Samuel Clark (U.S. politician) – Consensus to relist. RM has been re-opened. Move review comments suggest that there is consensus that the current title is not the best one, and participants are looking for a solution. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 18:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
For one thing, I believe there was consensus to move the page: 3 supports and only one clear oppose, plus a neutral !vote. While there's no ideal solution here, virtually all participants acknowledged that the present title isn't acceptable as there are other U.S. politicians named Samuel Clark. Unfortunately, the closer did not respond to my request to reopen the discussion to further explore this and other potential options; given that the present title isn't workable, unfortunately move review is necessary. Cúchullaint/c 13:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There was clear consensus that the current title is not the best one, although two responders did express concern over the choice of Michigan given he wasn't just based there. I think reopening this and allowing an agreement to be formed over the best new disambiguator would be better than simply closing it out with the existing rejected title. — Amakuru (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Although the discussion was already relisted once, it looks like participants on both sides of the debate have acknowledged the issue and are actively searching for a better solution than what the OP suggested. Keep this open for another week or two and consensus is likely to appear. — JFGtalk 21:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (reopen and relist). Remember that a no consensus result does not block an new RM from being opened. It might work just as well for those interested to come up with a better choice for the name and then make a new RM. PaleAqua (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the close itself, I would note that the closer appears !voted in the previous RM. Given WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest this should be reopened for another closer if not relisted. PaleAqua (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Syrian civil war – Consensus to overturn the June 22 move request closure, and class it as "no consensus to move from long term stable title", which means the article is restored to Syrian Civil War. Note: I was WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, but supported endorsing the decision, so as discussed at the bottom of this thread I think it's OK for me to close it so that we can move on from this. Although I argued at length that this close was correct, per our guidelines, the consensus here is that the close was a line call by JFG, and that given the level of opposition, it should have been a no consensus close. I think that going forward there should be a review of the wording at WP:NCCAPS, because there is a general trend for editors to recognize a concept as proper name even if only a majority of sources capitalize, rather than the much higher bar of it being "consistently capitalized" per the guideline. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There was a consensus reached to capitalize the page to Syrian Civil War in the move discussion some months ago that was not heeded to. It was brought into discussion again with a much more clear consensus to once again capitalize the page, and it was still not heeded to. This after the page was made lower-case without a discussion in the first place at the beginning of the summer. There have been lengthy discussions in the talk page and we are getting no where. 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:59A5:B2E1:C704:73AD (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (Not moved): The arguments against moving the page were stronger and based in policies and guidelines, this should not be a no consensus result. I do not see arguments supporting Syrian Civil War that overcome the proper name arguments. However, there is a open RM on that page. Assuming that discussion continues this one should be procedurally closed. (Edit other discussion since snow closed.) PaleAqua (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC) edited PaleAqua (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one from the side that closed the discussion is still discussing it. An argument was made in favor and wasn't considered without any explanation. Every time this has come up, the consensus has been for capitalization and reasonable arguments were made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:43E:DB0C:D766:4F94 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, a big mess. Invite the subsequent admins involved in log actions, Fences and windows (talk·contribs), JFG (talk·contribs), Andy M. Wang (talk·contribs), & EdJohnston (talk·contribs), to briefly explain what they did and why, and suggest they consider setting aside a slightly dubious MR close I see at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_June#Syrian_Civil_War_.28closed.29, and make a clear statement superseding all previous decisions. I think what is needed is a statement of the status quo ante, or the first non-stub version, and recommendation of a new RM, whether immediately not before a future date. Although in some senses, this is a trifling technical matter, it also includes the ingredients of a major emotional upset. The Syrian issues are big, the question of a proper name can add emotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I overturned the "uncontroversial" move away from caps by Antony Appleyard, which should not have happened. It was requested by a user who was formally restricted from moving pages without discussion and that included making requests for uncontroversial moves. It was in any case not uncontroversial, as a prior discussion had consensus for caps - allowing the move showed poor judgment. A number of other articles were also affected. The discussion should now focus on what the title should be based on usage in sources, not previous moves and debates. Fences&Windows 09:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the June 22 close was poor, and this should go to WP:LAME. Fences&Windows 09:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The close at Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_41#Requested_move_22_June_2016 by JFG (talk·contribs) at 14:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC) appears to be the most recent and definitive. Is it that that we are being asked to review? I note that it was a line call on a highly contested discussion. An undeclared wp:nac, but by an old Wikipedian who I always thought was an admin.[reply]
Does this MR challenge the status of Talk:Syrian_civil_war#Requested_move_27_August_2016, a currently listed discussion? I could argue that it should be closed as too soon following a previous finding of consensus, wait at least six months barring significant new information or arguments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I have !voted once in an RM here neutral. I have otherwise stayed out of this heated discussion. The MR close I did was my observing the discussion at that MR only, and gauged consensus for relisting. The only slightly IAR unorthodox thing I did was suggest that the RM be opened at the then-capitalized title rather than revert, a decision I made to avoid further move confusion (the page had been moved 3 weeks ago, not a week ago), and some RM regulars like Amakuru and Jenks24 approved. I have no problems if folks want to set that MR aside (though I don't feel is too relevant now, and it's not binding anyway). Consensus can surely change. The result of the relisting was the article being moved to its lowercase form, closed by JFG.
I'm ambivalent about the title at this point. I'm also feeling that one-week RMs are not solving the problem. FYI, this page has been RM'd about a dozen times now. Note that it's been at "Syrian Civil War" for the longest continuous stretch of time from Nov 2013 to May 2016, whereas it's been at its current lowercased form for less than 20 months aggregated by my count.
The current RM on the talk page is irrelevant to the MR listing here and should be procedurally closed or SNOWed. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 07:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leave at Syrian civil war. This is a mess in so many ways. It is not even clear what is being reviewed, and what "endorse" and "overturn" mean. Having read all the discussions again, I think it is clear that the title should be at Syrian civil war, where it currently is, the more MOS compliant title, noting no consensus so far that it should be anywhere else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse JFG's excellent close of July 3 as the last definitive word, and support a 6-month moratorium on further titling discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That move was made despite obvious lack of consensus and accepted names of wars (and "Syrian Civil War", capitalized or not, is the most widely used name according to the majority of sources) are capitalized per MOS:MILTERMS. Charles Essie (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Strong endorse. This repeated rehashing and WP:FORUMSHOPPING the same issue repeatedly is becoming borderline disruptive now. The article was lower cased per the close summary at Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_41#Requested_move_22_June_2016, which took the consensus, based on our house style regarding proper names (in particular noting that there is no consistency in whether this is treated as a proper name by reliable sources). Thus lower case is now the stable title. The most recent RM did not come up with any new significant arguments , or indeed demonstrate that the term is "consistently capitalised". Most support arguments were either unsubstantiated, or indeed contained no rationale whatsoever. Thus there was indeed no consensus to overturn the previous move, as correctly noted by the closer. — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the reliable sources arguement is that more and more sources are using "Syrian Civil War".[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] In addition to that, many of them use neither. They use casual descriptive titles like "Syria war",[9] "Syria's war"[10] or "Syria's civil war".[11][12]
That is not quite correct. Source typing in independent of "reliable". Also, a tertiary source is a special type of secondary source, tertiary sources are a subset of secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be very important, but agreed they are certainly not a trump card. When it comes to titling, however, titling convention is a style choice, and Britannica has some different styling choices, in particular the default use of a disambiguating subtitle, with the subtitle rendered as a parenthetical disambiguator in their search engine output. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You're probably right I misstated the case. Tertiary sources are valid as secondary sources, and I have also cited Britannica myself in the past. But our style is not their style, and in particular our style prefers lower casing in ambiguous cases, with proper names only being used where almost every source considers it to be one. I suspect quite a few of the civil war articles could do with a similar downcasing, but they'd have to be reviewed one by one. — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get what's so ambiguous though. "Syrian Civil War" (capitalized or not) is the accepted name by Wikipedia and the majority of sources and accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized are capitalized according to MOS:MILTERMS. Charles Essie (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Capitalized or not" is the crucial point here. Most sources do not capitalize it, and in fact many sources don't even use exactly this term at all, as already noted, they use variants like "Syria's civil war" or "the civil war in Syria". That means it is not a proper name, but a descriptive name. WP:NCCAPS is crystal clear on this point. Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name, it says in bold text at the beginning of the guideline. This is not a proper name so we should not be capitalizing, as was correctly noted by consensus in the June move. — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of sources do capitalize it though (see above). Can you prove that the majority of sources don't capitalize? Charles Essie (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The way MOS:CAPS is currently phrased, I don't have to prove that the majority of sources don't capitalize. The wording is words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia. "Consistently" means that something close to 100% of sources should capitalize it for it to be a proper name, with only a few outliers, not just a simple majority of sources. That's what we see with American Civil War, but we don't see it with Syrian Civil War. — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an increasingly sizable majority though judging by a Google search. Does it really need to be almost 100%? Charles Essie (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian Civil War (as in the three words strung together) actually is the agreed upon name. Why? Because every time someone has tried to change the name, it has been shut down in favor of this one, and rightfully so. Academic sources have given this war an official name. It should be noted, when most people talk about the Second World War, they say "the war" and expect context to say the rest. Same with the Syrian Civil War. That's the name people use when you ask the title (the exceptions being those who are fighting a seperate war in the same general area or the regime, who don't acknowledge what is happening is civil war). That doesn't mean most of the internet is going to use said name, for the same reasons most people use the term "the war" and you have to know context to understand WHICH war. The internet therefore, as a whole, doesn't make for a good general source since the internet is mostly casual conversation. If a different official name comes up (which I doubt, but let us say it happens for the sake of argument), we can change the name then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:C12B:C18F:2773:948A (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's the correct name because it's the "agreed upon name" is a circular argument. It clearly isn't agreed upon, that's why we're having this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If its not agreed upon (even though it in sense that the debate has long been between to different versions of the same title) than doesn't that mean the discussion should be reopened on the talk page? Charles Essie (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that I said "as in the three words strung together" is the agreed upon name. I don't see any serious argument for any other combination of words like "War in Syria" or "The conflict in Syria" or "The Syria War" or some such (and for the record, I do not support any of those examples). As the the current combination of words is agreed upon on the site, and as every time it has been listed, it has won a majority of votes, I really do think the capitalized name should become the accepted one. However, Charles Essie, I don't necessarily think it should be relisted yet again. Otherwise this is likely to just start another round of the same thing where it gets support, someone disagrees and closes it without capitalizing it, and we end up back where we were. And it seems clear from sentiments of others in this review that its getting a bit tiresome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.26.232 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right. It does seem like we might never see the end of this. But this practice of ignoring clear consensus is something that shouldn't be allowed. So instead of relisting, I'll continue driving my argument here until this review is closed, and when it is, I'll accept the result no matter what it is and won't challenge it unless someone else does.Charles Essie (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome here is, at this point you should accept it. This is getting to be too much work over a small issue when there are plenty of areas on Wikipedia that need the energy more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is the professionally produced Encyclopaedia Britannica (which, by the way, is considered superior in academia to Wikipedia itself) considered less reliable than the hodgepodge of randomness that is the internet? Since when do news organizations, which are these days hard pressed to maintain their own elements of style, overtake an actual encyclopedia? Further, others have made the point that the names should have some form of consistency to articles like WWII, or the Gulf War. Finally, the capitalized name was accepted the longest since the article was first published on the site. The only reason this mess is even happening now was that someone arbitrarily made it lower case. Since then, the move requests have always been majority in favor of capitalization, but because whoever closes these things was not in support of it, they ignored all of that. Since then, if you look at the talk page, it has been in dispute. Moreso than when it was capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:31F2:CBDA:13FF:B74C (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We Wikipedians should 'really' try to find consensus here. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@83.101.67.8: So you're neutral? Charles Essie (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. My wrong. I meant we should overturn the non-consensual, strong-handed move to lower case and return to the previous consensus with caps. I hope this is righted now. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I'm probably going to sound like a complete idiot here, but what exactly does "Endorse" and "Overturn" mean in move reviews? Charles Essie (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Essie: See Wikipedia:Move review#Typical move review decision options. Since this RM closed "no consensus" (which means not moved on MR terms), "Endorse" means keep title as is, "Relist" means re-opening the RM for further comments, and "Overturn" could mean relisting or possibly moving if it's absolutely clear the closure was opposite consensus. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 23:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn could also mean not moving. Normally clarification follows in parenthesis. For example in my !vote above, I went with Overturn (not moved), which means I'm arguing for a reclose with a not moved result as I don't think no consensus was a strong enough result. PaleAqua (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try to clarify my position. When this page was moved to lowercase in 14 May 2016 it was done so without consensus and not a single move discussion since then had consensus until the one in that was just closed (which was in favor of returning to uppercase). Essentially, I'm challenging the May move and the outcomes of both the June and August discussions. "Syrian Civil War" was last title to have been agreed to through consensus and had been the stable title for nearly three years. Charles Essie (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The rationale for lowercase may meet the letter of Wikipedia's rules, but not the spirit. Opposing arguments have been made time and time again, without any serious consideration. Further, every time it is brought to a vote, it goes in favor of capitalization. Ever since the initial move, done without any discussion at all, it has been in flux in the talk page. I do not see why that initial action gets rewarded with a 6-month door slam in the face of those who opposed it, and have given arguments to do so, and have gotten majorities every time it was put for a vote. Yeah sure, the internet doesn't use capitalization. The internet also includes mostly informal discussions, the various news publications all follow different rules, and as I had pointed out earlier, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is not a random source of any kind, has capitalized the name. It follows convention with other wars listed both here and elsewhere and its not as though the name itself is in dispute, so why not make it a proper noun. If a new name becomes "official" later, we change it later, but right now, let it revert to capitalized. With regards to the most recent closure itself, the only argument made against the MR was a defence by JFG for his own rationale earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:dceb:6cf9:ffc3:6630:3b4e (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian Civil War (capitalized or not) is the accepted name by Wikipedia. Maybe that will change after the war is over with. We'll change it accordingly. Til then, MOS:MILTERMS says accepted names should be capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:dceb:6cf9:ffc3:6630:3b4e (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalize (Not sure if it means Overturn or not, see other responses that have contradictory viewpoints with "Overturn" attached). MOS:MILTERMS states it should be uppercase, and there is a consensus on the name (Everyone is agreeing the article should be called syrian civil war, there is just a debate on capitalization). The change on 14 May 2016 was without consensus so should the article should be reverted back to capitalization. MarkiPoli (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think this should be Overturned and restored to the capitalized version Syrian Civil War. To fully appreciate this current discussion we need to back up to the June 22 RM that was closed as consensus to move to from caps to lower case. The closing decision was well explained, but as SmokeyJoe said above, it was "a line call on a highly contested discussion", and clearly, many have felt it was the wrong decision. In particular, the closer's argument that there was no stable title is debatable - as mentioned in other discussions, caps have been in place since 2013.
The close wasn't brought to move review, but the August 18 RM essentially functions like one, arguing that the previous RM did not really have consensus to move, and should be restored until a clearer consensus for the lower case form emerges. Unfortunately, this put participants in the position of having to agree or disagree with the claim that the previous close was mistaken. Most participants found little else to add, but it's clear that the majority agreed with the nominator. The limited explanations mean that the "no consensus" close was a reasonable one, but still, it's clear that most participants were unhappy with the current status quo. Given how close the June RM was, and the fact that the evidence can be parsed in several ways, this is a legitimate concern.
The dispute is likely to continue regardless of what happens here. However, if the title stays with the lower case title, the debate will remain tied up in the question of whether the last few discussions were faulty or not, rather than focusing on the merits and weaknesses of the two options.--Cúchullaint/c 15:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the June closure was a "line call". It was actually a proper reading of the argument according to WP:CONSENSUS, in particular that the closer should interpret consensus according to valid Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just by vote counting. The line "In the absence of an overwhelming majority spelling in RS, we should follow Wikipedia's house style per MOS:TITLE, MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, viz. in a nutshell Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, hence lowercase" gives the essence of the close, and should be indisputable. I am quite worried by the increasing trend in recent move closes (as we saw at Talk:New York as well), to not weigh the policy merits of the arguments, but simply to decide consensus by who shouts the loudest. I'm not saying voting is unimportant, but it has never been the only thing to consider when performing a close. — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A decision that has been quite divisive since it was taken, especially since it originated from an improper change in the first place. Policies are there, yes, but in some cases they do not make sense. And this is one of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:dceb:b8a2:6480:cdfe:3469 (talk • contribs)
Amakuru: I don't like to criticize closing decisions by other admins when they're reasonable and well explained, but I think it's fair to call the June 22 RM close a line call. Clearly, reasonable people disagree about what the capitalization policies and guidelines recommend for cases like this, and moreover, the guidelines are inconsistently applied. But I'm more talking about the claim that there was no stable title. I can understand the rationale, but the fact is that the article had been in the same place for 3 years, plus or minus some surreptitious moves. It was a fair judgement call, but coming in a line of other close judgement calls, it hasn't brought us any closer to stability. The August RM, which is ostensibly our immediate concern here, was devoted to whether or not that RM had consensus, and participants (most participants) could fairly argue that it didn't. I think our better bet is to restore the title of the last 3 years as the stable version, and seek a wider remedy in the policy and guideline pages.--Cúchullaint/c 03:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuchullain: OK, fair enough, point taken. And yes, a three year title following an RM is clearly a stable one, I can't dispute that. I do stand by my endorse though, because I think the call (even if it was a line call) was the correct one the way the guidelines are currently written, and the close with WP:CONSENSUS seen by the closer in the June debate was absolutely the way WP:RMCI requires them to close it. Maybe, as you say, it is time to revisit the guideline at MOS:CAPS that says "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia". That's probably the big issue at the heart of all this, and it seems it does come up time and again, here and elsewher, that there's a body of opinion that the guideline isn't fit for purpose - the bar for determining a proper name is too high. Perhaps a simple majority of capitalizing sources rather than "consistently capitalized" would be a better bar. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to the capitalized version, largely per Cuchullain and others. Let's undo the improper technical move in May and go back to the last consensus version. Calidum¤ 19:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last consensus version is to not capitalise. Furthermore, if you're going to rake over past RMs, the 2012 consensus to not capitalise was far stronger than the 2013 to recaps it. — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concluding arguement ot the 2012 discussion was "Until the majority of reliable sources capitalise, it should stay non-capitalised." As I have pointed out above there is now a majority. Charles Essie (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 22 June decision had a majority in favor of capitalization, despite the "final call", and had been under heavy contention ever since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:B8A2:6480:CDFE:3469 (talk • contribs) 2:28, September 14 (UTC)
Overturn per Cuchullain. This looks like quite a mess, but I'm especially astonished that a "noncontroversial" move request was approved for this page (I realize that's not the move under review, but it seems to have colored the one that is). --BDD (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! That's what I meant, of course. Thanks. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, Cúchullain, you argue to "overturn" Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_41#Requested_move_22_June_2016? I previously said of its close "Endorse JFG's excellent close of July 3 as the last definitive word, and support a 6-month moratorium on further titling discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)". You point to Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_42#Requested_move_18_August_2016 as "essentially functions like" a move review? However, it was an RM, it was too soon after the previous close, and it was properly closed as "no consensus". I'd like to agree with you, but can't swing behind your arguments for the reasons I just gave. Perhaps it you could clarify, especially with respect to why JFG's close should be overturned? I could call it all one big "no consensus" as say "Move back to the first non-stub version". That was 2011 Syrian protests, which is most critically a descriptive title that I think supports the lowercase descriptive title "Syrian civil war". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who started the 18 August move discussion. I probably should have done a move review instead but it didn't occur to me. However, my intentions were similar to that of move review. I can't speak for Cúchullain, but the reason I think JFG's close should be overturned is that there was no consensus to return to lowercase in that discussion while my discussion, if anything, had consensus to return to uppercase but was (ironically) closed with a no consensus verdict. Charles Essie (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole issue is complicated by the, well, complicated series of discussions. On one level, I'm arguing that the August 18 RM should be overturned - ie, that there was consensus to overturn the previous RM and return to the stable title. This could have been a move review, but either way it makes the argument of one, and I'm not a fan of overlooking people for not jumping through the correct hoops when their arguments and intentions are reasonable and clear (especially considering that move review is a more obscure and less effectual process than RM). In addition to that, I think the close at the June 22 RM was, unfortunately, the wrong one. I do not like challenging other admins' closes when they're as reasonable and well articulated as this one, but I think it was off the mark, and led to additional confusion. In particular, I don't think the policies are as clear cut as that, and I don't agree that there was no stable title when the article had been in the same place for 3 years, minus undiscussed moves. In the end, I think our best bet is to return the article to its stable title and seek further clarity on the guideline level before trying to settle the question again.--Cúchullaint/c 14:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is an awkward difference of asserted fact, on the subject of existence of a long term stable title, between the procedural nominator and the closer. I don't think the long term stable title should carry much weight, if it got there not through a clear consensus decision, in favour of the first non-stub version. Support for defaulting to a long term stable version invites/requires WP:GAMING to first destabilise the apparently stable. For me, this was the lesson to be found in yogurt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there WP:GAMING involved here. This title was moved to lowercase twice without consensus and then when consensus was reached to return to uppercase it was ingnored (Filibustering the consensus-building process by reverting another editor for minor errors, or sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected. Charles Essie (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policies and guidelines are absolutely clear on this issue. Unless sources capitalise, we should not capitalise I fail to see why people continue calling for an overturn given that the original close was clear on this issue, and WP:CONSENSUS clearly requires closers to consider policy based arguments and not to count votes. @Charles Essie: and @Cuchullain: if you feel strongly about this issue you should not be seeking to overturn consensus and make this one article flout our guidelines, but you should start an RfC to get the guidelines changed, because (and maybe I would agree with you on this if it was applied sitewide) I'm not sure the "consistently capitalised" criterion is fit for purpose at the moment. — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are sources that capitalize on it. Academic sources. Relying on the consensus of the naturally informal overall internet on something that requires capitalization or not (when people barely follow proper capitalization at all) seems designed to always fail. The policy doesn't actually make sense, in other words, and its better to go by the spirit of the policy than by the letter of it, given that most people (we have now had people twice asking since this MR has been opened why the title is not capitalized) feel it should be, such titles historically are capitalized, and academic sources already go ahead and do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:dceb:aca9:e39c:245f:ab19 (talk • contribs)
Amakuru: I don't "feel strongly" about this issue one way or the other. However, it's obvious that reasonable people disagree about what the guidelines actually recommend in this case. WP:MOSCAPS, WP:NCCAPS, etc., say we capitalize proper names, as determined by sources. Similarly, MOS:MILTERMS says that if an article is "an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized". None of them give much recommendation about making that determination: which sources to use, how wide a margin it should require, etc., and the guidelines are not consistently applied even in move discussions. The disagreement here is that some feel that the most relevant sources consistently capitalize the term, and other feel that they don't, and the close judgement calls by closers of the various discussions haven't gotten us any closer to resolving that issue. Hence my feeling that we should return to the stable title, and seek further clarity on the guideline level if necessary. Perhaps those who do feel strongly about the issue should lead that charge.--Cúchullaint/c 14:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Cuchullain, and I take your point. I would certainly welcome more clarity in the guidelines, since ultimately that's what we will use to ensure consistency. But you're most likely right that they are not crystal clear in this instance. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We gonna reach a decision any time soon? We've had three different instances since this discussion began in late August asking about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:dceb:3575:83f7:b052:3f3b (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering myself. Personally, I think we have consensus to return to Syrian Civil War. Charles Essie (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalise – In terms of grammar and expression this makes sense. Other civil wars are capitalised.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If no one objects, I would be prepared to close this one off as "Overturn to no consensus on the June discussion, so return to Syrian Civil War". Very clearly, I am heavily WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, but since that closure would be the opposite of the way I !voted, perhaps it would be acceptable. I agree that this should be closed off quite soon, it's dragging on without much ongoing discussion, and I'm prepared to accept that the consensus has gone against me... Thoughts? — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but I'm very WP:INVOLVED too and I've been strongly pro-capitalization so I'm not sure how much my opinion on this counts. Charles Essie (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, I think that would be fine. It's the call nearly any other admin would make, and no one else is stepping up to close it. Thanks a lot.--Cúchullaint/c 17:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Queen Anne of Romania – There's rough consensus to endorse the closure. Though some argued that "no consensus" may have been more satisfactory, others pointed out that some parts of the NCORY guideline that may possibly be counter to that expressed by WP:COMMONNAME, and since the current title is apparently follows the common name guidelines, the closure is correct. No consensus on supervote. Despite WP:NOTMOVED, suggesting that future RMs are not completely off the table. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 01:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Discussion strongly favoured move, closer decided against based on specious interpretation of guidelines and possible outcome of an ongoing guideline discussion. Anonimu - initiator of the move request (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, although I wish that all closers would explicitly differentiate a consensus to not move from no consensus, not moved. This was a "no consensus". I agree that the last !votes swing it to no consensus. I note that coverage of the funeral and memorial did exclusively refer to her as Queen Anne, albeit usually in scare quotes, but most importantly no coverage made use of her maiden name. This does indeed mean that NCROY recommends something that flies in the face of COMMONNAME. The closer was correct to note this, and also that NCROY is unstable. Indeed, NCROY has always been the most exception filled, error prone, unreliable naming convention guideline. It is appropriate to wait a few months before considering this case again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify whether or not you were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review. Anonimu (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted waveringly in support of your rename proposal. Why did you not disclose your role in the discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, move reviews are initiated by involved parties seeking input from third parties. This is not a venue to discuss arguments for or against a move, but rather the RM process in itself. That is why I am only commenting on process, as a rehash of the original move discussion was not my intent. And stating involvement is not only polite, but actually part of the move review process.Anonimu (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, while it is true that most !votes favored the proposed move, the closer correctly noted that the basis of nearly all arguments put forth was a disagreement with the bio subject's "legal" (and in the OP's case, "political") right to be referred to as a queen, i.e., attempts to improperly Right Great Wrongs, as the closer noted. Those !votes openly ignored the fact that the longstanding name of the article and the COMMONNAME of the bio subject were already the same, so that the article name complies with Wikipedia policy. Whereas most of the !votes and comments in opposition to the name change, including my own, noted that "Queen Anne" is how this person is and has for 60+ years been most known to the English-language public, so far. The argument that the use of "queen" to refer to the bio-subject violates NPOV is incorrect because there is little evidence that there is significant objection to the use of that word to refer to this individual, inasmuch as she is referred to using that title by the vast majority of reliable sources which mention her, both in English and (since the 1980s) in Romanian, including the current President of the Republic of Romania and the President of the Republic of Moldova, both of whom publicly expressed their condolences upon her death, explicitly referring to her as "Queen Anne" in doing so, as noted (and sourced) in the article. Nor are recent references to her rare or obscure, since nearly every major language daily news periodical or website mentioned her this week -- as a queen. Therefore, the closer correctly applied RMCI, which states, under "Determining Consensus", "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly...Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." The NCROY guideline has been interpreted as both supporting and not supporting the move, so reliance upon COMMONNAME is appropriate -- and supports the closer's decision. FactStraight (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify whether or not you were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review. Anonimu (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:COMMONNAME and per standard practice on Wikipedia so far, for consistency. The standard practice being that, all things being equal, a wife can take the title her husband uses, by courtesy. I was involved in the original and all related discussions so far. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The RM is clearly a no consensus result. I agree with the reminder of that "Not moved" and "No consensus to move" are different and this should have been marked as the later. I would have liked to have seen mention of the "Anne of Bourbon-Parma" option in the close rational as that seemed to have some support. PaleAqua (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Although there was a majority voting for the move, requested moves are not polls and the closing rationale is a reasonable one. DrKay (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Those opposing the move based their arguments strongly in policy, while those favoring it did not -- "she wasn't really a queen" doesn't override WP:COMMONNAME. The closing rationale was well thought out and correct. Calidum¤ 02:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a discussion where much of the argument on one side was based on the subjects "right" to be referred to by a particular title and where the other side was more firmly rooted in policy. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn *but* I would not be averse to a "No consensus with no prejudice for renomination" close per SmokeyJoe. (I participated in the original RM and supported the move.) Closer inexplicably decided to make a supervote and act as if one position was indisputably correct. The "Right Great Wrongs" part is especially infuriating, as it's the opposers of the move who give off that vibe - arguing that Romania didn't really abolish the monarchy, or if they did it wasn't fair, or something, like a caricature of royalists pretending that all these silly republics are just begging to have the True King come back and show them the way.
As a note, WP:NCROY is indeed a hot mess, and I am normally a huge supporter of WP:COMMONNAME, but these don't actually matter here. For COMMONNAME, officialness usually doesn't matter for titling, but it does for a few rare things, and "high governmental office" is one of those well-established exceptions. Additionally, there should (but not always) be a preference for using the "native" terms over the vanilla English press, so the fact that someone might be Queen Whoever in the press doesn't necessarily override them not being referred to as an official Queen in the country. (If opposers had offered evidence that Romanians also unofficially consider her a Queen, and this is non-controversial and not the domain of one subset of the population, then maybe.) Finally, while the royalty guidelines are messy, this is attacking exactly the wrong part of them. The part that says "don't refer to pretenders as if they're real rulers" is A+ and needed lest Wikipedia seem to claim that there are 4 different simultaneous Kings of France right now. The part that says "queens regnant don't usually get Queen in their article title, but other queens sometimes do" is shenanigans and exactly the reverse of what a casual reader would expect. In other words, even if the marriage had happened 2 years earlier, I'd STILL be opposed to adding Queen to the title, because it makes it sound like she was a ruling Queen while the likes of Elizabeth I of England don't have it, and that's confusing. (And yes, many of these issues are better raised in a requested move, not a move review... but when the closer blithely refers to their own interpretation of WP:NCROY in the close for why they're right rather than the consensus of the voters, it becomes unfortunately necessary to litigate. I'd have been happy to bring all these up had the closer simply cast a normal vote!) SnowFire (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: I have absolutely no personal preference in this case. My close resulted from a neutral reading of the supporters' and opposers' arguments, and yes I gave more weight to Wikipedia policy than to Romanian politics, not to mention any WP:JDLI stances. I made no interpretation of WP:NCROY at all, and I'm glad I didn't, as even you find this guideline contradictory. As explained in the detailed closing message, my decision rests essentially on WP:AT, WP:OFFICIAL and WP:RMCI, and subsidiarily on WP:RGW and WP:NOCON. Note that WP:RGW allows us to equally reject arguments saying that it's wrong to call her a queen and those saying she deserves the title; I have no idea which side is "wrong" and fortunately our neutral encyclopedia doesn't care. — JFGtalk 13:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: It's clear we fundamentally disagree. Which is fine.
However, the point of a closer is to neutrally assess the results of a discussion, not post their own screed about their own feelings. If you had closed this with the two words "No consensus" and no explanation, the exact same thing would have happened in "no move" and there'd be no problem. You have instead elected to stand on being the Closer and instruct all the many supporters about how we're the ones trying to Right Great Wrongs, when in fact we believe we are following Wikipedia policy and it's the opposers who are pulling a WP:RGW. Which is absolutely infuriating and bad for a collaborative environment.
As a brief aside of fact, you most certainly did reference NCROY in your close: you linked to "The policy debate started by this case, while ongoing, is trending towards supporting the common name rationale," a parallel discussion on the NCROY talk page taking place after the RM was opened and not really advertised in the RM. Which may be fine. Who knows. But to claim you aren't referencing a particular interpretation of NCROY when you're linking to a particular interpretation of NCROY is silly. Additionally, my point about NCROY being shenanigans is in the sense of my preferred version being even more pro-move than listed currently. If someone is speeding down the highway at 75 mph, the speed limit is listed as 65 mph, and I as an editor think the speed limit should really be 55 mph, that doesn't invalidate my accusation of speeding because I've somehow admitted the speed limit is inconsistent. SnowFire (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: I fully understand your position, and again I stand by my close as a neutral evaluation of the supporters' and dissenters' views, in light of policy. I most certainly didn't post [my] own screed about [my] own feelings; I have exactly zero feelings about what is right or wrong in that case. Please AGF instead of attacking my integrity. — JFGtalk 07:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the allegation of Supervote. The closer's rationale reflected points raised in discussion, it did not introduce new points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Err, not quite. The closer refers to a guideline discussion that seemed to him to go in a certain direction (which it didn't!) and put forward an argument about how "stability" affects the application of policy (implying that if someone had changed the title of the article one year ago, now he would have supported that title; "luckily", somebody took care to salt all other policy-acceptable page names).Anonimu (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: I have made no contributions to previous discussions on this topic. I saw no error in the closing. We already have broad community consensus on how to deal with a situation like this, no new guideline is needed, and common name is still a major factor. Since 1948, denouncing his abdication as forced and illegal, Michael I claimed the title of King. After he was married his wife chose to use the title gained by marriage. We have instances of Kings in exile so that is not abnormal. Many reliable sources still use the title "Queen", as evidenced in publications across the world, and that is a basis for the name of an article lacking credible exceptions. A twist would be that had the title been changed a year ago, according to policy, it would now need to be changed back anyway. As a note (in response to comments above), and so far supported by a very large and continuous community consensus, the common name, supported by reliable sources, does still very much matter and is also a criteria for article title neutrality. Otr500 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a side comment, not to pick on you or anything, but this is exactly why I was saying above that supporters of the original move come across as trying to Right Great Wrongs. What does it matter that Michael denounced his abdication as forced and illegal? Royalty that isn't accepted by the actual government in power isn't anything at all. No matter how unfair it might have been, the government officially abolished the monarchy. The closer bragged about not paying attention to Romanian politics, but not noticing a feature like this is like bragging about not paying attention to Spanish politics, and listing a different claimant to the throne as king/queen. It isn't Wikipedia's business to pick the True King. It is merely to reflect what the government currently says - not what the press says, and not what friends to the deposed royalty say. SnowFire (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL-- I don't feel picked on. I am on the side that believes we are to report what is in multiple reliable sources. Until Wikipedia decides to register editors, consider us Encyclopedia editors and peer reviewers, that is the position I will maintain. Ante Pavelić was considered a fascist dictator of a puppet state and escaped the fate of Ion Antonescu. Look, I just learned that Texas left the Union this morning, so am in shock and have to pack. According to news reports a weather disturbance is moving through the Atlantic with "a 4% chance of reaching Texas and a 26% chance of reaching the United States of America.". This is from what might be considered a reliable source and not a propaganda news bulletin issued by a dictator regime or a puppet government. With editorials like this one might question the accuracy of the "ABC13 HURRICANE GUIDE". Maybe I should consult another news outlet before moving to Texas. Otr500 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.