Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 December

< 2016 November	Move review archives	2017 January >

2016 December edit

Steamboat Bill, Jr. – I see a rough consensus that the ultimate decision to move is consistent with the state of the RM discussion at the time it was closed, but that the closing statement was unfortunately worded at best. In light of the strongly worded concerns about the closing admin's involvement from several editors, I have also independently examined the original RM and am satisfied that I would also have closed it with the same result. – T. Canens (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nyttend (talk · contribs), an WP:INVOLVED admin, closed the discussion with a biased and inflammatory rant against people who prefer to follow the guidelines of the MOS. Details and evidence to follow. Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that that is not a neutral statement as required here. Aside from the ironically inflammatory language of "biased and inflammatory rant", it is only that editor's opinion that those who disagree with him are not following the guidelines of the MOS. At issue is the MOS of a single project, WP:BIO, which applies to people's names and not to WP:FILM movie titles. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions suggested I fill in a "reason why the page move should be reviewed". I didn't see any suggestion to keep it neutral, and I don't think such reasons ever are, since move review discussions are usually only opened when someone is outraged by a close. But thanks for following up with your alternative viewpoint. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "An admin close at WikiProject Film ruled against applying a WikiProject Biography style guideline for people's names. Some editors wish for this close to be reconsidered."--Tenebrae (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography was in no way involved here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also these related discussions of the close

Canvassing notice

In this edit, Tenebrae (talk · contribs) invites WP:WikiProject Film here, with his side of the issue only, and calls it "neutral notice" in the edit summary. I'm pretty sure that's explicitly not OK. And it was shortly after telling Nyttend, "I, and I imagine the others, will be at any Move Review to support the close...". I suppose we'll need to make a more central announcement now, to avoid just more local consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, false. Here is the notice, broken into phrases, emphasis added. Tell me what sentence is anything other than straightforward fact:

"An admin closed the discussion at Steamboat Bill, Jr. in favor of using the film's actual onscreen title with comma,
despite a couple of WP:BIO editors believing WP:BIO guidelines for people supersede WP:FILM guidelines for film titles.
Now those WP:BIO editors are trying to overturn the admin's decision.
You may wish to comment — either to endorse the admin's close or not — at [link to here]." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This review has nothing to do with "the film's actual onscreen title"; it's about the fact that an involved admin made an outrageous close. By phrasing it as if the Film project is under some kind of attack from the MOS, you seem to be bring people who want to defend the move, rather than people who can look at the issue of Nyttend being involved and therefore ineligible to do the close. Furthermore, this nothing nothing to do with WP:BIO editors, whatever those are; if there's such a project, did you notifiy it? Did you notify at WT:MOS? No, you didn't. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and anyone else here knows very well we have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. "WP:BIO" is clearly a misremembering of the highly similar WP:WPBIO. Along with other behavioral guidelines you seem to be violating (see User:Calidum below), there's assume good faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of project biography, and as far as I know that project was in no way involved in this discussion. The MOS:BIO subpage is not about a project. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you look at WP:JR, which your side has quoted, you will see it goes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Now, is a film title the biography of a person? No. A guideline that applies to Biographies — as in "Manual of Style/Biographies — does not apply to a film title. I apologize for the boldface, but I don't know how I can make any clearer that a biography is a nonfiction of account of an actual person's life. Whereas a film title is not. Nor is the name of a magazine, or of a plant, or of a couch or of a planet. None of those things are biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the review explicitly has to do with "the film's actual onscreen title", as opposed to one that is not the actual onscreen title. There is not one statement of opinion in my post. Every statement is factual, unless you'd like to take exception to the colloquial phrase "a couple of" by insisting it means literally two. If so I'll be happy to change that to the actual number in the discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion had a lot to do with that, but the review is about an involved editor doing a biased close, not about the merits of the move arguments. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder if you're being disingenuous or whether you've convinced yourself of what you're saying. You're calling it a biased because it went against you, even though it went against you for logical, well-articulated reasons that the majority of editors espoused. A biased close would be one that went against logical, well-articulated reasons that the majority of editors espoused. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A biased close is a close by an editor who has at several places previously expressed a strong opinion on one side of the issue that is being discussed. An involved admin (or other editor) should recuse himself as a closer of a controversial discussion. This one was very controversial (with almost as many editors opposing as supporting), and the admin who closed it had no business doing so. A neutral admin might still close it with a move, but presumably if so would not threaten the opposers the way this one did. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is canvassing. It was the furthest thing from a neutral notice, being a complete distortion of the nature of the discussion, and an exhortation to come defend an admin and WP:FILM against alleged encroachment by WP:BIO [a typo for WP:WPBIO]. Neither of those wikiprojects have anything to do with anything under discussion here, and this is not a slapping contest between WP:PROJPAGEs from either project. Neither of relevant actual site-wide guidelines, WP:Naming conventions (films) and WP:Manual of Style/Film, are in conflict with MOS:JR in any way, and there is no principle codified at any of them that is applicable to this RM discussion or its review. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and Dicklyon, whose proposal was not supported, are the only ones calling my neutral notice canvassing. That obviously makes the claim suspect when everyone else here agrees it is not canvassing. I posted the notice word-for-word above at 6:55, 30 December 2016 asked if there were anything not strictly factual. I even boldfaced here the words "either to endorse the admin's close or not'. And, once again, since it seems as if "I can't hear you" is in play, MOS:JR is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. I a film title the biography of a person? No. A guideline that applies to Biographies does not apply to a film title. Why? Because a film title is not a biography. Nor is the name of a magazine, or of a plant, or of a couch or of a planet. None of those things are biographies. A biography is a nonfiction account of a person's life. Is a film title that, or a plant name or those other things? No. Acting as if one doesn't know the difference between a biography and a film title seems disingenuous to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice WP:WIKILAWYERING. That amounts to "You think it's canvassing but my buddies who I canvassed are backing me and saying its not canvassing", a.k.a. a wolf pack and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing by Darkknight2149, a barely distinguishable case of inviting with "neutral" wording a non-neutral editorial pool to come vote stack. And his post's wording actually was fairly neutral; your was anything but. I don't see many people there saying it wasn't canvassing, and I think the same would be the view with regard to your "neutral" notice. Frankly, I WP:DGAF what title this article ends up at (I gave my reasoning, and it either is sufficient or it's not; I've previously supported keeping a similar title with the comma, because it consistently appears that way unlike this case). What I do care about it this obvious anti-MoS WP:FACTION behavior. It's beyond the damned pale that a vociferous anti-MOS:JR admin came anywhere near closing an RM discussion about that (populated mostly by the same people in the RfC, I might add) and then had the gall to issue threats. I kind of wish that had just gone straight to ArbCom as conduct unbecoming, but the issue is no longer "ripe", especially given how long this MR has been going on. But then you had the additional gall to a) promise Nyttend to come back him up (WTF does that have to do with WP consensus processes, based on an analysis of source and policy arguments? Nothing; it's you forming a tagteam), and then b) deliver in spades, by whipping up a bloc vote of people everyone knows are going to be very close to 100% in favor of going by the titlecard in the movie regardless of all other sources, P&G, and other considerations. And you call it neutral? Let's actually look at it. There is nothing even faintly neutral about this: "An admin closed the discussion at Steamboat Bill, Jr. in favor of using the film's actual onscreen title with comma, despite a couple of WP:BIO editors believing WP:BIO guidelines for people supersede WP:FILM guidelines for film titles. Now those WP:BIO editors are trying to overturn the admin's decision. You may wish to comment — either to endorse the admin's close or not — at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 December#Steamboat Bill, Jr. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)" Sure looks like a WP:BATTLEGROUND warcry to me. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I can do is repeat my post of 19:06, 31 December 2016, since your diatribe above did not refute any of my statements with any actual evidence or diffs, and instead reiterated your old opinions, which are decidedly in the minority, and made wild claims and accusations, threw out contentious labels as if your opinions are necessarily and unequivocally fact, and denigrated calm and logical posts as "wikilawyering." Despite your insistence otherwise, the length and vociferousness of your post suggest you do indeed seem to very much give a you-know-what — and I still have enormous difficulty understanding why anyone, knowing a film's inarguable actual title, onscreen and as copyrighted, and still wanting to falsify it because of a guideline for biographies, which are not film titles. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing notice, redux

Here [1] Dicklyon violates the canvassing rules by referring to Nytend's action as "an outrageous anti-MOS move close by an involved admin" adding the "closing statement and the fact that it's from an admin who had already taken a strong stand against the relevant guideline should not be allowed to stand." The post is a clear violation of our canvassing policy, which requires any notice to be neutral in tone. Calidum 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievably, after all the fuss, Tenebrae invites one more who opposed the move, here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's unbelievable about someone voluntarily, and without input from me, posting his opinion on the wrong page and being pointed to the correct page. But for complete transparency, see my comment where I already addressed this, below at 18:52, 2 January 2017. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Overturn, relist, and wait for a neutral admin to close it. Not just because of the inflammatory closing statement, but because Nyttend had previously expressed strong anti-MOS:JR sentiments and particularly against applying MOS:JR to non-biography titles, e.g. at my talk page: User talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing. And in past years he has made many anti-MOS noises, such as at Talk:Harrison–Crawford State Forest#Requested move; it's pretty clear he was applying his anti-MOS bias in this close. He's not even a normal closer, and as the discussion page history shows, he didn't even know how to close it correctly, and just hatted the discussion instead. This is not the behavior of an admin trying to help by neutrally doing what he knows how to do, but rather the behavior of an involved admin pulling a WP:SUPERVOTE maneuver. He is entitled to his opinion, and could have registered it by supporting the move instead. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close, except for some of the rant part. The close was obvious, as the name of a fictional film about a fictional person with a fictional nickname, the way the film was promotionally and legally stylized contains a comma which is part of the films name. Taking WP:COMMONSENSE into account, I don't know how else he was supposed to close it. Randy Kryn 21:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, clearly he was not supposed to close it. A neutral admin may agree to close it as MOVE, or may conclude NO CONSENSUS, but in any case we deserve an unbiased look and neutral analysis of the arguments. Also, this is not a place to repeat arguments such as "the way the film was promotionally and legally stylized contains a comma", especially as that just ignores the other promotional posters that did not use the comma; misstatements of fact are OK at the RM, but have no place in the review. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did he have a right to close it after having an opinion about another topic, that of removing commas from the names of things, memorials, or record albums named for real people? Steamboat Bill or Steamboat Bill, Jr. did not have an earthly existence. Steamboat Bill, Jr. is the real name of a quite prominent movie. But, yes, I can see your point as well. He gave you guys a good what for on your talk page and in the close. Randy Kryn 22:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has no bearing on anything. As you well know, your attempts to limit MOS:JR strictly to bios, which was never intended (and is not in the guideline nor in the RfC results), have been rejected at RM after RM. It would be a completely nonsensical and reader- and editor-confusing result for different rules to apply to "Jr./Sr." names depending on whether the person was fictional or not. Such an idea has been rejected in other ways for year (including spacing of initials, capitalization, etc.), across article titles, article text, and category names. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name of such a well-known film does not refer to a living person, it is the real as well as common name of a film. Nothing to do with MOS:JR. It is not a complicated name or stylization either, just 'Steamboat Bill, Jr.', which easily is an understandable page name. How to say this clearer, I don't know. It is a name of a film, and not a film which is made by a real person named Steamboat Bill or Steamboat Bill Jr., so the Hank Williams Jr. example has nothing to do with this. As I said on another page, the comma thing was over as far as I was concerned, but at that point I don't think anyone expected an escalation to fictional film titles. A bridge too far for many editors, so my objecting that this wasn't a non-controversial move turned out to be correct. So please let's not get too personal this time. Randy Kryn 22:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. This close was not obvious at all, since most of the responses were WP:ILIKEIT that ignored all policy- and source-based arguments, as did the closer, who has a pre-set and strong view on the matter, having opposed MOS:JR at the Village Pump RfC about it in February, and who obviously WP:Supervoted. See longer comments at AN. The short version is that even the film's own marketing materials do not consistently include the comma. The argument that the comma is "officially" part of the title is simply false. It's included sometimes, dropped other times, both by RS and by the very producers/distributors of the work. The general MOS (and COMMONNAME) point, about all stylistic variations, is: Do what the guidelines say, not what the marketing of the subject does, unless RS very consistently also use the style that varies from the guidleines. It simply is not the case here. WP is not "changing" a title to comply with MoS, we're using the known and well attested version of it, among multiple common versions, that complies with MoS. This is normal and is basic common sense. It's why Pink (singer) and Client (band) are not at "P!nk" and "CLIEИT", but iPod, Deadmau5, and The Hague are that those titles; in the latter three cases, alternative presentations of those names (e.g. "Ipod", "Deamaus", and just "Hague") are virtually unknown in RS, while many RS refer to the first two as "Pink" and "Client" and the artists' own materials are not consistent on the matter, a direct parallel to this case. Follow the sources, not one's nationalistic, prescriptive style preferences. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pink is the common name of a person, not P!nk. Client is the common name of the band. Steamboat Bill, Jr. is both the common name and the real name of a recognized masterpiece. The close correctly acknowledges that. Randy Kryn 3:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Randy, it's been explained to you probably close to 100 times by now that WP:COMMONNAME is the common name policy, and it is not, never has been, and never will be a "common style" policy. Your constant WP:IDHT act on this point is getting really, really tiresome. It's been going on for over two years now. Give it a rest. You trot out some comment like "a recognized masterpiece" or some other WP:PEACOCK PoV gush about the topic in one after another of these discussions, and it just demonstrates that you are not approaching these matters rationally but simply emotively. Please see WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH, WP:TE, for starters. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, which was well within admin discretion. The insinuation that it must be a supervote because Nyttend is "not even a normal closer" (when he was merely responding to an AN request) is, at the very least, not proven. If I had been the one to respond to the AN request, I would have closed the discussion the same way (though almost certainly without the final sentence of the closing statement). Deor (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close The arguments for overturning it are simply false. "WP:ILIKEIT"? No, because the comma is part of the actual, onscreen title and is the WP:COMMONNAME way that this well-known and historically important film is listed at every significant reference source, including at the American Film Institute and at the Library of Congress' National Film Registry. "Ignored all policy- and source-based arguments"? Again, false. A WP:BIO style guideline does not supersede overall Wikipedia policy, and has no bearing on a WP:FILM article. There is no argument as to the actual title of the film. So editors objecting to the close are arguing in favor of knowingly and deliberately falsifying a movie title in order to slavishly adhere to a single project's style guideline for names in WP:BIO and not movie titles at WP:FILM. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not about the comma or the move. It's about the close. It was inappropriate for an involved admin to close it, and then to provide such a biased and provocative analysis. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An extraordinary ideological battleline? A composition title based on a fictional character, it stretches guidelines and precedents are unclear. I see a reasonable call of rough consensus to move, but "no consensus" would have been easily defended. The close should not be read as precedent setting. I suggest a project space RFC reconsideration in no less than six months from the close of this review. Ideological tempers need to cool. This does not benefit the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - This is where it comes to? *sigh* After soul-searching, I realize that maybe I don't care about punctuations anymore. I care about stability, yet the fighting over punctuations... I'm out of decent words for this. "Endorse", enough, and move on.... though threatening someone with DS is... questionable. George Ho (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, if I see punctuation-based title moves, any title should be discussed right away... I don't want to talk about my RMs at Talk:Exile on Main St., thank you. --George Ho (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title was stable for many years without the comma. Stability would argue for no move here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title was factually incorrect for many years. There are probably a hundred thousand movies here, and just because it takes a while to get to all of them is no reason to knowingly and deliberately falsify this film's onscreen, copyrighted and well-known title.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close As it was moved to the correct title, per AFI, LOC, etc. If someone's got an issue with an admin's conduct, then go waste your time at ANI or Arbcom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close per Randy Kryn, Tenebrae, Lugnuts, etc. A guideline for biographies should not be applied to titles of works of fiction. WP should be accurate to what a title actually is. Those that believe otherwise seem intent on drawing this out endlessly. The close was necessary. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close (note: I moved Nyttend's closing statement to the top of the close template but did not alter it, and didn't participte otherwise) - there were a number of reasonable arguments against the move founded in precedents in application of WP:JR, however supporters observed that JR is a guideline applicable to biographies and that its application to the titles of works of fiction is at best inconsistent, thus our article title ought to reflect the work's legally registered name and common use in reliable sources. While Nyttend's closing statement may have been unduly harsh, that is not a reason to overturn a close that was well within admin discretion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of "endorse" comments above appear to be completely missing the point, and are re-arguing the move rationale. This MR isn't about that, it's about the WP:SUPERVOTE by the closer, and the inappropriate administrative threats by an involved party. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supervote in the decision, or the additional comment, or both? I am not persuaded of supervote in the decision. Neither do I find the WP:INVOLVED allegation is sufficiently substantiated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's pretty much all bad-faith mud-slinging by people with sour-grapes who are arguing over a fucking comma. Jesus wept. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @SmokeyJoe: not "sufficiently substantiated" in what way? The closer of the RM was singled out in the close of the earlier RFC as singularly representative of the opposition to MOS:JR, and his comments in that RfC directly mirror his RM close (which is about his opinion, not the sources), as does his evident ire about the matter, which has seemingly gone from irked to enraged, enough to make blanket threats against anyone using normal processes, threats that wouldn't be appropriate no matter what the topic was or who was making it. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more obvious case of INVOLVED in an admin close at RM before, frankly. What could possibly go beyond that sufficiency of substantiation? Did he need to write a "Down with MOS:JR" editorial in the New York Times? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. There was a clear supermajority (at least 11 to 5) supporting the comma, and those !votes were based on clear rationales for film articles. The close also noted why the omission of commas on biography articles did not apply there. Persons who opposed the clear consensus seem to be equating the wording or perceived tone of the close with threats or with being involved, which I myself do not see. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Softlavender: How exactly is "Let this be a firm warning: [doing something I don't like] is disruptive and will result in sanctions if repeated" not to be perceived as a threat? I mean, we are clear on what the word "threat" means in the context, right? A menacing (i.e. "warning") promise (i.e. "threat") to do something punitive (i.e. "sanctions") if the person's demands are not met. What exactly is it that you "do not see"? It is more visible now? Is it perhaps clearer now that various other parties who were not in the RM and who even agree with the first part of the close also find that the threat was inappropriate and some want it struck or moved into the body of the RM as a comment and not part of the close? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking through the original RM, it seems to me that the closer's decision did reflect the consensus; at least I would have closed it in the same way based on the discussion. However, that isn't, or shouldn't be, the issue here. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and that means the closer must both be and be seen to be neutral. Although Nyttend did not participate in the RM, previously expressed views make Nyttend's non-neutrality clear, and it was unwise to be the closer. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. "Justice must be seen to be done" seems a bit of an overstatement given there's no dispute as to the actual onscreen and copyrighted title. But also to this point, if a neutral observer like this above editor sees the decision as reflect ing the consensus, then it appears as if it is seen that justice was done. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it appears to me, as to you, that justice was done; but for justice to have been seen to be done, the process needed to be above suspicion, and it was not, given the prior views of the closer. No more from me; we've all spent enough time on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is right, in principle, but in this case I the position is over-exacting on the qualifications required by Nyttend to do the close. While I disagree that anything linked demonstrates that Nyttend was WP:INVOLVED, there is some evidence that Nyttend holds opinions, and his closing comments may have been overly strong, influenced by his opinion rather than deriving from the discussion closed. I "Endorse" his first 15 words of the close,

"The result of the move request was: MOVED. Local consensus is in favor of moving."

but !vote to alter the remainder

"Let this be a firm warning: imposition of a MOS page to articles not under that page's scope, without firm consensus at talk, is disruptive and will result in sanctions if repeated"

to read

"This title is not within scope of WP:JR"

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close - The closer's comments may have been worded harshly, but they accurately summarized the consensus at the RM discussion... which was that the title was not within the scope of WP:JR. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose - If "relist" means start over with a new RM, I don't see any benefit to that, as any problems with quality of arguments would simply occur again in the new RM. I do feel that anyone with strong feelings on the topic should have the sense to let someone else handle it. And the close statement should reflect the closer's disinterested detachment from the question at hand. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close Close was properly done based on interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME—one that was endorsed by consensus (and by common sense in the titling of movie names). First Light (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Result. There were no credible guideline-based arguments presented for the name without the comma, and there were credible guideline-based arguments presented for the name with the comma. Agree with SmokeyJoe's proposed modification of the closing reason, possibly with Nyttend's comments placed within the closed request, rather than as a closing reason. I don't think I can say "overturn and reclose with the same result", and "overturn and reclose" risks having a clearly incorrect title, which could theoretically put Wikipedia at legal risk.
Note that I was invited here by Tenebrae. This may or may not constitute canvassing, but I did express an opinion in both the RM and in WP:AN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, here is the complete text of the invitation, based on the the preference he expressed here on the Steamboat Bill, Jr. talk page ("[I]t should be clear that the proper title has a comma.") Boldface emphasis added: "I saw your comment endorsing the close of the move request, and I thought you'd want to know that a couple of editors who did not get the result they wanted started an appeal. You may wish to place your comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:Move_review#Steamboat Bill, Jr. with your choice ("Endorse" or "Oppose")." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also spectactularly non-neutral, just like your bigger canvass before this. Do you just need to look up what "neutral" means or something? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would care to point out exactly what wording is neither factual nor neutral, please tell me --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal risk"? WTH are you even talking about? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Windows ME – Procedural close. Please do another RM soon over there if you are concerned. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The actual name of the product is Windows Millennium Edition, not Windows ME Maria Kappatou (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be closed since renaming the article to Windows Millennium Edition was never discussed in the discussion being reviewed. That means it would not have been a viable option for this particular request. There may be a case to move this to the proposed title but a separate move request is needed.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Windows Millennium Edition' was not discussed in the recent review, therefore a new move request is in order, not a move review. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No RM process or close to challenge. Go back to the talk page and discuss and work to a consensus. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the status quo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

South-West Africa – Close endorsed. Consensus is that the closure was in order. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The RM closer Fuortu was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM and the RM should be reopened and relisted. The additional information is shown and linked to below and is also applicable to the related MR for German South-West Africa.

The hyphen issue has come up at least twice in the past, here and here again, and will probably surface again. Rather than starting a war with yet another RM, a move review will hopefully get the issue settled once and for all and put an end to the back-and-forth renaming that occurred over the past decade. The intention to request a move review was discussed with the closer. So far, no reaction has been received from IvanR82 whose original move was reverted by this RM.

According to the WP:MR quidelines, I opened a discussion about this move on 14 December.

During the discussion, reference was made repeatedly to the fact that South West Africa is not a part of the United Nations subregion of Western Africa, which was defined as such in 1999 by the Statistics Division of the United Nations, nearly a decade after the establishment of an independent Namibia and therefore at a point in time not applicable to the pre-independence South West Africa. These assignments of countries or areas to specific groupings was for statistical convenience and it is unlikely that the intent was for it to result in changes in the names of already defunct countries or territories.
The present page name makes South West Africa the only country in the world to have consistently issued postage stamps on which its own name was inscribed incorrectly. Since official postage stamps were discounted as reliable sources in the discussion, I consulted 20 of the 22 sources (two have dead links) listed in the “References” section of the article as well as several more.

In summary, of all the more or less relevant and useful sources as shown below, only two support the hyphened South-West Africa while five are inconsistent. The majority support the non-hyphened South West Africa, as it was used throughout the existence of the territory until it became independent as Namibia.

No hyphen. Several of the relevant and mostly useful sources use no hyphen in South West Africa.

UN General Assembly - Resolutions Adopted By The General Assembly During Its Twenty-First Session (This covers the period from 20 Sep to 20 Dec 1966)
The South West Africa/Namibia Dispute – Documents and Scholarly Writings on the Controversy Between South Africa and the United Nations (Published 1973)
Mediating Conflict – Decision-making and western intervention in Namibia. p. 46 (Published 1990)
Recueil des Cours – Collected courses of The Hague Academy of International Law. 1986-V. pp. 213-214 (Published 1987)
Documents Officiels de la ... Session de L'Assemblée Général (UN, 1949)

Inconsistent. Some of the relevant and useful referenced sources are consistently inconsistent, in all cases showing the name hyphened in the heading but mostly without hyphen in the text.

With hyphen. Only two referenced sources use only the hyphened version. One of these is a present-day establishment’s web page.

No hyphen. Several additional useful sources concerning South West Africa were discovered, none of which is referred to in the article at all. None of them uses a hyphen.

André Kritzinger (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, Charles E. (1951). The Walfish Bay Railway. The Railway Magazine with which is incorporated "Transport & Travel Monthly", September 1951. Tothill Press Limited, London. pp. 627-628, 631.

André Kritzinger (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse move close: (Disclosure: I requested the move in the first place.) I might be misunderstanding the process here. At the time of closing there was no opposition to the requested move. To the point, actually, where I as the requester of the move was gently told that I should have done it myself, without opening a discussion. Closer Fuortu was neither expected not allowed to consider further arguments. There was nothing wrong with their close. --Pgallert (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the close, so it would probably be better to simply open a new move request with the evidence. Whatever happens, there should be a usage note in the article. Srnec (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close of the unanimously supported move discussion, and encourage opening a new RM discussion with the new evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

German South-West Africa – Close endorsed. Consensus is that the closure was in order. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to the WP:MR quidelines, I opened a discussion about this move on 14 December. The intention to request a move review was discussed with the closer. So far, no reaction has been received from IvanR82 whose original move was reverted by this RM.

André Kritzinger (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse move close: (Disclosure: I requested the move in the first place.) I might be misunderstanding the process here. At the time of closing there was no opposition to the requested move. Closer Fuortu was neither expected not allowed to consider further arguments. There was nothing wrong with their close. --Pgallert (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the close, so it would probably be better to simply open a new move request with the evidence. Whatever happens, there should be a usage note in the article. Srnec (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close of the unanimously supported move discussion, and encourage opening a new RM discussion with the new evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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