Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 July

< 2013 June	Move review archives	2013 August >

2013 July edit

Philippe of Belgium – Close endorsed. Consensus here is clear that this move could be seen as uncontroversial and so the closer did not err - if a move is uncontroversial it can be carried out regardless of whether the correct process for asking for it was followed. This close does not, of course, preclude a requested move being started to move this article back to Philippe, King of the Belgians (or indeed somewhere else) although obviously such a move would now be controversial. – Dpmuk (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User:Gryffindor did not follow the spirit and intent of RMCI because the move request was open for only seven minutes as shown here, substantially preventing expression of any arguments in the matter differing from those of the move's initiator and its closer, thus making it effectively impossible to fairly ensure that "consensus is determined not by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but by evaluating the arguments, assigning due weight accordingly" in closing this requested move. The closer's contention that since the move request complied with applicable rules there was no need to allow time for anyone else's input ignores the fact that the move request may have opposition and therefore be controversial (I would have listed grounds for opposing the move, but could not reasonably have done so when only seven minutes were allowed to notice, read, craft and save a response to the talk page), there may be additional relevant information to be adduced or consensus may have changed, but none of those extenuating circumstances could be raised or evaluated in seven minutes. FactStraight (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong overturn and allow to list for the usual week at least. ~~While this was surely done in good faith,~~ it is quite bizarre; the editor knew enough about RM to perform a close, but apparently not enough to know how wildly inappropriate it is to immediately close a request instead of letting it run. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, an admin did this? There's no way this should have happened. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Believe it or not, articles are moved all the time on Wikipedia without move requests. The move was very much clearly in line with articles of a similar subject matter (i.e. other kings of Belgium, other kings and queens around the world). We don't need a bureaucratic week-long discussion on bringing an article title in line with obvious, basic naming guidelines. If you feel it should be moved back (and good luck with that), feel free to start a new move request. -- tariqabjotu 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support correct BOLD decision, see everyone else in Category:Belgian_monarchs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Surtsicna moved the article after the inthronisation to a format that was not fitting any of our established rules for naming Belgian monarchs, since the name existed already and prevented the user from moving it himself. I saw his request and reasons on the talk page and decided that this was a matter that warranted a rapid move and closure. Anyone objecting to the name can post on the talk page and I will gladly move it to somewhere else once consensus has been reached, but I see this as a current event that had to be decided on very swiftly and I have seen no complaints on the talk page so far. and User:BDD, please assume good faith. Gryffindor (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been suggested that Baudouin of Belgium be moved to Baudouin, King of the Belgians. Therefore, I don't think Gryffindor could have imagined that there could be anything controversial about moving Philippe, King of the Belgians to Philippe of Belgium. I myself would have filed the request under non-controversial if I hadn't found it easier to just copy-paste the regular move request. As I said, nothing indicated that the move could be controversial. The title Philippe, King of the Belgians was not the result of any consensus or any prior discussion. It was just a title I chose because the better one was unavailable and the title that stood for years had become incorrect. Surtsicna (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, moves are made all the time without a move request, but once a move request is initiated, Wikipedians are supposed to have an opportunity to weigh in on the disposition of that request and to have their views considered. That was pre-empted by closing the discussion before it began. I asked the closer to re-consider in light of these points, but was refused. The move should be reversed and the discussion re-opened. If the move was uncontroversial it will be approved by consensus, if not the result will actually reflect a consensus that emerged rather than a truncated process. Seven minutes is just too brief to allow anyone's input -- it gives the impression that the move was done to prevent differing views from yielding a different result, and sets a bad precedent. FactStraight (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - the closer had every right to assume this to be an uncontroversial move, given that it is the same title format used for all other Belgian kings. Just because some editor somewhere opens a move request, does not mean we're then bound into some weeklong ritual of hanging around waiting for votes before the move is allowed to take place. An uncontroversial move is an uncontroversial move, both before and after the start of the RM process. — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close obvious and uncontroversial. I think the request was made by the person who did the original move? If you want to move it back, just open a new RM, but per IAR the closer saved time and money here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Standard form for reigning monarchs. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 07:45, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Santa María de Óvila – Close endorsed. Review has been requested on the ground that Tariqabjotu did not provide enough reasoning for his close. In my opinion the arguments offered in the discussion justify a move. There is really nothing to find fault with in the comments by either side, as Tariqabjotu noted. There was a numerical majority favoring the move, and there was a bigger turnout than in the previous move discussion back in 2012. It does not come as a complete shock that moves to titles with diacritics are succeeding more often than they did in the past, and this move may be another grain of sand in that trend. The trend could turn around with the next move though, so nothing is guaranteed. Among those who commented in this MRV only the nominator felt that the closing rationale was inadequate, though User:Amakuru believes that the move proposal may have been too soon after the one in 2012. There was a gap of one year between the two requests. – EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User:Tariqabjotu did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he did not explain how he arrived at a decision of consensus to move the page, and appears to have simply counted !votes in closing this requested move. When asked on his talkpage for an explanation, he initially said it was "self-evident". When pressed for his evaluation of the arguments presented at the RM, he replied: "more people disagreed with your position; their reasons seemed -- and still seem -- perfectly valid". This response is inadequate and does not follow the spirit of RMCI. It's not about whether more people agree with one position or another - especially when only seven editors participated in the RM. It's about evaluating the strength of those positions in light of WP's policies and guidelines, and determining whether or not a consensus had emerged. And a closer should always be willing to provide their evaluation of an RM; hopefully on the RM page itself when there's been healthy debate, and certainly when asked on their talkpage. People put thought and effort into these discussions, and it would be nice to know that the people evaluating the discussions are doing the same.Dohn joe (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin Closing a discussion against numbers in favor of the quality of arguments is, virtually without fail, controversial. So, if that is to be done, it needs to be done with good reason. Obviously Dohn joe disagrees with the arguments of the supporters of the move request, but I do believe those supporting arguments did properly appeal to our policies and guidelines (even if not they did not explicitly state which ones, much as the opponents didn't). I don't know what further explanation I could possibly give the requesting editor here; the supporting remarks were quite clear to understand, and I don't believe there's any commentary I could give that could shed more light on the conclusion. -- tariqabjotu 17:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close, and additional appreciation to Tariqabjotu for his eloquent take on the "vote-counting" problem here. It's hardly surprising that one of the oppose voters felt the two opposes had the stronger arguments than the five supporters, but between Tariqabjotu and me, at least two uninvolved editors disagree. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom. I'm not trying to be a sore loser here - or even saying that the close was necessarily wrong. I'm just saying that the closer has not explained his decision well enough for anyone to make that evaluation. As to the vote-counting issue, I agree that we rarely find consensus against numbers (although it does happen). However, there are also very rarely cases where !supports and !opposes are exactly even - and yet we routinely find "no consensus". Tariqabjotu has still given no reason why he closed this as "move" and not "no consensus" other than "more people !voted that way". Dohn joe (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More people felt the move should have been done, and their reasons for feeling that way were valid. I have said that a number of times now and there is no need for a further explanation. If you want to know what reasons I found valid, then re-read the comments made during the RM discussion; I should not be providing my own reason as to why the move should be occurring. I found the opposition's points reasonable as well, but, unfortunately for you, more people sided with the points made by the supporters. There is no basis for a no consensus verdict, unless you take consensus as unanimity (which it is not). -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not require unanimity - never has, on WP. "No consensus", however, does not require an equal split in !votes, either. Otherwise, "no consensus" would be a rare outcome indeed! We find no consensus all the time, even where "More people felt the move should have been done, and their reasons for feeling that way were valid." Even in 5-2 splits. All I've been asking for is a non-!votecounting explanation why this particular 5-2 split was consensus to move, rather than no consensus. Does anyone else see my issue here? Dohn joe (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse close - I am somewhat concerned with the fact that this move request was initiated less than a year after a previous one found no consensus. The practice of repeatedly starting move requests until finally one of them sticks is quite an odious one, and editor's who weigh in with arguments in this process deserve to have closure without needing to repeatedly check back to see if another request has gone up. However, given that there is no specific rule preventing such a rerun I am disregarding that, and deem that the arguments made by the support side are solid enough and numerous enough that the move was correctly made. — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hollywood – Close endorsed. Clear consensus that the closer correctly interpreted the consensus at the RM. – Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I want a review of the decision at Talk:Hollywood#Requested_move, but I cannot figure out the code used in the format above. My reason is: The discussion was closed only 5.5 hours after the proposer added an important new argument to the process: More time should have been allowed. I am asking for at least an additional seven days, which is warranted for such an important article.GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. There was an overwhelming consensus in favor of not moving the page, and the closer correctly judged that. And for the record this is the so-called "import new argument" GeorgeLouis added. It couldn't seem more irrelevant to me. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an overwhelming vote, which has nothing to do with WP:Consensus. Consensus could have been built for another solution; for example, directing all "Hollywood" references to go to Hollywood (disambiguation). In short, the closer really jumped the gun. I have a whole lot of diffs that I had prepared to help achieve consensus, but I was not allowed time to present them. Five hours!. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You had nine days to make your case, not five hours. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The conversation was continuing, but it was abruptly cut off. There is no "case." It is not a trial. It is striving for consensus. All I want is to reach a consensus, and there is no consensus-building when there is no conversation. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a formal RM, this was clearly going no where, and could be closed no other way. However, there is room for further discussion outside the RM process. This is an unusual one. The article is about a neighborhood that is very much not what the average reader expects when looking for the mythological hollywood of movie making. Someone, someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in the concept of "hollywood" is probably more likely to be looking for more like Classical Hollywood cinema than the aged, highly diverse, densely populated, mostly immigrant, low-income residential neighborhood, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, which also happens to include a functional tourist trap. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Textbook closure. -- tariqabjotu 09:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - the RM had its due time, there was overwhelming consensus not to move, and with valid reasons given. I suggest the proposer stop WP:FLOGging the dead horse and move on to other things! Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was perfectly within all RM procedures. It's hard to not see this as case of WP:JDLI. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I was involved and opposed the proposal. But with the back log we have there is no urgency to close RMs where the discussion is ongoing. I favor waiting for discussion to die down before closing an RM... what's the hurry? The only exception would be when consensus clearly favors the move - we don't want to create another filibuster loophole for status quo stonewalling. But that was not the case here. --B2C 00:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Moctezuma II – Decision endorsed. If I had been the original move closer I might well have used reasoning similar to User:Maunus' proposal below. Everyone who commented except Maunus and SmokeyJoe is endorsing the original move closure, though some have commented on the rationale. Since the title is going to stay at Moctezuma II whether the result is No consensus or Not moved, and since it's not easy to have a policy discussion at MRV, I recommend that anyone interested should read the editor comments below and form their own conclusion about the scope of COMMONNAME. Meanwhile, Maunus has opened a policy discussion about WP:COMMONNAME at WT:AT. – EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I believe the close as "no consensus" does not adequately represent the status of the argument, and I believe the closing rationale misrepresents the commonname policy which clearly states that the usage in reliable sources usually takes precedence. I think the closing rationale provides a problematic precedent by dismissing the argument that more reliable sources should be given precedent over google hits and ngrams that include non-specialized sources. I seems clear to me that the majority of participating editors (9 editors) are arguing that the usage in more reliable specialist sources should be followed, an argument clearly based in policy, and that the minority argument (4 editors) are arguing that WP:COMMONNAME privileges layman's usage over specialist usage. Both arguments are based in policy and neither can therefore be dismissed. This in my opinion should lead to a close of "no move", but more importantly I think the fact that both arguments are policybased should be noted, whereas the current rational suggests that the argument that more reliable sources should be given priority is against policy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. If scholarly usage always trumped common usage, we wouldn't even have WP:COMMONNAME. In weighing arguments, I discounted some such arguments against the move, but still found the oppose votes as a whole convincing enough to balance out the arguments in favor of the move. And while this is of less importance, per WP:NOTAVOTE, there were five editors in support, not four—nominators don't forgo the chance to have their own arguments counted. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that it always does. I am arguing that in this case there is a clear consensus of 9 to 4 that it does and that this consensus is based in policy. My problem is that you are discarding an argument that is valid and based in poliocy and privileging a minority argument, also based in policy because you happen to agree with it. I think that is wrong. And I think you are setting a precedent for an erroneous interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME according to which layman sources always trump scholarly sources if the usage is distinct. The Policy clearly states that the usage of reliable sources should be given preference and here there is a clear consensus that reliable sources dont use the suggested named. The argument of the minority side is that all usage, also non reliable sources and sources that is not even about the topic trumps scholarly usage in reliable sources. That is why I have a problem with your policy rationale. It sets a false precedent for future move requests for this articles and for naming policy in general. The only argument in the entire discussion that is not policy based is the one by User:Skookum1 which I even point out in the discussion. BUt that still shows twice as many editors with policybased arguments to oppose as those with policybased arguments to move. That looks like a consensus to me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I think this is OK, and the sentiment is alright. If scholarly sources say one thing but a large majority of other reliable sources (i.e. reputable newspapers, books etc.) say another, then the latter should prevail. If the proposed "common usage" is only found in blogs, conversation and nonreliable sources then it should not be considered. Finally, if scholarly sources say one thing, and other sources say another thing, in roughly equal numbers, then the scholarly should take precedence. — Amakuru (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the case that a large majority of other reliable sources use the proposed name and noone has argued that it does. The minority group argues that simple google statistics which includes all usage, in laymans sources, in fiction and in sources that are not about the person at all trump the usage of sources that is considered reliable for the topic. Furthermore the closing rationale is clearly taking the stance that the argument that reliable scholarly sources should be privileged to be against policy, which as you are clearly aware of, it is not. That is why I want at least the rationale changed. If this is not changed I will have to proceed to make an RfC at WP:Commonname to clarify the community's stance on this, because it will be significant in future naming discussions of many native american historical figures. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look around, and from my nonexpert standpoint I think this may fall into the third category I mentioned - usage across all reliable sources (academic or otherwise) is fairly evenly split. So in this instance using the academic title seems good, as per my self-written guideline above. However, my reading of BDD's closing comment was that he/she felt uncomfortable with the view being put across by some at the RM that academic usage should *always* trump common usage in other reliable sources, and I share that concern. Since WP:COMMONNAME deals explicitly with that very point, editors should take concerns there rather than trying to establish counter policies on individual RMs. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additional consideration of my argument and your response. Perhaps you are right that WP:COMMONNAME is a better place to ask for clarification of the guidelines regarding conflict between layman usage and the usage in type of literature that could be used as sources for the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It's of no consequence, as the article isn't being moved in either case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I am arguing I dont care much about the specific consequences of the close, but about the policy related consequences. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The effective result matters more than the specific wording the closer used, especially if changed wording would have had the exact same result. And you do not need to respond to every comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the possible effect on policy matters more than the specific outcome of this single case, and I didn't come here to dispute the result but the rationale. And I believe I am entitled to answer any or all posts as I see fit.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't help your position by bludgeoning the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this appears to be an attempt to subvert WP:COMMONNAME Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact I am arguing that the close enforces a non-standard interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME, which will have consequences for future naming discussions. Please demonstrate how I am attempting to subvert the policy that I in fact consider myself to be defending.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (rewrite the explanation). Whether this was "no consensus to move" or "consensus to not move", the conclusion is fine. However, the closing statement is not the best. We are not interested in the closer's comfort, and more seriously, the closing statement seem to take a narrow, almost erroneous view of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names. The poicy is not well summarized by the text "COMMONNAME". The policy does not, never has done, in text or spirit, preferred vernacular over scholarly usage. If one asks "commonly recognized by whom", the answer is provided by "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". It may be a stretch, but certainly not much of one, to take the adjective "reliable" as meaning that more reliable sources are to be considered with more weight than less reliable sources. I don't think anyone disputes that we consider scholarly sources to be more reliable than newspapers or ghits. The closer is therefore completely wrong to assert that upweighting "scholarly useage" is "about as strong a rejection of WP:COMMONNAME as you'll ever see", and this statement must not be allowed to stand as a reading of a community consensus discussion.
Another problem with the closing statement that is very poor is the "at this time". By this, what is meant? Is the closer encouraging multi-round RM battles? Is the closer asserting a random LocalConsensus outcome? "Nevertheless, there's no consensus to move" is a fair conclusion, but the next three words should be struck. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the WP:COMMONNAME section of policy, and attempts to clarify what it means, interested editors, including the closer, should see the active discussions at:

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my comment. By rejecting "scholarly usage trumps common usage," it does not follow that I was asserting common usage trumps scholarly; rather, they need to be considered together. If I say something isn't black, that's not the same as saying it's white. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was certainly also not clear to me from your statement, so maybe you could clarify. When you say that "the suggestions that scholarly usage trumps common usage ... is about as strong a rejection of WP:COMMONNAME as you'll ever see" I can only read that to mean that scholarly usage never trumps "common" usage and that WP:COMMONNAME clearly and unequivocally takes this stance. That is, it reads as a complete rejection of the idea that particularly reliable sources should be weighed heavier than layman's sources and usage - which I think the policy clearly suggests that it should. So, again if you could clarify your rationale so that it doesn't seem to say that the argument of the majority camp is invalid according to policy, that would make me a very happy man.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BDD, scholarly usage *is* preferred over non scholarly usage. That is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME as worded, and is consistent with the notion that Wikipedia tries to be a high quality scholarly, reference work. Your use of "trump", implying a simplistic & thoughtless decision making process, was inappropriate. While you didn't make first use of the word in the RM, the other use doesn't match your use. No one suggested that anything trumped anything else. I'm afraid that your closing explanation middle sentence explains nothing to the participants, and it introduces your own contentious opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. As per Cúchullain It's of no [significant] consequence, as the article isn't being moved in either case. However, BDD, the close wording can be tweaked in line with concerns. There is a deeper/wider problem with WP:COMMONNAME as it is copy-edited and often interpreted. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Dark Knight (film) – Overturn. There is solid consensus that the closing decision was out of line. The article will not be relisted due to the amount of time passed. There is no other action to be taken as the previous decision to move was never carried out. – Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This is maybe the most bizarre end to a move discussion I've seen. Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) re-listed the discussion [1] and explained that he did so "To provide more time for uninvolved users to comment in the hopes of reaching a consensus" [2] which seems fair enough, even if it should have been clear to anyone there was strong consensus against the move at the time. But then he closed the discussion just 15 hours later, finding consensus to move [3] (for the record here is all the discussion on the page between his re-listing and close [4]. It's fairly lengthy but nothing seems to have changed in terms of consensus). I did question Nathan on his talk page a couple hours ago, but am moving forward with the move review after seeing Nathan's statement that "I'm not an admin, but there seems to be a rush to get this to WP:MR, so closed" [5] left at WP:ANRFC. Also note that while Nathan closed the discussion as "page moved," he did not request deletion of The Dark Knight which he would need to do as a non-admin to make the move. As a final note, I didn't participate in this discussion but voted in favor of the move in a prior discussion last year.Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case I wasn't clear, I support overturning the close. There was no consensus to move the page during the discussion. I don't believe extending the discussion will result in anything productive given that this has been discussed four times prior -- including just months ago -- and each requested move has ended with the same result. I'm also concerned that the action's of the requested move's nominator have tainted the process and hampered the ability to have a productive discussion, as others have alluded to below. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The entire discussion was FOR moving because the other party did not expand on their arguments, and I refuted all of them. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no scoring system here. You can't nullify someone else's comments by responding to them, and there is no requirement for people to respond when you say something. In fact, I suggest that you were too dominant in that discussion, and I think I see you repeating that behavior here. Sometimes you should sit back and see what other people have to say without responding constantly. I suggest to read WP:BLUDGEON. This isn't a contest to see who can have "the last word". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact, I suggest that you were too dominant in that discussion" - well, it was me who started the entire discussion. It shouldn't be surprising at all that I was responding to all points that were being made. Randomuser112 (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments provided by those supporting the move were vastly better than those opposing as I stated in the closing statement. Those opposing the move did so based on an essay (WP:RECENTISM) and referral to a 2.5 year old discussion that used the same argument. Those supporting the move referenced the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. I originally relisted the discussion because I thought that more input from uninvolved users would provide additional insight into which policies and guidelines were relevant to the the discussion. It would have preferable to have a more solid consensus, but after I relisted the debate, there were several users that requested that it should have been closed instead. If the use of policy is really what matters in determining consensus, then I believe that the close is correct. If it's just a vote-counting exercise, then the close should be overturned. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Added later) I think this should be relisted. I think that because of all the previous requested moves (of which I only knew of one at the time of the closure due to issues with linking to the wrong thread), those opposing the move did not fully articulate their arguments. This, coupled with the repeated comments by one particular user, discouraged any input from previously uninvolved users. Something should be done about users who engage in argumentum ad infinitum if it's decided to relist the debate. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close There was no consensus to move it. Whether the closer agreed with either side's arguments, there was not enough support from other editors to move. It should have been closed as No consensus / Not moved. || Tako (bother me) || 18:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you keep repeating this same nonsense, right? This is not a straw poll. The arguments provided by your party were outweighed by those provided by me, and I can continue making new arguments while you'll keep rehashing the same arguments, as evidenced by the lengthy discussion. Randomuser112 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, are you aware that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC itself reads in part "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, [emphasis not mine] if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term?" Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want me to elaborate on the significance of the film? Because most of you probably do not understand what importance this film has. Other titles presented on the DAB page are not even close to being as popular and as important as the film itself. Randomuser112 (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I asked the question of Nathan Johnson, not you. Your position is obvious, so please let the adults discuss this and stop badgering. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. You still don't understand (or continue ignoring) the importance of the film, and therefore your argument is null and void. I explained a million times why the film satisfies BOTH criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the other titles do not. Randomuser112 (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I think the choice to move was too hasty, and didn't deal with all of the facts in a particularly subjective manner. A large proportion of the !votes were in opposition, and there were some good reasons given by some editors. An alternative suggestion, as put forward by Erik was unfortunately largely ignored due to the time it was made, but I certainly think it deserved more thought. On one hand, I think it was good that the uninvolved admin had little previous experience of the DC Universe in general, but on the other, it did (again, my opinion) impede the judgement he made; the discussion did not fully cover the facts needed to make an impartial decision. I know there will never be an ideal world, but I think a "no consensus" outcome would have been more sensible, and given involved parties time to cool off and alternative options, such as the aforementioned, to be explored and prepared for a more detailed proposal. Randomuser: these are my personal opinions and I politely request that you do not comment on, nor attempt to engage in any debate over these during this review; this is neither the time nor the place for us to rekindle the argument for the sake of it. drewmunn talk 18:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " On one hand, I think it was good that the uninvolved admin had little previous experience of the DC Universe in general, but on the other, it did (again, my opinion) impede the judgement he made; the discussion did not fully cover the facts needed to make an impartial decision." I'm going to stop you right there because this is just wrong. Anyone who's a DC reader will have a predilection against the film because some of the titles listed on the DAB page are comic books. Randomuser112 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you have predilection against everything else related to "[The] Dark Knight" because you /only/ watched the movie. Yeah, it works both ways. || Tako (bother me) || 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comic books readers are in a serious minority when it comes to this billion-dollar-grossing film. Every piece of data is in favor of the film and against all of those titles COMBINED. So continue filling this place with bullshit when every fact is going against your ridiculous claims. Randomuser112 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you not to comment because I have nothing more to say to you at this time. You are just attempting to instigate a content battle, which is not what this review is for. The outcome of the request is under review, not the request and its underlying debate. drewmunn talk 18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close, classify as "No consensus (not moved)": When closing the discussion, Nathan said "the previous requested move was two and a half years ago". Excuse me, but there were four previous formal move requests, and the last one (in Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Archive 13) was closed on 25 November, 2012. That was seven months ago, not 30 months ago. My personal impression (as I previously said) was that the state of the conversation indicated a close as "no move" or "no consensus". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the number of opposers? Randomuser112 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not just that. Also, I repeat my comment that I think you may be engaging in WP:BLUDGEONing in this discussion. It also seems clear to me that you are engaging WP:UNCIVIL behavior, for example, with this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Not just that" - I'm stopping you right there. What are the arguments for not moving? Explain. Randomuser112 (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're stopping me? You have a very strong pattern of trying to stop people from participating in this discussion. That is highly inappropriate. You respond to nearly every comment, you have been repeatedly cursing, you told someone to "shut up", to "just go away", to "just stop commenting on this page", to "just leave this place". You said someone "couldn't construct a decent argument to save his [***]", and said "your inability to back up 1% of what you're saying is staggering". You made several other very dismissive remarks directed personally at individuals. This is very WP:UNCIVIL behavior including personal attacks. You should not be trying to stop anyone anymore. You should be apologizing abjectly. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, and how is any of that relevant to the discussion? Randomuser112 (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It is relevant to this discussion because your continued WP:BLUDGEONing, personal attacks, general rudeness, and foul language are preventing us from establishing the constructive atmosphere we need in this discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to concur. I was reluctant to endorse relisting because I know there will be more bludgeoning if the RM discussion is indeed relisted. I went ahead and endorsed, but I can't say I'm looking forward to it. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There won't be any more bludgeoning on my part if the opposing party makes some actual arguments in the upcoming discussion. There were only two opposers who were trying to explain their stance. The rest of them kept referring to previous discussions, which I dont't think is an argument for not moving at all. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No. There will be no bludgeoning. PERIOD. Not "as long as Randomuser112 thinks opposing views have made arguments". Not AT ALL. If you cannot contribute constructively then formal process may need to be invoked. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close, do not relist - Closure was appropriate, but not the outcome; there most certainly was not a consensus to move the article. The arguments were spinning in circles with little new being contributed by old or new participants alike, which is a clear indication it was time close. However, dueling but legitimate interpretations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC were presented by a large number of editors on both sides, and there was anything but a consensus supporting the interpretation that would prompt the move. Consensus for a move should not have been found. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are severe failings in the admin's closing statement:

Those arguing to keep the article at this current title cited WP:RECENTISM and a previous requested move.

This is not a correct summary of the arguments in favor of retention. Editors in favor of retention also invoked the second criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which states A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance.

Further, the previous requested move was two and a half years ago and consensus can change

This is not correct. This is the fifth move request, the previous ones being September 2009 (not moved), January 2011 (no consensus), March 2012 (no consensus) and October 2012 (no consensus).

The arguments in favor of moving the article vastly outweigh those against the move

The only argument that I have seen invoked in favor of the move is PRIMARYTOPIC. The same guideline was also invoked against the move. So the arguments are pretty well balanced, the only difference being the interpretation.

All the points listed above are important failings in the closer's statement. I would like to see the closer address the following points:

Two different interpretations of PRIMARYTOPIC were invoked, so I would like to know why one particular interpretation trumps the other. This was never addressed at all in the original closing statement, so should be addressed here.
What circumstances have changed since the previous four move requests, the last just being 8 months ago?
What are the arguments for the move (besides PRIMARYTOPIC which is being invoked by both sides) that vastly outweigh those against the move? If there are good reasons it would help if they had been included in the closing statement.

If the closer could address each of my points I would appreciate it. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randomuser112's response to Betty Logan's comment:

This question cannot be addressed without starting the discussion again.
The filing party providing actual arguments?
This is not true. The supporting party also provided WP:PRECISION as an argument for moving. Randomuser112 (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here lies the problem: the closer has not mentioned PRECISION at all so the participants in the discussion do not not know how relevant it was to the final decision. If it indeed played a part in his decision then it should have been explicitly mentioned in his closing statement. If you look carefully at my concerns I am not endorsing the move or an overturn, I am asking why the closing statement has misrepresented one side of the argument and hasn't mentioned the "other reasons" he speaks of. A closing statement regardless of whether it is in favor of a move or against it should explicitly list each argument and clarify the bearing it has on the final decision so editors can understand the outcome. Even if the decision is correct, the close itself is full of inaccuracies since it does not accurately summarise the debate. Betty Logan (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Let's wait for Nathan. Randomuser112 (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of the last RM, you're right that the last RM was 8 months ago. I simply clicked the link provided in the discussion and it went to the January 2011 thread. On not citing PRIMARYTOPIC for the opposes in the close, I should have. I did take it into consideration, but thought that long-term significance had been shown. I'm not so sure now, see comment below. There are two potentially conflicting clauses in PRIMARYTOPIC. When they do conflict, it has generally been the case (from my experience) that the title will end up reflecting the first clause; that is the clause based on usage and not long-term significance. I can't point to any discussions off-hand, but that's been my impression. PRECISION arguments were ignored as wrongly interpreting the policy. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning straight endorse. Not much impressed with the generality of the closing assertion that Recentism at five years is very weak, but it does seem appropriate to this specific case. I can't see any significant topic of long term significance, it's all modern fiction or derived uses from modern fiction. Normally NACs are better avoided for contentious discussions, but Nathan has a particularly respected aptitude for incisive readings of discussions. I'm hesitant because normally a number of steadfast opposers means the case is not sufficiently explained, but I find myself completely in the same place as the last two !voters at Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)/Archive_13#Requested_move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close, do not relist close as Consensus not to move per WP:BLUDGEON campaign of Randomuser112, making the process unacceptable. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I call this bullshit. It was more like a bunch of DC comics fans going apeshit over the huge success and importance of the film and doing their best to make the film look insignificant. Randomuser112 (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Randomuser112, do you notice that you respond to nearly every other editor's comments? That you do so even when their comments are explicitly directed to a different editor from yourself, as in the case of Hot Stop, drewmunn, and Betty Logan in this move review alone? And that you repeat your same arguments over and over again? That is bludgeoning a discussion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The last comment was directed at me, and I respond to other comments because I'm the one who started the move request. Randomuser112 (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I can understand where Nathan was coming from with his closure -- I found some of the opposition to be quite baffling. The sentiment among opposition seems to be best summed up (as essentially explicitly stated by Betty Logan's statement there) by even though this film is the most sought-after topic at this point in time, and people would unlikely look for Batman using this term, the term is historically associated with Batman himself and it's possible it will return to being so twenty or thirty years from now. That doesn't seem to be a particularly strong reason, as we can always move the article back in 2030 or 2040 if the primary meaning reverts. However, "historical significance" is a valid point under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so even though I believe the opposition is giving too much attention to it, it is a point to consider. Given we have several people involved in this move request who have referred to previous participation in move requests, I share the legitimate concern that we have a large number of participants highly interested in these comics, with greater background knowledge than the general public may have (who may conceivably more clearly see this film as the primary topic). So, I suggest relisting to allow a wider participation; two weeks is not actually that long by move request standards anyway. For the record, though, I am not suggesting that if a majority oppose this, the move must not be made. However, the opposition is so overwhelming at this point that it is difficult to discount their superficially admissible points about historical significance. -- tariqabjotu 11:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what's the historical significance of the other titles? Nobody has explained this. Randomuser112 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "share the legitimate concern that we have a large number of participants highly interested in these comics, with greater background knowledge than the general public may have" This is a pro-film argument. Wikipedia articles are centered around general public, not comic book fanboys. The overwhelming majorty of people haven't even heard of the comics that are listed on the DAB page. Randomuser112 (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, can you please stop? Your incessant commenting is the most annoying aspect of this move request, and I have little doubt that it's decreasing the likelihood that anyone will be sympathetic to your position. Even here, you felt the need to pull out a statement of mine that agreed with you and respond to it. Seriously, find something else to do with your time; your position has been heard loud and clear already, and the result of this move review isn't going to cause empires to fall. -- tariqabjotu 12:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally relisted the debate to attract wider participation, so I too think that's what should be done. But participants wanted it closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My impression of the RM discussion is that the editors who opposed the move did not fully articulate their arguments, believing that what was argued before applied easily and that there was a foregone conclusion to the move. There were also arguments about WP:RECENTISM, which I think was misapplied. If we talk about recentism, then at what point is the film old enough, if not five years old? That's why I didn't specifically cite recentism in my stance. I think that basically leaves WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I think we can all agree that the 2008 film article is primary in "respect to usage". I think when editors cited recentism, they were indirectly referring to "respect to long-term significance", which itself is open to interpretation. To use a more obvious example, a biographical film that uses the person's name in the title would be disambiguated because no matter how popular the film is, it would not "override" the term going to the person's article. In this case, "The Dark Knight" is a nickname for Batman, so it is a step removed. Toward the end of the discussion, I created The Dark Knight (nickname) to see if there was encyclopedic weight, and I think there is. The nickname's history did not start with The Dark Knight, though that has recently (wink) popularized the term. I'm not sure how the nickname article could be used as part of the setup. It just seems to me that on a long enough timeline, the more definitive term (the nickname itself) has "greater enduring notability" because of its general and widespread use. As for "educational value", hard to say. The references for the nickname article seem academic enough. As for what to do here, I don't have a strong preference, but if discussion is continued, I hope others will consider my points and the encyclopedic role of the nickname. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Are we continuing the initial discussion? Randomuser112 (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close, do not relist There are effectively four separate issues flying around here.

The application of WP:RECENTISM is far from the clarity the closer asserted. Yes this film was released five years ago but regardless of whether five years is normally "not recent", the film had a sequel released last year with a variant of the title and so the clock has been somewhat reset. We should wait at least a good few years after the whole trilogy before make binding assertions that WP:RECENTISM no longer applies.
There is disagreement on the application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this area; commenters on both sides have pointed to different aspects of it. Since the WP:RECENTISM argument isn't applicable it's not clear why one interpretation overrides that which has overwhelming support.
Contrary to the closer's assertion "the previous requested move was two and a half years ago"; the most recent requested move was in fact just eight months ago. (A problem is that the relevant archive page had two moves on it with "Requested move" the header for both. The latter has now been given a unique header.) Although eight months is far from a record between RMs, it is not too long to stop referring back to them.
The user conduct of the nominator in trying to own the discussion, replying to nearly every single oppose !vote and making some rather uncivil comments. That does not create a conducive atmosphere for discussion but rather is the WP:BLUDGEON approach and can discourage further comments to the contrary, making even an otherwise outcome in their favour suspect. Although this is a move review and not a place to address the user themself, such a tainted discussion should not create a lasting outcome. (Annoyingly the horse may already have bolted in regards some of the same conduct issues on this Move Review. As I write this I see the same user has edited this page no less than 3‎4 times in some 21 hours. I think we all know their opinion on the issues by now and don't need to have it repeated ad infinitum. I declare upfront that any reply by them on anything other than their own user conduct will not get a reply from me so they can save themself some time.)

I think plunging straight into another RM will not be productive, especially if it's going to generate more endless walls of text - on my computer it takes up nearly 23 screens. There needs to be cooling off, some restraint in the volume of comments per user and more willingness to see where other opinions are coming from, not another confrontational RM. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3: You're right. I just clicked on the link provided in the discussion and it pointed me to the January 2011 thread. 4: Agree 100% about the user issue. I don't think a result of move would create a lasting outcome. 1: I didn't know it was a trilogy. I don't recall it being brought up in the discussion that there would be another movie. I agree that would influence the weight of RECENTISM. It is still only an essay though. 2: I agree, but thought the arguments in favor of moving were more in line with the results of previous discussions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, or at the very least overturn close. It's obvious from the previous discussion, that there was no consensus to move, before the move discussion was closed. And not to make things worse, but there is also a discussion of the primary topic for The Dark Knight at Talk:The Dark Knight (nickname)#Notability. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist so we can have a clearer discussion about applicable policies and guidelines. (I commented before with some general thoughts of the previous discussion.) After some thought, I think we should revive the discussion and take into consideration the new article Dark Knight (nickname). I do not think anyone disputes that the film article is the most searched-for term, but considering the history of the nickname (now infused with encyclopedic weight), is it fair to give the film full primacy of the term? The film's titling was not novel. It has historical roots, and I think it would be good to have a discussion about the implications of that. I also agree with Betty Logan that whoever closes should articulate about the specific policies and guidelines in the closing statement. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, no relist - I have no particular opinion about the case in hand, but it's very clear from looking at the discussion that there was no consensus to move. Irrespetive of the closer's reading of the "policy arguments", in the end it's people's opinions that drive this process, and if they aren't respected when RMs are closed, then the process will become fairly useless. — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. RM's are not a popularity contest, and it really does not matter how many editors support of oppose a particular position. What is more important is how many different positions are presented and the validity of each. That is also true of MR discussions. Apteva (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really slippery slope you're proposing there. The "validity of each" is always going to be a subjective argument and you end up with a situation where the closing admin basically gets to make the sole call on what happens. I'll be honest with you here, if I had voted in this debate I probably would have voted to move the article to be the primary topic - I've never heard Batman referred to as the "Dark Knight" and I only know of the film. But equally, if I were coming in to close the debate (having not voted), it would be very wrong of me to simply assert that the few support votes have more "merit" than the many oppose votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but in many cases the democratic route is the best one. — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Amakuru. Where fair numbers of editors support different views on how to apply a policy or guideline, and neither view is patently absurd, a closer should not choose which view is more valid and then declare that to be "the consensus." Closers identify consensus, they don't determine it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah? Then how is "consensus" any different from a "poll"? Randomuser112 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is essentially determined by the level of support for applicable arguments. The closer's job is to weed out incorrectly applied guidelines and policies, and IDONTLIKEIT arguments, and then assess the level of support for the relevant arguments. Occasionally that can result in removing the argument that has the most support (if it is founded on faulted logic), but after that it is largely a democratic decision. For the record I don't mind non-admin closures: most are pretty obvious and it helps speed up the process. The odd controversial decision can be brought here for further scrutiny. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and what's wrong with Nathan thinking that arguments of one party were better than those of the other party? Randomuser112 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between identifying consensus and a poll. If a poll, the closer would simply aggregate votes, and the side with the most votes would win. Consensus is based on more than just votes, it's based on the editors' rational arguments, including rational arguments about how to apply a Wikipedia policy or guideline. As Betty Logan said, votes without a rationale, or arguments that plainly contradict Wikipedia policies or guidelines, are discarded when determining consensus. In this discussion, both sides put forth rational arguments based on how to apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and neither argument plainly contradicted the policy. A closer then doesn't get to swoop in and say "this argument is better because I, the closer, happen to agree with it." That's not consensus. As noted in WP:CLOSE, "Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement" (emphasis not mine). If editors cannot agree on which view is correct, then the closer should either relist the discussion to get more input and see if a consensus can be found, or if that seems like a futile effort, then the closer should close the discussion with a "no consensus" outcome. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was relisted, but the opposing party kept saying it should've been closed. And we have the same situation in this move review - the opposers just want it overturned without being relisted. I did not endorse close myself because I still think consensus was not reached. I'd say relisting is imminent. Randomuser112 (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think consensus was reached either, but given the nature and length of the last discussion, I have much less faith than you that a consensus ever will be reached, which is why I support overturning the close without relisting. But who knows. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, I've come up with several new arguments that I did not use in the previous discussion but they surely would've influenced the positions of the participants. So what's the point in not relisting? I think we have every reason to relist the discussion. Randomuser112 (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close, do not relist because the closer was a non-admin that did not properly close the review, failing "The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days)." In the fifteen hours it was relisted, there was only one additional support and one additional oppose added, so it is hard to see how there was no consensus before but with two more opinions plus a lot of back and forth added that suddenly there was a consensus, especially in the move direction. If I had thought about closing the discussion as consensus not to move, but I did not have experience closing discussions and felt it should have been handled by an adim. The entire discussion is hard to read through the because of Randomuser112 deciding he needed to response to every single post and this move review is also hard to follow for the same reason. Aspects (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you don't know what you're talking about, and throwing absurd accusations like "a non-admin did not properly close the review" is not gonna help you either. Nathan clearly explained his decision, and if you disagree with him, you can just say "Overturn close, do not relist" without those derogatory comments. Randomuser112 (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Randomuser112, now you're encouraging people to simply "vote" without giving their arguments, which is exactly the opposite of the stance you maintain when editors oppose your own arguments. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. He could've explained his position without these derogatory remarks. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the instructions at Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a move review in that the Nathan Johnson did not follow Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions since he is a non-admin and WP:RMNAC contained the quote I provided above. The move discussion plus the move review discussion shows that there was not a clear consensus for Nathan Johnson to close the discussion. At no point was anything I said, "derogatory." It should also be pointed at that his non-admin closures were brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive799#Non-admin closures of controversial RM discussions - appropriate? just last month, so he should have read Dennis Brown's close "This means including providing enough information in the close that a passerby can determine the true consensus at a glance, and that those who participated have faith that the close was a reflection of the discussion and not a "supervote"." Although he is now providing more information in his close, it fails that a normal editor could not determine this consensus at a glace and this move review shows that the participators did not feel the close was a reflection of the move discussion. Aspects (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Endorse. As far as I know, I was never involved in any Batman/Dark Knight related title (or other) discussion at all, ever. I certainly was not involved in this one. I couldn't care less about the character, the comic, the films, etc. However, I do care a lot about WP article titles and article title stability.
If anything, the closer understated the case. The Oppose argument was eviscerated by the Support side. Every single point made by Oppose was hit out of the park by Support. Oppose literally had nothing but WP:JDLI on their side. Some Opposers even conceded, "Currently the film is overwhelmingly the primary topic". Q.E.D. This is why I wrote the WP:Yogurt Principle, and it certainly applies here.
Endorsing the close and moving the article accordingly will lead to a stable and uncontroversial title. Why? Because, there will be no solid policy-based ground on which to propose a move back to the disambiguated title. The film is clearly the primary topic. What other use of The Dark Knight comes even close to justifying making it a dab page? Nothing else listed on the Dark Knight dab page is named The Dark Knight. When The Dark Knight was first created[6], in 2006, it redirected to The Dark Knight Returns. That tells us the importance of that term (with the "The") to refer to the "traditional" reference of "the dark knight"... none. And even that lasted but a few months, for also in 2006 the redirect was transformed to... an article about The Dark Knight film [7].
The arguments presented simply did not even begin to show that the film is not the primary topic as claimed in the nom, therefore it was absolutely reasonable to close that discussion with community consensus favoring the move as proposed.
Kudos to both the closer and the Support side of this RM discussion for arguing and adhering to WP policy and guidelines rather than irrelevant personal preferences. --B2C 23:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.