James Martin Hayes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

There being only one other participant in the discussion besides myself and no consensus, this seems like an obvious situation in which the discussion should be relisted. Additionally, there was consensus on one of the articles nominated (viz. Thomas Collins (bishop)). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or partial overturn to move some of the targets - first of all, a couple of procedural points - (1) the nominator should have discussed the close informally with the closer before starting a move review, per clear instructions at the top of WP:MRV. (2) the close was a non-admin close, so User:DrStrauss should have used the ((RMnac)) template, per instructions at WP:RMNAC. On the close itself, I don't think it was unreasonable to close it at this stage, there is no absolute need to relist a discussion like this, even if it's only had a couple of people involved. I probably would have relisted it myself though, to hopefully get a couple more opinions. However, if it were to be closed, "not moved" is clearly the wrong outcome, it should be "no consensus", a subtle but different result as detailed at WP:THREEOUTCOMES. And three of the moves, James Hayes (bishop), Richard Smith (bishop) and Thomas Collins (bishop) should IMHO have gone ahead, given that those specific ones were unopposed and appear necessary per WP:PRECISE, given there are other bishops of the same name. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bear that in mind in future, thanks for the reminder. I've got no aversion to a relisting. DrStrauss talk 11:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per Amakuru. Getting more eyes on the subject would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (no consensus), do not relist, instead allow a fresh renomination. In hindsight, the nominator's rationale proved inadequate. A new, better, proposal statement may make all the difference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have made a more thorough argument in the opening statement if I had known it was going to lead to all this – that statement was just copied and pasted from the uncontested technical requests page by Anthony Appleyard. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn/relist of some of the topics per Amakuru. Two of the entries, Richard Smith (bishop) (vs. the bishop Richard William Smith), and Thomas Collins (bishop) (vs. Thomas Patrick Collins), are WP:INCDAB, and one gained support in the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Civil War (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The closure was a blatant WP:SUPERVOTE. The arguments for support are "the name is long" and "I want to close the discussion" versus an actual, well thought out oppose. At most that should lead to a "no consensus", right? Instead, the closer decided that the discussion is a vote and then went through point by point of why the oppose was unconvincing. I told the closer that I don't mind if they disagree with me, but that needs to be a separate !vote and not a closure, so the merits of both can be discussed. As it stands now, none of the points the closer made have been discussed, which I feel is inappropriate and should be overturned and relisted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's note - Tavix discussed this with me on my talk page, and as I mentioned there, the consensus was to move, based on the simple application of WP:CONCISE, which is how I interpreted the nominator's statement "the name is too long". Before the RM, Albanian Civil War already redirected to Albanian civil war of 1997, so this move was simply to site the article at the shorter title rather than the longer one. Tavix's oppose was questioning two aspects of the arrangement: (1) whether the 1997 war really is the primary topic for "Albanian Civil War", and (2) whether it was a civil war at all. Which may be valid questions, but they weren't the subject of this RM, and leaving the status quo in place wouldn't have solved these concerns any more than moving to the shorter title. I don't see this as a supervote, simply a reading of the consensus, and the support argument (backed by 2 editors) seemed stronger than the single oppose in this instance, in what was already quite an old RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure for the reasons Amakuru has given. I wouldn't oppose a new RM taking place, if the new discussion is more widely advertised. —Guanaco 14:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist the only support other than the nominator was basically just lets just be done with this without expressing why the move should happen. It wasn't even a per nom !vote. I'm sympathetic to Amakuru's reasoning, but I don't see consensus here. I'd also be fine with overturning to no consensus with no prejudice against future RMs. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. WP:Supervote. Amakuru's persuasive response to Tavix belongs in the discussion as a !vote. Tavix should be allowed to respond. Failing a good response, someone else may call it a consensus to move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is a reasonable reading of the consensus and within an admin's purview per WP:RMCI. The lengthy listing period suggests that relisting again wouldn't lead to any other outcome.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L'Amant double (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

There were three titles discussed. Amant Double had the most support. Then L'Amant Double. Then L'Amant double, which is the title the page was moved to. — Film Fan 08:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a summary of my rationale at Talk:L'Amant double#My reasoning in closing the move discussion. —Guanaco 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure L'Amant double is the correct title and had the most support. The other title was/is the festival title, and needs to wait until it's released outside Cannes for further consideration. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Guanaco's rationale. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse rationale makes sense. There was a consensus for a move but not a clear one for the proposal. This is where it landed. Good close. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Was leaning "Overturn bad NAC close of a rough consensus". At a minimum, the closer should modify the close, the explanation at Talk:L'Amant_double#My_reasoning_in_closing_the_move_discussion reflects the lack of sufficient explantion in the closing statement. I find the thread following the last RM !vote difficult to follow. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdancing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

On two points:

• Insufficient participation in discussion, without relisting, as compared to prior discussions on the same topic, particularly the one other formal move request, which closed with no consensus (Talk:Breakdancing/Archive 1 § move to Breakdance).
• Incomplete consideration of WP:AT, particularly the "inaccurate names" clause of WP:COMMONNAME.

Propose reversing the move and either relisting the discussion or elevating to RfC per the closing editor's suggestion (at User talk:Crow § Move of B-boying possibly premature). Ibadibam (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse discussion ran 7 days with no objection and three supports. Last RM was 7 years ago and was no consensus anyway. Perfectly reasonable close in line with RMCI. No reason to relist. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by mover: As the one who executed the move, let me say that consensus was unanimous after 7 days, with a majority of those participating offering sound policy-based arguments for the move. The talk page discussion that moved it to the now-old name was at Talk:Breakdance#Merger_proposal, which had a split of opinions, many of which (on both sides) were not policy-based and included a couple of new-at-the-time accounts that ceased editing shortly thereafter. Factoring that in with the other discussions (helpfully indexed at the top of Talk:Breakdancing and consensus over time seems to lean towards some variation of breaking/breakdance/breakdancing. Crow^Caw 22:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: unanimous conensus by discussants which was backed by references to policy there was no reason to relist. Ebonelm (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle royal (gaming) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

(I already requested a review from the closer.) Move rationale for both the nomination and closure was flawed:

• The original nomination rationale already noted that "royale" was an accepted spelling (recognized by dictionaries), thus as far as grammar rules are concerned, it is merely preference.
• The sources used to indicate that "royale" was an "incorrect" spelling was based on unreliable and non-authoritative sources on English grammar, which included a blog that did not explain its own rationale, and professional wrestling pages that are partial to the names of events in that domain.
• The closer dismissed WP:COMMONNAME policy because another comment stated unspecified Google search strings that did not appear to show a predominant spelling. Regardless, the policy is based on the name's "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources." As I had already noted in my opposing comment, the sources dealing with the subject (the game genre) all used the "royale" spelling.
• The closer noted WP:CONSISTENCY as an argument, which states "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." On the Wikipedia, articles using "battle royal" in the title are again mainly from pro wrestling events, while articles using "battle royale" are the names of tabletop and video games. Thus, the consistency argument would also appear to favor the "royale" spelling for this topic.
• Furthermore, as noted in the article, the name "battle royale" was largely influenced by and paid homage to a specific media franchise (Battle Royale) that used the "royale" spelling. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer statement This was my response when the issue was raised on my talk page, and I don't want to waste too many more bytes over this. I apologize to those reviewing this that there was not a closing statement, as I said, I didn't see it as controversial at the time. My closing rationale is pretty simple: there was clear support for this proposal that weighed the oppose reasons and that responded to the assertion of common name and still decided that moving was best. There were other policy based considerations raised and the empirical data was considered on the naming and considered a wash. Having read this conversation through three times now, the consensus still appears to me to have been for a move. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:RMCI: "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, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." I feel that each of the arguments you've provided have glossed over the content of the policies and what they actually say. I have yet to see a policy-based rationale for moving the article that is stronger than the rationale for not moving it. Not to mention the continuing lack of relevant sources to support the move. Thus far I've seen plenty of rationalization but have yet to identify rationale. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no known connection between "Battle Royale" the narrative and "battle royal(e)" the video game genre. I don't know where that is coming from, I can't find any interviews that assert that the dev of the first such game "DayZ: Battle Royale", Brendan Greene, chose that name or at least said the book influenced it. Certainly there's a relationship, since both the book and the genre are drawing from what "battle royal"s were, a last-man-standing fight, but the vector from the book to the genre is non-existent that I can find.

The phrase "battle royal"'s origins in English are clear, that's not a question. It's where the extra "e" came from that is hard to trace w sources (speculation is that it seemed French so the e was added to make it look more french), until the publication of the first "Battle Royale" book.

One thing I do note that if the "e" is added, then nearly all uses of the term for the video game genre are capitalized "Battle Royale" and treated as a proper noun whereas without the "e" is it kept lowercase.

On the consistency argument battle royal is the origin term's page, and that's what we're consistent with. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The website http://battleroyalegames.com (which was a source in the article and subsequently removed by one of the other commenters[1] who supported the move) is Brendan Greene's site and it states plainly that his game design was "inspired by the book/movie".
• The origins of the phrase "battle royal(e)" may be an interesting bit of trivia, but is not relevant to titling the article. Sources on the subject are. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

• I would not call the website for the mod necessarily a reliable source here. It's the mod's site, which (since it is dated 2016, well after Greene moved off to other projects) is not necessarily his own words. Greene's very visible nowadays and I am watching to see if he discusses the origin of the name he took. And it is important to understand where the name differences came from to know why there's two different spellings and capitalization. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inspiration for the mod happened when it did. What Greene is doing now is not relevant to the origins of the topic. Understanding the differences between original and alternative usage is not relevant to the title, which only cares about the usage in sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I will add I just found something that by itself is not a usable RS but it points to a presentation Greene did at a game convention that affirms he took the name from the franchise. [2]. I need to see if I can verify the talk. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In reviewing this, I don't see a problem with either using "battle royal (gaming)" or "Battle Royale (gaming)", but would still have a significant problem with "battle royale (gaming)". The genre in common sources either use the non-proper noun to reflect the origin of the term from England and through the 19th-early 20th century, or use the capitalized proper name to reflect the fact that the seminal work (the ARMA mod) was influenced by the Japanese film, so retaining that proper name is kept in sources. There are a handful of sources that use only the lower case of "battle royale", but this should be seen as the alternate spelling of "battle royal" that diffused into the language in part due to the film's spelling. It looks wrong because "royale" is not an English word nor a borrowed word. Keeping it at the proper name reflects a high number of the sources. Arguing, it is too soon to consider "battle royale" as it is a new genre. Consider that roguelike technically came from the game Rogue, but has had long enough time for the non-capitalized version to become the standard. Metroidvania still remains mostly capitalized as it is a more newer term derived from Metroid but the non-capitalized version is starting to gain traction. "Battle Royale" may end up being that in time. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This may be the wrong title on its merits, but the close was a perfectly reasonable reading of the discussion as we have it. A new RM with better evidence as to which spelling is more common would be a better way forward.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Cuchullain and Tony Balloni's comments above. It's quite borderline, but I think this is a reasonable calling of the consensus as it existed in the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Closer made a correct reading of the discussion. — JFG ^talk 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]