Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 October

< 2019 September	Move review archives	2019 November >

2019 October edit

31 August Prince Edward station incident – Procedural close. Controversial page move reverted. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move was listed as consensus not reached. Another user moved the page anyways. Not sure how to appropriately address. I was involved and was against the move. Maerlon0 (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America – Endorsed There is consensus for the closure to be endorsed. qedk (t 桜 c) 10:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Boy Scouts of America run several program:

Main article: Cub Scouting youth advancement
Main article: Ranks in Scouts BSA
Main article: Varsity Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) § Advancement and recognition
Main article: Venturing (Boy Scouts of America) § Recognition

As you can see by these edits, the program name has changed from Boy Scouts to Scouts BSA to reflect the fact that its not just boys anymore. I am proposing a change in the article title to Ranks in Scouts BSA reflect this program change. --evrik ^(talk) 21:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (but reclose as no-consensus) (uninvolved) What was the issue with the close? Move Review is not for rearguing the move. PaleAqua (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the reviewer closed it too early. The responders aren't responding to the facts, but to sentiment. I refuted each of the statements they made factually. --evrik ^(talk) 21:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The RM ran for the usual 7 days, so do not think it was too early. That said WP:CONSUB should have probably been brought up more directly during the RM. Looks like there current is a conflict in the result of Talk:Scouts BSA#Requested move 5 February 2019 (2) vs this RM. While my initial reaction would be to endorse per the content of the RM itself. Consistency is a strong argument and of equal weight to recognizable, so I am inclined to !vote Endorse (but Reopen). PaleAqua (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think needs to be reclosed as no-consensus to allow a discussion that deals with the naming conflict between the main article Scouts BSA and the sub article Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America. PaleAqua (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't comprehend this decision, PaleAqua, because to the casual eye it seems you "endorse" but recommend "overturning" the not moved closure to "no consensus"? Don't quite get that – am I missing something? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think based on the discussion itself that I fully endorse the closing. That said we are left with a conflict between the pillars, especially between recognizable and consistency given the name of the two related articles made different choices. It seems to me that consistency needs to be given higher standing here and either the main article needs to be reconsider or consistency and CONSUB should be considered in regards to naming this article. Thus the endorse of the close itself while still thinking that there is an open issue that needs to be determined through consensus here and changing the close to no-consensus would allow such a discussion to happen. PaleAqua (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Endorse Not only is there no discussion with the RM closer, but this move review request is merely a rehash of the RM discussion, which nobody supported. Even if somehow the nominator was right on the merits of the move, there's no way this could be closed as anything more than no consensus, given that the opposes are policy based. Iffy★Chat -- 21:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The opposes are not policy based. A good link to show the actual name is here, Advancement_and_recognition_in_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Scouts_BSA and look at the Eagle Scout application and you will see that the BSA itself has rebranded the program. Also, Wikipedia:NAMECHANGES - "we choose the commonly recognisable name used in reliable sources after the name change is announced."
  "Google search using Scouts BSA". shows that the name is now activley being used.--evrik ^(talk) 21:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to @Paine Ellsworth:, but their talk page said they were on a wikibreak. --evrik ^(talk) 22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the gaudy close box? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an alternative way to close RMs that uses the template {{subst:Requested move/end}}, which I've updated. The "gaudy box" is essentially the same as the box that is at the top of open RMs. I choose to close with that template in part because of the handy log links at the bottom left of the box. Those links are lost when closers remove the {{Requested move/dated}} template. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I think it is too big, to colorful, too much big bold text, too attention grabbing for an archive. Gaudy. Visually, it looks more attention grabbing than a usual open RM discussion. Two in rapid sequence is twice as bad. Generally, I think banners and colors should be used very sparingly, and only when there is good reason to attract widespread attention. It is similar to Alarm fatigue. I am fatigued before even reading the words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC) ^{compare with}[reply]

Endorse <uninvolved>: the only time it's acceptable to start a new RM that quickly is if something has substantially changed or the first discussion resulted in a no consensus closure which implies no prejudice against speedy renomination. The first RM had a clear determination of consensus, so a speedy procedural close is the right way to go IMHO. SITH (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this venue is....a place to debate the proposed move/renaming? Boy Scouts of America renamed one of it's programs from "Boy Scouts" to "Scouts BSA". The above discussion leaves the impression that this fact is disputed (it is not) and also leaves the impression that such is the central question regarding the potential renaming (IMHO it is not). IMHO the main issue is that the topic of the article applies to multiple programs of the organization which was and is named Boy Scouts of America, i.e. not just for the program which was renamed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mariner – Overturn. Consensus is that the closer missed the mark here. The article will be moved back and relisted for more input. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to be a clear no consensus, but has been closed as a move. The closer has disregarded the argument that this was a primary redirect, on which the oppose !votes were based, and claims that this was not a valid argument, which it clearly was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, I would say that "no consensus" can result in no primary topic (this is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#No consensus in primary topic discussions) but at least a relist would be beneficial if that was done. The main support argument that I can see was the HPD but as noted by Necrothesp those mainly point to "Seattle Mariners" for the plural not the singular. Oppose argued PRIMARYREDIRECT and while common sense was argued it might have been better for the oppose to explain why this was satisfied rather than merely asserting it. Common sense is often a valid argument but it probably needed to be elaborated a bit particularly explaining the long-term significance with respect to the other meanings derived from it and its long standing significance. The arguments by the supporters for NOTDIC seem weak, while the spirit of that guideline may suggest readers are not too interested in generic terms, the guideline its self supports redirection when a primary topic exists, similar to Petrol redirecting to Gasoline. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - it is very disappointing to see that this wasn't resolved through discussion on closer's talk page, given that I (as an uninvolved observer) and two others raised legitimate concerns about this close. To reiterate here, this is a textbook no consensus, as the opposers made the clear argument that this is a legitimate WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT based on significance of the term "mariner" to mean someone who sails. For a closer to close against the numbers (which in this case appears to be a 4 support/4 oppose dead heat) there needs to be strong policy/guideline reasons favouring one over the other, something which was clearly not present here. And re "no consensus" can result in no primary topic, no, that's nonsense. "No consensus" means retaining the status quo, that's the convention across Wikipedia, and that's what should have happened here. — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus" for ELs tends to result in them being removed and with BLPs it usually also results in removal so I don't see why there isn't a possibility in having "no consensus" resulting in no primary topic but as noted that proposal its self hasn't gained consensus yet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no concensus. Besides the nom I see only three "support" comments, which collectively make a WP:NOTDICTIONARY/per nom argument but don't add to anything substantive; on the other side, there are four "oppose" comments (including my own) making a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT argument. That doesn't look like a concensus either way. Unfortunately there was an awful lot of shouting and bludgeoning of the process by the nominator, and I fear that is what the closer as been swayed by. I'm also disappointed that a move review is necessary: closer states that the primary redirect argument "was misapplied", but how so? It was a perfectly valid argument. At the very least there should have been a more detailed closing comment. PC78 (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or not moved. (Involved) The closer appears to have completely ignored all opposing arguments, including mine, based WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and sided with the supporters because they made the most noise. The arguments made above and on the closer's talk page are fairly persuasive. As to the possibility of a re-list here, the move request had already been open for two weeks when it was closed and I doubt re-listing would result in any change in consensus. Calidum 16:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point about it being open for 2 weeks is certainly reasonable for a lack of consensus but relisting puts it back at the top of WP:RMC so users who only look at the top might comment. I wouldn't close as "not moved" since I don't think there was enough evidence provided by the opposes for that though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. JHunterJ's closing statement was brief but to the point: arguments that Sailor is the primarytopic for Mariner don't hold up to the numbers. Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which numbers? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC explicitly allows for primary topics by "long-term significance", which means that numbers on their own are meaningless. Page views can be a very useful indicator and in many cases are enough to generate a consensus for something in a debate. That didn't happen there, though, and even though you supported the proposition and felt that there wasn't a primary topic, many others disagreed. Ergo there wasn't a consensus. — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the closer's statement "per the primary topic (not "primary meaning") criteria supported below", but I do read a "no consensus", and "no consensus" means that there is not Primary Topic, which means that the DAB pages goes to the basename, which is what has happened. (separately I argue that the basename should redirect to the "(disambiguation)" suffixed title, so that the many people who think there is a PrimaryTopic do not mistake the DAB page for an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? "No consensus" means no such thing; see WP:THREEOUTCOMES. The correct outcome of a no consensus close would be to take no action. Your second (off-topic) comment about titling the dab page is contrary to the naming convention at WP:DABNAME, i.e "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself". PC78 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:THREEOUTCOMES, like much of WP:RMCI, overreaches as a fake guideline. It should not be used to tell people how to make decisions as opposed what to do when closing. Please discuss further at WT:Requested moves#WP:RMCI bloated with opinions

This case would be a good example to consider in the still running WT:Disambiguation#No consensus in primary topic discussions. I consider the closer to have used a creative interpretation to get the right outcome.

The naming convention at WP:DABNAME is an age-old mistake that perturbs reasonable Primary Topic discussions, many naturally consider it astonishing that "mariner" takes the reader to a DAB page instead of their expectation. mariner (disambiguation) will surprise no one as a DAB page. DABNAME should be repudiated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're right and everything else is wrong? Please. Nobody else was biting in that discussion you started at WT:RM. I was challenging your notion that "no consensus" means there is no primary topic; it does not. "No consensus" in this context simply means that there is no agreement on the proposed move. PC78 (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like gnomism in the documentation. Some things are curiously convoluted. WP:Primary Topic is one of the most long running acknowledge to be awkward things, and there is a lot of support in that discussion for a higher bar for Primary Topic assignments. Reading the discussion, I don't think the bar is met. Sorry if you don't like my observation: The discussion was "no consensus", but the outcome was right. That feels like I am agreeing with everybody on something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That a "no consensus" outcome should result in a move going ahead as proposed is simply illogical. PC78 (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in that discussion, you may see that you are not the only one with that position. It is hard to disagree with. I guess that this is a case of the wrong question having been asked. Q1. Is there a Primary Topic for "mariner"?. Q2. If there is no consensus for there being a Primary Topic, is there a Primary Topic? Q3. If there is not Primary Topic, should the base name be (point to) a DAB page? The RM discussion convoluted all three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - closer made a reasonable decision, which is literally all we ask of them. Red Slash 22:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not "literally what we ask of them" at all. Per WP:RMCI we ask them to "determine consensus on the request or relist it for further discussion". In this case the closer hasn't determined consensus on the request, they've cited some nebulous "primary topic (not "primary meaning") criteria" (by which one would assume they mean the criteria at WP:PTOPIC), which were not discussed in detail in the discussion at all. When the !votes are a tie, you need to explain in detail why the policy and evidence brought up in the discussion support one view more heavily than the other, and such commentary was completely absent in this close. — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. <uninvolved> With all due respect, the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT guideline was not given weight in the closure. Just look at the redirects that link to Sailor. No difference between most of those titles and "Mariner". Important to note that this respected decision should not be overturned to "no consensus", since the RM was never relisted. Strong closer's talk page discussion, and I don't understand why the closer didn't just reopen the RM and relist, which is what should be done now. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 06:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist <uninvolved> The close says it is based on "primary topic (not primary meaning)". It seems to have overlooked the direction in WP: PRIMARYTOPIC regarding a term's "long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". At the very least, the close should have explained how "sailor" doesn't fulfill this qualification. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Muslim conquest of Persia – Endorsed. There is consensus that the closer made the correct call, and that there was no value in yet another relist. — Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

A RM had been open on this article for quite some time. The sources clearly showed that WP:COMMONNAME favoured a move (see the first comments by me and LouisAragon), whilst not a single of those opposing comments (which were heavily WP:OR) actually attempted to rebut the WP:COMMONNAME argument, yet the RM was closed with no move made, which I consider a mistake. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.<uninvolved>. An easily defended "no consensus", almost couldn't be closed any other way, endless relisting is not a good idea. The support and oppose !votes were heavily talking at cross points, neither side persuading the other.

I recommend that the proponents take a pause, minimum two months, before making a fresh nomination. In the fresh nomination, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. <involved>. The result was a clear no consensus, and the COMMONNAME arguments (that is common name, as opposed to the name used by many modern scholars, especially those of Iranian origin) were valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<involved> A question for those who would agree with the close: could you give a brief outline of what policy or policies the opposing editors invoked (explicitly or implicitly) that supported keeping the article's current name? (As you might be able to guess from my !vote in the RM, I was not able to find much of a policy-based rationale in the opposing arguments, but I'd be interested to hear others' interpretations.) Colin M (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (Uninvolved). There was no consensus here, plain and simple. I would advise those who support the move to spend more identifying evidence that addresses the WP:COMMONNAME concern when they revisit the issue in the future. Calidum 16:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Calidum: I'm a little confused by this comment. WP:COMMONNAME was pretty much exclusively invoked by editors supporting the move. Colin M (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said in the RM debate, I think you do have to make a distinction between modern scholarly writing, which often tends to the PC (e.g. desperate attempts to avoid offending Iranians who want their country to be known as Iran throughout history, despite the reality that it is not), and common usage. In the latter, the country is usually referred to until at least the second quarter of the 20th century as Persia in English-language sources. And to my mind, that's what WP:COMMONNAME is all about. What most people call it in English-language sources (favouring those witten by native English-speakers and by those who do not have a political point to make), not what a few scholars call it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you please come up with something that supports your bold theory regarding scholars tending to the PC? Few scholars? What is this then? [1] It's amazing how much OR there was in all the opposing comments, god forbid we actually follow the rules, I CBA at this rate (also, I thought Wikipedia wasn't a democracy?). --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are no rules on Wikipedia. There is only opinion and, following on from that, consensus. In this case, there was no consensus. And I was contrasting scholars (a tiny minority of the population) with the vast majority of people and they way they use the English language. Sorry, thought that was obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        So.. if some users throw in opposing WP:OR comments, then there's no consensus? Aight cheers for clearing that up, great to see that this system is working logically. Also, your comment is still WP:OR nonetheless. Anyways, regular people aren't experts in this subject, scholars, however, are. We use scholars as reliable sources, not random blokes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's not OR; it's opinion, expressed in a discussion. You know as well as I do that "Muslim" and "Persia" in this context are still extremely common. It's certainly not OR to say so (WP:OR is, incidentally, frequently misapplied, as you appear to be doing). No, we use common usage for article titles (whether that is by "random blokes" or scholars). If we only used names found in scholarly works to name our articles we'd be renaming many thousands of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        OR, bold statements with nothing to back it up with, doesn't make any difference. You're coming with very bold claims which you still haven't backed up ("majority of people uses the current name", "scholars tending to the PC" etc), such as your latest one "If we only used names found in scholarly works to name our articles we'd be renaming many thousands of them." Even if that was the case, I highly doubt we can compare all cases with each other. Ultimately the proposed move is a "winner" by a huge margin, both per high quality scholarly works, and the numbers of them: no one has rebuted the WP:Common argument. HistoryofIran (talk)
Endorse. (uninvolved) See quite a bit of editing in the RM that some might call tendentious, even bludgeoning. If something is worth saying, saying it one time is all that should be needed. Agree that the policy argument, while not explicitly used to rebut itself, could be seen as being thoroughly, although implicitly, called by some opposers. So Calidum is correct in that editors should have spent more time identifying evidence that addresses the WP:COMMONNAME concern and hopefully will do so in the future. There appear to be challenges with the current title and the proposed titles seen in the request. Would advise concerned and involved editors to strengthen their arguments and try again in three to six months from the RM's closure to garner consensus for a new title. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Spend more time identifying evidence that addresses the WP:COMMONNAME concern? How exactly if I may ask? --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To editor HistoryofIran: my rationale was not aimed at any one editor in the debate. The applicability of the policy to the proposed and current titles appeared to me to be questionable to several involved editors. When this happens, it usually means that more time is needed to strengthen arguments. So a no-consensus outcome is appropriate. Strengthened args is usually the result of finding more independent secondary reliable sources to support an article title. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 07:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Independent secondary reliable sources? Just like those eight I had already listed? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, suggest you read the oppose rationales thoroughly and resubmit a move request in a few months with stronger arguments that might not be countered in that manner. Also, encyclopedias are not secondary sources, they are tertiary ones. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your suggestion, I get that you're trying to help, but the the opposers rationales were all personal opinions/theories with no source whatsoever to support it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Pleasure! and thank you for your opinion, with which I and other editors here disagree. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        And everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that not a single opposer used at least one source to support their rather bold claims, which is my main gripe. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that was a weakness on the part of opposers. It might help to better understand their strengths if you read the essay, Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions. There was much implied by the opposers, and that is what must be absorbed so that a stronger position can be taken in a future move request. By the time I'd finished reading the RM, I wasn't certain which of the titles, current and proposed, should be seen as the COMMONNAME. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Death penalty for homosexuality – Endorsed - with encouragement to start a new RM on the subject. Given the first two !votes below, the discussion with Crouch, Swale, and Necrothesp agreeing too, I'm being WP:BOLD here and closing this discussion even though I participated in it. There is consensus that a better approach to dealing with this is for Interstellarity and Crouch and/or other interested paties to formulate a new RM and for the matter to be explicitly debated, with a suitable rationale, at that venue. — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have opened three RMs on this topic. In the most recent RM, Talk:Capital_punishment#Requested_move_12_October_2019, an editor suggested taking this to move review as the consensus was clear on this RM. The editors argue that it's this page that should be moved, not this one. I hope we can figure out whether the closure made the right decision to close it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. <uninvolved> Properly closed. The problem was the brief nomination. Take a pause and prepare a more persuasive nomination for a second attempt. MRV is not the place to recover from a poor nomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close. <uninvolved> Per SmokeyJoe, this RM was closed correctly. Just wondering why there was no discussion about it with the closer before listing here? Because of that this discussion will hopefully be speedily closed. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak overturn and move~~ while there were some reasonable arguments about religion (I don't see how this would affect the homosexuality article though since that wasn't mentioned) I don't see a consensus that this article shouldn't follow the main article Capital punishment and it was advised at the 2nd RM at the main article to MR this one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I'd recommend ~~overturn and move~~ for the homosexuality one and ~~relist~~ the Bible one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: For it to be closed as "moved" there has to be an active consensus to do so, something which was obviously lacking in this RM. It would be far more productive at this stage, rather than dragging this MRV out pointlessly for another month or more, to endorse the close now and you can start a new RM if you think there are additional circumstances to consider. — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there was a lack of consensus at this specific location but the consensus at Talk:Capital punishment was clear on the matter and therefore it would seem that that consensus carries over to the sub articles. However I agree that starting a new RM for each of the sub articles might be better since there appear to be reasonable arguments made for the Bible one. Although I think the homosexuality one should be overturned a new RM discussing that only might be better per WP:TRAINWRECK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move. For consistency's sake, the title of this article should clearly follow the main article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close. There was self-evidently no consensus in the discussion, and despite my relist to see if consensus could be flushed out, there were no further comments and it remained without any consensus. I think SJ and PE's comments are good though - given that this was a no consensus close, and that there was consensus against moving Capital punishment, instead of this move review the filer should start a new nomination, with their best arguments about why these should be moved, and then see if consensus can be gained. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

After All (The Miracles song) – Endorsed. As the RFC closure in dispute has been overturned, this move review endorses the RM result. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The RM stayed open for 7 days with no relists and only 4 participants. The closer admits a preference towards the opposition comment, describing it as "sound" instead of analyzing all the pre-existing evidence, including a RFC discussion that took place 1 month ago. Therefore, I consider the closure a mistake. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (involved: I voted oppose). If you look at the section below the RFC mentioned, it has been contested by three uninvolved editors, all of whom opined that it should have been a no consensus close. The closer has not been active in the conversation lately, but we shouldn't be basing RMs on such a flawed result. The longstanding convention is that the disambiguator for groups such as The Miracles should be "(The Miracles song)", and there is no reason to deviate from that here. The closer was right to consider that point, and correct to call no consensus to move. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. (Uninvolved) I don't see how someone could look at that discussion and determine the page shouldn't be moved. A relist would have been OK, but there was pretty clear consensus to move. Calidum 22:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Moving articles from their long-standing stable titles requires more than just a nod to a contested RFC which was closed by a non-admin who refused to then revisit their decision. The article on the band is called The Miracles, therefore per WP:CONSISTENCY policy, the title of the song article should also be "(The Miracles song)". That is a good enough reason to oppose, and enough to make "no consensus" a good decision here. — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A move request (and move review for that matter) is not the proper venue to contest an RFC close. There are also other criteria to consider including WP:CONCISE, which favors the proposed title. Calidum 15:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus). I would !vote Overturn the close of the referenced RfC. That was not a consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus to move. I echo SmokeyJoe's concern about the close of the RfC as it looks like it should have also been closed as no consensus. PaleAqua (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. That RM did not arrive at a consensus. It's also clear that the close of the RFC does not enjoy community support so does not lend much weight (if any) in RM discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Move – the move was clearly aligned with the recent RFC on this topic, and had 3:1 support in the discussion. Why does one opposer overturn the consensus from the RFC? Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The question of consensus at that RfC is under challenge at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to re-open the July 2019 MOS:THEMUSIC RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the challenge leads to changing the guideline we will of course reconsider. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The challenge was successful. There was no consensus in the RfC that "The" should be removed from parenthetical disambiguation in cases like this. With the RfC close corrected, the RM close we are discussing here is now obviously correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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