "fair enough". DePiep (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These BF accusations towards me and the misguided due process perceptions have gone out of hand. Since no positive developing responses are made, in this case by the closer no less, and since BF PA's are involved, I need elaborations to describe what was lost where. I cannot prevent repetitions. I reject the the aspersions, and I expect due process recognitions.
@Qwerfjkl: You still have not clarified how the dates you mention change anything to the basic fact that the proposed names are incorrect. As you know, XfD can be closed any moment and irrespective of onging good intentions. Waiting time for closing does not count as such (the opposite: as long as this was randomly open, no WP:OTHER venue to be initiated preferably. Why is this so difficult to acknowledge?). Better: if you as a closer werte interested in such clollaborative development, you consistently could have closed as "no consensus, start a talk" (as was proposed). And why should it be me to propose, deadline-enforced, better analysis and names? Why not other editors?
In the process Qwerfjkl has muddied their argumentation with BF aspersions of WP:OWN, adding If you really believe my closure was incorrect (italics in original). They added this BF-accusation after they closed the CfD, only ion the go-to-the-closer talk. So how to weigh this 'argument'? Was it used at moment of closing, then why not mention such an important aspect? Or was it added only afterwards, pointing to sloppy reading or !votecounting? Anyway, I reject OWN-accusations even when done this casually this late. The accusation should have been made & based from the start (ie closing), but of course not be made at all. Now it be withdrawn unconditionally.
Another aspect: you claim that it was me who should have provided better names contradicts your own "OWN"-accusation (however bad based). Because: if you distrust my posts, why ask for more? DePiep (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep, There was no consensus that the proposed names were incorrect; only you have objected. As it was you who objected to the names, of course the onus is on you to provide better ones. There was no reason to mention WP:OWN at the closure; it was only brought up here because you objected on the basis that you created the categories. ― Qwerfjkltalk07:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: You keep evading the questions like on why you refer to the dates & periodes, so you still maintain that the waiting for closure was "development time". This XfD is not a collaborative talk. (Let me repeat that of course I did not open a Talk-development simultaneously while this thread was still open). Sorry to editors for having to repeat this, but WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT invites me to, and a portion of recurring frivolous BF accusations I obviousl;y still need to defend myself against.
1. Anyway, no consensus that the proposed names were incorrect is not a logical discussion, it's shallow !votecounting. Putting the burdon on me is presuming and provoking statements of OWNership. Simple: category content is open for research & learning for everyone. Every editor was free to investigate. Correctness is not a !voting or drive-by-opinion issue, it could and should be researched. (I had already noted that the nominator took a graveyard-category of deprecated & unused templates for name pattern example). I have invited everyone to open a Talk on this after closure. Even without you ignoring the bad faith personal attacks, so by straight XfD only, you should have noticed this fallacy. But no editor has acknowledged that they were open to review their !vote were better names presented: instead the attitude is "lean back, fingers in ears, and say 'prove me wrong'; meanwhile I keep my support-!vote up". It is this unwillingness of editors to do some basic research into category content & structure, not even after being challenged. No "fair enough" come-backs. I note, none of these three editors were involved in editing or discussing the topic: not by maintenance, not by recent research, not by noting something broken. That is drive-by-!voting: opinionating without responsibility or WP:COMPETENCE.
2. By now, all three other contributing editors have made personal attacks towards me re WP:OWN & Bad Faith (nominator FL did so in this thread). All three! First, you as closing editor should have noticed those accusations (by two editors at the time), and taken explicitly into account somehow. A unbased sloppy drive-by BF accusation at least poisons and spoils a discussion into irrecoverability (unless redactions occur), but usually makes a content argumentation worthless because it's not about content but about the editor. With a BF accusation, all argumentation is off. What is left is a BF stench. Same effect when BF accusations are let go unchecked. So: you should have addressed this when closing ("BF accusations rejected/accepted because ..., consequence for the discussion conclusion is ..."). This too is where your closing statement lacks. Even worse: after closing you showed your "don't OWN"-opinion[4].
@DePiep, I'm afraid this discussion is going nowhere. To avoid leaving you waiting for a response, I'm leaving this comment, to note that I will no longer be commenting on this discussion. I will leave your comments to be weighed up by the closer of this discussion. ― Qwerfjkltalk08:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl:this discussion is going nowhere: sure if you keep avoiding the questions asked to you. So you are walking away while your shallow closure rationale is scrutinised (you've not added a single word of base clarification afterwards) and after you casting Bad Faith accusations re me, irresponsibly walking away when asked for substance or redaction. I call !votecounting, incompetence, and personal attack. Best is to strike each and every post by Qwerfjkl as nullified. What else can one do? DePiep (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep, By If you really believe my closure was incorrect I meant that you should be certain the closure was wrong before asking for review, given that everyone else in the discussion disagreed. ― Qwerfjkltalk07:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adumbrativus "Editors also discussed procedural matters": this underestimates the nature of Bad Faith accusations posted by all three posting editors and by the closing editor. By doing so, all contributions should be stricken before closing (i.e., as if not present). There is no benefit for Wikipedia in rewarding Personal Attacks. (Especially Marcochappelle stands out for repeatingly doing so while explicitly not responding to questions or dissussion). Next, i.e. even when ignoring the PAs as if not made, the "consensus" you gauge is based on non-engagement with the topic (say category content), not even after invitations to do so. There is the XfD fallacy as if !voting editors are not responsible for research, repeatedly shown here as "only you must provide better names or else ..". I call drive-by-!voting/nominating. DePiep (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(As CFD nominator) For the record, see here for the original Speedy renaming request by DePiep, which drew attention to this group of template categories. At the end of the full CFD, DePiep acknowledged that "What alternative rename would make the intended/actual use clear to other editors?" was "the right core question" and said "it takes more time", so we gave him a month, during which he came up with nothing.
As for his objections at CFD:
the new names do not reflect the (actual and intenteded) content – disputed; indeed, that complaint may apply more to the original names
they do not use smart naming principles – disputed, see user:Gonnym's contributions at CFDS
they forego editors' input actually working in the area – accepted that it was a WP:Bold nomination without prior discussion, but it was notified to e.g. WT:CHEM and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements via Article Alerts
they are not well researched - disputed; the nomination made comparisons with sibling categories.
Nothing of what you bring up here can undo the fact that the proposed names are wrong. Suppose, for sake of argument, that I did "WP:OWN" (quod non) the topic, and didn't clean up my room, and had drowned a puppy: still does not matter to the Earth being a sphere. Meanwhile, why didn't you yourself research the categories and the names to reply?
And here is the sneaky points: had I taken up the command to propose better names, (1) nothing in your posts says you'd have accepted any proof or argument, since you have explicitly kept to change into the wrong names anyway. Instead, had you advocated "fair enough, let's research" you'd have shown actual interest in cooperative improvement. (2) Had I taken up that command, you'd have argued "see, he's admitting OWNing, posting as if he were the only one who decides". The fallacy is to put some burden on me—while the base of my claim is in the open for everyone to find & check. The opposite of OWN.
Now this detail needs attention. Re so we gave him a month: who is "we" that "gave"? A secret wikicommanding office? Of course, XfD does not allow editors to self-determine closing time, a closer could come along any moment irrespective of an ongoing research. It's more simple: if you (whoever "you" are) would want to "give" extra time, you could have proposed a Let: no change now, & go to a talkpage. Maintaining "you must prove, or else we'll change to the wrong categorynames" makes no sense.
Wrapping up: The approach "prove or else" is incorrect by due Wikipedia process.And I reject all smears of OWNership, however soft-posted, as being not substantiated and spoiling the discussions. First of all, Fayenatic_london, I request that you withdraw that suggestion and allow for a constructive discussion. DePiep (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "we" I meant the rest of the Wikipedia community members who took any interest in the matter. So far nobody else has supported your assertions that there is anything incorrect about the new names.
Fayenatic london, I note that you do not reply to any of the issues I pointed out. Your bad faith personal attack of OWN is very serious, and I might expect responsibility when challenged. -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So Fayenatic london, you are saying: you are acting in bad faith, you should have done more so. And then you walk away from responding. For clarity: the Speedy CFDS renaming is independent of the CfD by any means. The CfD addresses non-speedy Moves full stop. Why don't you admit they are distinct? Why do you keep mixing up proposals & arguments? If you thought anything was wrong, you could have addressed this at CFDS instead of perform the speedy move yourself. Drop it.
Another point: it occurs that none of the editors took the obvious suggestion to look into the categories themselves, and research actual content & setup. Why not? (Instead, it was commanded to me—as if to provoke me into an OWNership claim). Of course, the fact "new names do not cover the content" was and is open for everyone to research. And to discuss in a talk (no editor nor the closer has picked up this wikipedian constuctivist proposal). Even worse, instead of taking a good look, editors kept !voting for a change into bad names, i.e., never acknowledging the possibility they were on the wrong track, aka 'fair enough'. This is an illustration of Drive By Tagging (or drive by !voting): editors who are not engaged in the topic, and not willing to engage, but still dropping !votes–lean backwards–saying "convince me that I am wrong". In this case, FL. I don't see how this is improving the encyclopedia, especially not involved editors cooperation. DePiep (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the four "disputed" and argumentation notes added by FL here: the "comparision with sibling categories" was already challenged in my opposition post: one reference category is an unused "graveyard", and "following category tree names will also be incorrect", and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; nor other objections. Nom FL never returned to "dispute" these content objections, instead FL kept advocating "this is an improvement" not a "fair enough, let's take time to develop better names" (yet still claims that I was responsible for researching this, not anybody else -- provokinig OWN and BF accusations). FL evaded the respnsibility following their posts including nomination, I call Drive-by-!Voting. DePiep (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) per Adumbrativus. The consensus among editors was rather clear. The sole opponent did not do much to substantiate their arguments that Proposed new name does not describe or reflect the content, and dodged the question What alternative rename would make the intended/actual use clear to other editors? for a month. This is clearcut filibustering. No such user (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't people respond without a personal attack? Is it, that proper content arguments fail? Anyway, above I already described why "a month" does not qualify, and that such a command-to-prove-or-else is not XfD process, while it does falsely inject WP:OWNership presumptions. Fallacies then. A PA andWP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT: a neglectable contribution. DePiep (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user: let me recap. You posted here obviously without grasping my arguments, and certainly not responding to it. You did not reply to the fallacy I pointed out, nor the bad faith accusations. Though you did find motivation to add another bad faith accusation.
All in all, that is drive-by-!voting: throwing out !votes & PAs without engagement and skipping replying. Then, since I do defend against both BF and fallacies as is my good right you tally that against me (but not read nor respond to). Given you take the easy catch-22 seat (when I respond you tally that as obstruction, when I do not respond you can freely assume that accusations & claims are undisputed so true), what better options you suggest I have? DePiep (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
