< 2017 November	Move review archives	2018 January >

2017 December

Sarah Huckabee Sanders – Speedy relist I'm speedy closing this as there is no way that this could be closed as overturn to move, and keeping this open longer when it would be simpler to file a new RM (and there are clear grounds for testing the question) is pointless. This was a speedy close and with the comments below it likely wouldn't have qualified as such if it had been opened longer. The question is whether or not to open a new RM or to reopen the current one and relist. I think the best option here is a relist, so the comments of the original commenters can be taken into account by the new closer. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

She is more commonly refered to as Sarah Sanders. A google search turned up over 1 million hits of Sarah Sanders and only 300,000 of Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen I clicked on the Google News links provided by one of the opposers purporting to show that "Sarah Huckerbee Sanders" was more common but got the opposite results ("Sarah Huckerbee" had nearly double the amount of hits as the alternative). Should not have been snow closed after such a short period and dubious evidence. Number 5 7 12:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen The evidence in that one is contested and the close was way too soon to assess it. Timrollpickering 18:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Victoria (TV series) – Endorsed.As noted by the original closer, the RM can be re-litigated, subject to the closure of this RFC. Winged Blades^Godric 14:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clear consensus to move (5 support !votes, despite closer only counting two - see User talk:Bradv#Your close of RM for Victoria (TV series)), not dependent on the outcome of the RFC. --wooden superman 15:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I acknowledge that I should have left a more detailed rationale when I closed the discussion. There were several comments suggesting that this should hold off until the RfC at WT:NCTV is complete, as depending on how that goes this may result in yet another page move. Therefore, this discussion was closed as no consensus, without prejudice against renominating once the RfC is settled. I explained all this to Woodensuperman on my talk page. Brad v 15:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You also explained that you called a "no consensus" because there were only two editors supporting the move, when there were in fact five. --wooden superman 15:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bradv. Discussions on Wikipedia are not a vote, it doesn't matter how many people supported it. The important detail of the discussion is that there were clear disagreements between the editors who contributed to the discussion, no compromises were made between those for and against the move, and hence, there was no consensus. -- Alex^TW 15:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Regardless of the actual numbers, the number of people supporting the move and those opposing or suggesting this wait a bit is roughly equal. Surely you can't call that a consensus. Brad v 15:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The move is not dependent on the RfC, as, per WP:INCDAB, it is currently at a title which does not sufficiently disambiguate, so whatever the outcome of the RFC the article will need to be moved. There was clear consensus to move on this basis. --wooden superman 15:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What points of WP:CONSENSUS do you base this observation of apparent "consensus" on? What compromise was agreed upon between the disagreeing editors in the discussion? -- Alex^TW 15:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No compromise needed. --wooden superman 15:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you do not understand what a consensus is per WP:CONSENSUS, and this move review is simply the act of a disgruntled editor that did not get their way. -- Alex^TW 15:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted is that Woodensuperman ignored Bradv's suggestion to wait until the RFC at WT:NCTV completed, which is a discussion clearly related to the article at hand, as the article was directly referenced in the RFC discussion, and both issues concern the correct disambiguation of an article. -- Alex^TW 15:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome of the RFC, the article needs to be moved to distinguish it from the other TV series with the same name. --wooden superman 15:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal opinion; the article was directly referenced in the RFC discussion as an example for the RFC. -- Alex^TW 15:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the opinion of the majority of editors who contributed to the RM. --wooden superman 15:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, and your personal view, again. This move review holds zero basis; if it were the "opinion of the majority of editors who contributed", then it would have been closed as "consensus". It was not. -- Alex^TW 15:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I was amazed it was closed as "no consensus" when five editors were clearly in favour of moving it and only you were against it. This is exactly why this move review is necessary, and is not the ramblings of "a disgruntled editor that did not get their way". Let's see how it plays out, rather than assuming bad faith, eh? --wooden superman 16:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you have to be told that the number of !votes does not count? There was clear disagreement between those that wanted to move it, and those that either did not or believed we should wait for the RFC - that's all that mattered. It was not resolved. Hence, no consensus. This very move review is ABF in itself, so I think my review on your actions is quite fair. -- Alex^TW 16:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Good close, explanation makes sense. I would have closed it the same way. We can simply revisit this once the RFC about telenovelas is resolved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Jenks. This will be resolved by RfC anyway. Nominator's comments above appear to be re-litigating the discussion. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "put this on hold" until Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#RfC:_Telenovela_disambiguation is resolved. "No consensus" is not the right wording. A consensus was in development, with a rough consensus between "support" and "wait for the RfC". That is not "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "No consensus for a move at this time" is an accurate reading of the discussion, and also clearly allows for subsequent rethinking if the telenovela debate ends in a particular way. Discussions should not be "put on hold", that just creates a loose end. — Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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