The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This RM was submitted a few days ago but wrongly closed. It was cited that a RM could be re-proposed citing this MR is stale. No, that may be correct with nearly all other articles but Trump, being a political exception, cannot have a RM for 6 months or risk being blocked. The closer should not ask someone to do a blockable offense, which is to re-submit a RM.
The snow close is inappropriate for several reasons. The topic is contentious so a non-administrator closing it as "snow" is problematic. It was closed after only 5 votes. There have been previous RM with many strongly opposed opinions so a unanimous vote is highly improbable. If such an improbable event of a unanimous vote were to happen, there should be no SNOW closure to demonstrate that there are 20-30 unanimous votes, not railroading a closure using the SNOW excuse. There are many reasons for a RM but individual users can explain for themselves. Snow closing something that generated very lengthy debate as now; that's plain wrong. An administrator should have closed this complex and contentious RM, not a non-administrator. Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter. Believe me. New2018YearNew2018Year (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close and move to new title. Formally invalidating the RM and stipulating that the 6 month ban on re-RM is the 2nd best alternative. This is not a referendum if you like Trump or if you hate Trump and want to prevent a move. See above for reasons for move review. If you "endorse close" that means that it is ok for non-administrators to cut short debates in order to get a false conclusion and not hear out people, in my opinion, because I understand it is contentious but it's not a SNOW. New2018Year (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Again, see my comment below: there was a 6-month moratorium imposed in February 2017, but it expired in August 2017. There is no moratorium now, and you have a couple of administrators here telling you a new request can be started. Whether or not the snow close was appropriate, the move request involved is stale. There is no chance that this move review will result in a move, since there was no support for a move in the original discussion. Please withdraw this and start a new normal move request. Or you can wait two months to open a new one if you don't believe the administrators here that your action would not result in a block. Just understand that move review isn't designed to do what you're asking for, and that reopening the stale move request wouldn't result in a move anyway. Dekimasuよ!22:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
False The moratorium was extended 6 months after the October 2017 speedy close. I think it was manipulation to extend the moratorium. With contentious issues, you don't snow close it to end the vote in your favor. New2018Year (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usually you wouldn't respond with "false" to something that's in favor of your position, either. No evidence of any extension of a moratorium. Dekimasuよ!23:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stale and endorse per Dekimasu. The RM was opened with a completely absurd rationale - "the moratorium has expired therefore we must have an RM". That isn't the way it works, and given that nobody, not even the nominator, apparently supported the move, a snow close seems entirely appropriate. I also see no evidence of an extension to the moratorium, so if you have good policy-based reasons why you think there is now a primary topic where one wasn't found before, then I guess you are free to start an RM for it. I'd prefer you didn't, as the moratorium was imposed precisely to avoid this kind of bickering. But you are entitled to do it. — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the controversy regarding this discussion, I think this should not have been closed by a non-admin. Stronger weight should have been given to the arguments that were supported by the guideline, which admittedly was changed while the discussion was taking place. The close should also have taken into account the result of the move at Talk:Vikings (2013 TV series)#Requested move 13 January 2018. To be fair, the whole discussion has been a mess. Given the recent change in the WP:NCTV guideline, which happened while the discussion was taking place, I also don't think any prejudice should have been given regarding a future move, as the guideline now expressly mentions that genre should not be used. --woodensuperman09:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, although with an option missed. The close was correct as to not moving to "TV series", but it seems the discussion was reaching a consensus, before the close, to drop "TV" and shorten the name to "Vikings (documentary series)" or just "Vikings (documentary)". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"(TV series)" was never on the table, as other TV series called "Vikings" exist. There was no consensus for the last option either, and this would have made the article title even more at odds with our naming conventions. --woodensuperman13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would prefer a truncated dab over “TV documentary series,” I have to say I don’t think we were nearing consensus for it; there was only minority support super late in the discussion, and this after a WP:SNOWBALL for that very proposal. I also disagree with not moving to “[year] TV series” (see my comment below). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that (TV documentary series) descriptor is quite an earful, just a little bit over the edge of a comfortable title. On the above, I knew it was "2013" but left that out as assumed, so that was me being unclear and incomplete. "documentary series" would do this one well, I think, and lessen the oddness of the present title. I've looked, but don't see your comment below. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: I hope with these replies alone, you understand why it would've been blatant wrong to implement "any move", hence my reason for closing it the way I did. There's no general support for any title.–Ammarpad (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and I agreed with your close. Would have been nice to take the "TV" descriptor off, but there were many comments going in lots of different directions, and along with the recent RM's on the same topic, your close was appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m taking the liberty of quoting Ammarpad’s closing rationale from his talk page, with my own editorial comments in [square brackets]:
*@67.14.236.50: First, the close is not arbitrary sole "exception to the consensus [against disambiguating by genre —Ed.]" as your question tried to allude. Disambiguating by genre is not the only result of the RFC, the following clause is also in the result:
"If this [referring to (TV series) disambiguator] does not resolve the ambiguity, a consensus of editors on the article's talk page should determine what additional disambiguation qualifier is appropriate, on a per-article basis." Source
On that article, "(TV series) disambiguator" is not sufficient as there's already historical drama with similar name. Therefore pro-move, bare !votes like this has little weight in consensus determination.
There was move request closed with clear opposition against move Only 3 weeks ago.
You started another RM earlier [to a completely different dab —Ed.], after it garnered substantial opposes you withdraw so as to "propose another".
Then you started another RM. It was relistedtwice and the discussion went moot, the last comment before my close was yours on February 2, my close was on February 8, i.e 6 days later. I perused the entire discussion and each side has fair points but I didn't see consensus for move. Before writing this reply, I reviewed the discussion again and I still stand by my close. if you still believe I am wrong, or this explanation is not enough, or you just don't agree, please request for a review at the appropriate venue. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Please note that the “clear opposition” he refers to consisted of erroneous claims that a “TV series” is by definition a scripted drama. (@Ammarpad: please feel free to revert this comment if you object to my quoting you.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC), edited 07:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I didn't see any general agreement in that debate and might have closed as "no consensus"; however, I do see why the closer chose to end it as "not moved" in light of previous RMs. This endorsement includes a six-month to one-year waiting period before any further attempt to move this page. Paine Ellsworthput'r there19:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - That many move requests in such a short period of time is troubling. I saw no flaw in the close and echo a six-month to one-year waiting period before any further attempt to move this page are made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the closer. I will implore the closer of this review to read my full response on my talkpage in this first thread and the second thread here. I believe the IP is acting in good faith, but my quoted comment above has been altered, albeit very subtly and explained, I believe it changed the substance of what wrote. It is no longer my words. For example, he claimed what is in square brackets is his own comment, but there's more than eye can see. The first two square bracketed sections, (except subtle "Ed.") were also in my original comment and the third one is not. Please, either quote me in full, and explain separately or don't quote me at all. Although, I didn't intend to comment here, now I will like to add this to aid the closer. — Ammarpad — continues after insertion below
Fixed. I’m sorry, didn’t realize the “this” clarification wasn’t mine (though the “consensus” one was). And I don’t think I realized it was there when I decided to use square brackets myself, so I’m… I’m going to go commit seppuku. Pretty sure that’s the only option now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are successive multiple Move request within short period of time on that page (it doesn't matter whether they are to the same target or not, as the IP is trying to show like there is big difference), what is germane here, is many move requests within short period is not constructive because whatever the target is; the pro-move !voters are just hoping (by multiple requests) to get the right combo of !voters and closer to achieve their aim.
The opposition have brought forward cogent arguments, in three different move requests, and they are consistent in that. The title is fine and helps avoid confusion.
The pro-move lacked focus, loves flip-flopping: They proposed this name,after two-oppose votes the IP proposed another name. Before you said Jack Robinson, Woodensupersman(who started this MR) also proposed another name. He earlier, unsuccessfully, proposed move three weeks earlier and it was closed as Not Moved because of cogent opposition.
My close is no consensus and I explained that in my brief comment clearly. Although bolded not moved may take eyes more, it is inevitable binary result we have. "No consensus" automatically defaults to Not moved, although I can change the bolding, if that do have any tangible benefit.
Apart from these multi-proposed titles, some voters also have their preference, example. Summing all these together, you get more than 6 proposed titles and most of them are either supported by the proposer alone or by one or two other editors.Therefore no consensus for any title, which boils down to "not moved" and ineluctable maintaining of the status quo.
You should not have given prejudice against a future discussion as due to the recent guideline change, the situation is different now than when this move was first discussed.
This whole sorry situation clearly demonstrates exactly why we have naming guidelines and why we should stick to them. We now seem to be stuck with a clumsy, inconsistent mess of a title for no good reason. --woodensuperman11:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed I didn't take into account the recent change at WP:NCTV. That's false and specious speculation. When the above IP user asked me to explain my rationale on my talkpage; My response explicitly quoted the RFC (which you claimed I neglected) and went further to elucidate my close. My close fully take the changes into account, it only doesn't favor you. If I didn't take it into account, how can I quote it to support the close?
I saw both argument from neutral stance, and weighed them fairly because I have no interest in either titles: It is very hard, if not impossible for you to see the argument I saw, because, you're not neutral. The only result that you will welcome, is the one that favors you.
You may have mentioned the RFC, but I don't think you've read the change to the guideline at WP:NCTV, which now explicitly recommends against using genre. Your comment "I considered it. How did you know I didn't?" is particularly unhelpful, you should have explained this in your close and how it applies to the situation. That's how we would know what you did or didn't consider. You have still failed to address this. And please stop your bad faith accusations. I have been consistent in my !vote, which has always been to bring this title in line with our naming conventions and policies, which I have great respect for, and still fail to see how an exception is beneficial to our readers. There are redirects in place for such things as genre if necessary. Now our readers are left with an ugly disambiguator of "TV documentary series", something that is against our guideline and isn't even good English! Even "documentary TV series" would have been better, although I by no means endorse this. --woodensuperman12:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I was not misquoted in the first place, I wouldn't have replied here at all, because I believe my close was fair, though not perfect, and should now be left for independent review (which is being done here). So what you think doesn't bother me, your comment in the discussion is not more important than that of any other editor. Earlier in this thread, you claimed I didn't consider it, now you flip-flopped again that even if I considered it, you "don't think so", this is classic you don't like it. You'll never think I do, unless I give the result you like and that's not how discussions are closed and please know that Wikipedia is not about winning. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More bad faith accusations? I'm not "flip-flopping" as you call it (and certainly not "again"), your close and your subsequent explanation has still not addressed the change in WP:NCTV, only the RFC that preceded it, and has still not addressed how the result of the move discussion at Talk:Vikings (2013 TV series)#Requested move 13 January 2018 relates to the close here. The original move discussion was for both articles, but since then the other article has been moved in line with our guidelines, so the two are clearly related. --woodensuperman14:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer did implicitly take into account the changes at NCTV, because those in opposition did so in their comments. In particular, this from AussieLegend sticks out: "In this case the present name seems far more logical than a name disambiguated by year. It's far less confusing for our readers." And this is the point about disambiguators, they exist for readers, not to satisfy arbitrary rules imposed by we editors. And where a consensus in a discussion analyses a guideline and finds it less than satisfactory for readers, that's a perfectly good reason to ignore it, and the closer would have been supervoting had they closed any other way. — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The snow close is inappropriate for several reasons. The topic is contentious so a non-administrator closing it as "snow" is problematic. It was closed after only 5 votes. There have been previous RM with many strongly opposed opinions so a unanimous vote is highly improbable. If such an improbable event were to happen, there should be no SNOW closure to demonstrate that there are 20-30 unanimous votes, not railroading a closure using the SNOW excuse. There are many reasons for a RM but individual users can explain for themselves. Closing something that generated very lengthy debate as now; that's plain wrong. An administrator should have closed this complex and contentious RM, not a non-administrator. Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter. Believe me. New2018Year (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close and move to new title. Relist is the 2nd best alternative. This is not a referendum if you like Trump or if you hate Trump and want to prevent a move. See above for reasons for move review. If you "endorse close" that means that it is ok for non-administrators to cut short debates in order to get a false conclusion and not hear out people, in my opinion, because I understand it is contentious but it's not a SNOW. New2018Year (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is stale—five months old. There's no need to relist it. Just go ahead and open a new move request if you think one is necessary. Dekimasuよ!20:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Snow close may have been called for. It's been four months since the not moved outcome; however, the RM was only open for less than two days, so any editor may open a new RM to rename the page at any time. Paine Ellsworthput'r there16:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, see above. RM is prohibited before 6 months. Furthermore, if there is no Move Review, someone can say "RM is rejected as it was the last time" New2018Year (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 6-month moratorium imposed in February 2017. It expired in August 2017. There is no moratorium now, and you have a couple of administrators here telling you a new request can be started. Please do not reopen your own closed review again. Dekimasuよ!22:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Throughout this discussion there were 6 arguments supporting the move and 4 opposed. No evidence that the oppositions are more convincing than the supports (one of them appears to be a version of wp:OTHERSTUFF.) Consensus seems to have established that the Mississippi city is the primary topic. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should've Please attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed..... Anyhow, 6-4 is generally below what is called a consensus if you're going by vote-counting. Looking at the arguments, after the siege of vicksburg was brought up and discussed, people were mostly opposed, and other than kenneth no one argued against that despite a relist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. –I would've close it as such if I were the closer too. You claimed one oppose is WP:OTHERSTUFF but you failed to mention that the first three support !votes are bare assertions without convincing argument. If we discount that one delete !vote you're not fine with, then we we've to discount these 3 support !votes equally, and that will take us to (ironically) 3/3 !votes, thus perfecting "no consensus" close from double fronts; both on arguments forwarded and vote count. This is also helpful guide on your view on page views. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout this discussion, there were a total of six users in favor of moving the page to the proposed title, and five opposed to doing so. While this is not based on vote, I don't see how the oppositions have more weight than the support. Both the statistics and the discussion seem to agree that the Mississippi city is the primary topic, but not by an overwhelming margin. While there were certainly more arguments given in opposition to this move, I don't know that that means that they have more weight. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comments. First, I wasn’t contacted before the start of this review, but I would not have chosen to reopen the discussion in this case. The discussion had already been relisted, and no comments had been made in the section for about five days. Second, I do not believe that the discussion demonstrated a consensus in favor of moving the page; thus it would have been improper to close the discussion as a move. If a discussion of the individual arguments is necessary, then it is not clear from the discussion that the city is primary with respect to either criterion from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (i.e., 1) a topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, and 2) a topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term). On point 1, there was no consensus that Natchez, Mississippi was “much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all other topics combined” to be what was meant by Natchez, as demonstrated by the variety of interpretations of the pageview analysis, regardless of whether the pageviews for the parkway are disregarded. On point 2, though the city has a long history, Natchez people and Natchez language are also topics of significant long-term notability and educational value. Finally, the nomination seems to misinterpret the guidelines for moving pages and/or the rationale for the close. A close of "no consensus" does not indicate that "the oppositions have more weight than the support." Rather, because there was no clear consensus to move the page, the status quo was retained pending establishment of a new consensus. Dekimasuよ!07:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by involved editor: I'm confused as to the rationale for contesting the closure of the move request. Based on their words above, Bneu2013 seems to be interpreting the closure as a firm not moved, but it seems fairly clear that Dekimasu did not find a consensus in either direction.--Aervanath (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The page has been moved without proper discussion in Dutch and English. I was told by mover Kleuske that I have no voice in the discussion as I am Pál Hermann's grandson. Pál Hermann used the westernized version of his name "Paul" as a performing musician, but his native "Pál" on his manuscripts as a composer. IMSLP and the Colburn School scholarship use Pál, other initiatives Paul. Cruel destiny will have it that there was a namesake Paul Hermann active as a Nazi composer in Berlin in the same years Pál worked there. Could we find a consensus? PvangastelPvangastel (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy close - this is an interesting case, but procedurally, there has been no requested move so there is no discussion to review, so this is not the correct forum. I'll pose a requested move on the article's talk page with some points in a few minutes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Comment by the closer. I will implore the closer of this review to read my full response on my talkpage in this first thread and the second thread here. I believe the IP is acting in good faith, but my quoted comment above has been altered, albeit very subtly and explained, I believe it changed the substance of what wrote. It is no longer my words. For example, he claimed what is in square brackets is his own comment, but there's more than eye can see. The first two square bracketed sections, (except subtle "Ed.") were also in my original comment and the third one is not. Please, either quote me in full, and explain separately or don't quote me at all. Although, I didn't intend to comment here, now I will like to add this to aid the closer. — Ammarpad — continues after insertion below