This RM was proposed by an anonymous user and this talk page has been protected till 18:29, 29 September 2020. Also, the nom has been blocked for 1 month. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Kyiv – Move to Kyiv (almost) unanimously endorsedNo such user (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I hardly see any evidence regarding the common name of Ukrainian city, because IMO, even the city calls the as Kyiv in English, common people still use the city former name, which calls them Kiev. The former still fits WP:COMMONNAME in sense because majority source outside the Ukrainian government source still use Kiev in the news about it, even in maps released and see around the world, the city still use former city's name. Tourist outside Ukraine that engaging trip to the city still use Kiev in their vlog video. 118.96.188.179 (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move (involved) the closing statement was extremely detailed and well written, addressed the main arguments, and can serve as an excellent example. There were zero complaints. This review request doesn’t address it at all. —MichaelZ. 12:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move as someone who was not involved at all with the proceedings and is seeing this with a fresh eye. The closer did a fine job of summarizing the voices that chimed in given the initial nomination that was extensively researched and cited the style guides of numerous top news organizations. There is no valid reason to reverse the course of action that was taken for the article move. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move (involved). Thorough and (IMO) correct reading of the debate. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak endorse move (involved). There are two separate issues to consider. First, the initiator and primary supporter of the move was an anonymous IP who was blocked twice for inappropriate behavior and then finally discovered through CU to be a topic-banned user evading his ban. This was not known until after the move had been made. This will color the move's validity. Second, had any other non-banned user with the same level of zeal gathered the same evidence that was eventually deemed sufficient for the move to proceed? Most likely yes because the closer deemed the move acceptable. We cannot know for certain because the page that was used to gather evidence was almost entirely written by the banned editor. Most opponents of the move recognize that the move was inevitable, but the fact that an anon IP was allowed to run rampant over the page without having a CU run early in the process will color the outcome. Kyiv deserved better and admins on both sides should have been more suspicious of an anon IP pouring so much energy into a single topic (the anon IP had even been labelled an SPA without debate) who clearly showed more knowledge of Wikipedia than most anon IPs. I would urge admins to take their responsibilities to protect Wikipedia very seriously and question any anon IP who seems to know more than they should and be focused more than many named editors on a single purpose. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) MR is not a place relitigate the RM. No procedural concerns have been raised here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be speedy closed as trolling--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were very legitimate problems with the RM. This Move Review is not unreasonable. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move (voted Move) A well-attended discussion over several months ended in a solid policy-based consensus to move the article to Kyiv. I felt the closer addressed all the main arguments both for and against. I see no reason to overturn. CThomas3 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse move (voted against Move) There were a lot of issues that cast a shadow over this move request, from the anonymous IP that initiated it, to the off-Wiki canvassing, to the heavy lobbying by the Ukrainian government to change the English spelling. But in the end, it does seem that more legitimate votes were in favor of the move. And though we don't just do a straight vote count, their arguments in support of the move were not without merit. So the closure was within the bounds of reasonableness. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant who created it. It could be an LTA who created it, it doesn't matter. The RM was a valid question, and evidence and novel arguments were made by established editors in good standing. Who created the discussion, and if any canvassing happened, is irrelevant, as it did not persist. The close reflects the arguments presented by regular editors. If canvassing / socking automatically disqualified an RfC/move we'd never get anything done; all an oppose proponent would have to do is make a couple of sock votes and there we go, MR/AN must overturn. Unreasonable proposition.This MR should be speedily closed as trolling / waste of editors' time, as not a single argument has been made to suggest concerns which MR can consider per WP:IMR or WP:RMCI, a discussion hasn't been made with the closer, and this is just turning into a relitigation of the move request. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn I uninvolved in the move discussion that lasted into 3 months but i hardly see any reliable sources outside English-speaking countries to used "Kyiv" as recommended by Ukrainian government regarding the correct spelling. The travel guide released by an airline (for example Delta Air Lines travel guide) and many international schedules that see in the airport's board still use "Kiev", which is the former name of the city. That is reason why many companies refused to accept official spelling of the city despite plea by Ukrainian government to use that. Apart from my argument, there were a strong consensus to rename the city to local spelling that recommends by Ukrainian government. 36.68.198.78 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move and speedy close (!voted move). This has to be one of the lamest MRs I’ve ever seen. The closer’s explanation, not to mention many Support participants, thoroughly addressed MR nom’s argument here. Practically all current reliable English sources are now using Kyiv. The fact that the only overturn (weak) !vote here so far explicitly relies on non-English sources in a Russian accent anonymously, and with no discussion by nom on closer’s talk page, just shows how far off the rails this is. Just SNOW close it someone, please. —-В²C☎ 00:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move, snow and/or procedural close (!voted to move). This move review does not fulfill WP:IMR and is instead attempting to re-litigate the debate. Nevertheless, this discussion is a clear endorsement of the close. Let's not waste time here. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I do not think "procedural close" is the right thing to do (despite the fact that OP technically missed couple of requirements of WP:IMR, such as informing closer on their talk page), because closing it via "procedural close" would be against the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, @The ed17:, you should consider that everyone who has participated thus far were involved in the RM, therefore their comments are of little to no value (they were partisans of that discussion); the only two contributors who were actually not involved in RM discussions are Fuzheado (Endorse) and IP with broken English (Weak Overturn).--67.175.201.50 (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did not "technically" miss some of the requirements ... they did not comply with literally all of the requirements. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there's little doubt that some people are unhappy with it, and letting this run is IMO probably a good way to forestall future drama. I could be wrong about that. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the unhappiness has nothing to do with the result, but with the admins not noticing that an anon IP was running the show with more expertise than an anon IP ever shows. None of the admins were showing any suspicion and that should be a job requirement--to protect Wikipedia from just such block-evasion techniques. Admins need to spend a little less time on blanket WP:AGF when it comes to patrolling the corridors of our project. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse uninvolved. Good close, a good conservative call of "rough consensus" on a simple binary question, the rough consensus call being the proper privilege of an admin closer. Well explained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move (Involved as prior RM closer in Oct-Nov 2019 but not involved in this RM) per all of the above. I believe there is rough consensus for the page move, and the closer did an excellent job of explaining their views in the rationale. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move <Involved>. Eighteen-and-a-half years after the article's creation (in February 2002, as Kiev) and seventeen-and-a-half years after Kyiv was first indicated on the article's talk page (in March 2003) as the city's updated English exonym, the move finally took place on the basis of an extremely detailed nomination and an equally detailed commentary by the closer. An overwhelming majority has accepted the move and there is no turning back. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot know what the future holds. If in a year or two the English language sources are using "Kiev" more often than they use "Kyiv", then we may very well move the article back to its original name at that point. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The future is indeed unknowable. However, the likelihood that print media manuals of style, reference books as well as geographical and governmental entities in the English-speaking world would set aside "Kyiv" in a year or two and return to the use of "Kiev" seems to be as plausible as the possibility that these entities would also abandon the use of "Beijing" or "Kolkata" and return to the use of "Peking" and "Calcutta". —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There is a rough consensus that the outcome of the close was incorrect and that it should have been closed as "no consensus". Participants generally agree that since the 2019 RfC, the bar for partial disambiguators as primary topics is a higher bar than for bare titles. Critically, there is no consensus as to where that bar is which means it is left to local editorial discretion until a pattern emerges or there is another RfC. For that reason, there is no policy-based reason to discount the oppose votes en masse. Some participants even point to well regarded essays like WP:PRECISION and WP:RECENTISM which support the opposition but were overlooked by the closer. So the arguments based on WP:LOCALCON and WP:NOTAVOTE were discounted as largely inapplicable. There's no global consensus on what the bar for a PDAB primary topic is, so there's no global consensus to override. Since local consensus helps build global consensus, numerical proportions are informative (but not determinitive). To the degree that opposes go directly against the 2019 RfC, they should be discounted, but participants here did not believe there was a sufficient number to completely invalidate the opposition. So as far as WP:NOTAVOTE is applicable, it would push the RM into "no consensus" territory, but participants do not agree that it goes so far as to justify finding consensus for a move. — Wug·a·po·des 02:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note, that I'm taking some liberty and not re-opening the RM. It's been like 3 months at this point and reviving the discussion would just be bureaucratic wonkery. Anyone can open a new move request at any time. — Wug·a·po·des 02:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturned. Opinion is divided on the move itself, but we're not here to relitigate the RM. The close is a pretty clear WP:SUPERVOTE against a strong majority opposing the move. The fact this was a non-admin close is not a problem (Sceptre is amply qualified to close a RM). The issue is summarised well by Fuzheado: there is a clear consensus against, even discounting the bare vote element, and the argument from policy (a valid reason to accept a minority view in a Wikipedia debate) falls afoul of what Nohomersryan describes as "[t]he conflicting guidelines and intrinsic subjectivity of what constitutes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" - the guidelines do conflict and both support and oppose opinions referenced their preferred interpretations of the guidelines, so the close came down to interpretation of the guidelines rather than the discussion - which makes it, in essence, a supervote, albeit one that is clearly done in good faith and based on a sincere effort to resolve the ambiguity. I don't think this reflects badly on Sceptre, the Support opinions here make the point that we are supposed to look at PAG not count votes, and the overturn is (ironically) possibly as much a judgment call as the original close. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] See also: AN review of this MRV closure.
As even the non-admin closer points out, there is a clear numerical advantage (75%) for those opposing any move in this discussion. The RFC mentioned in the close establishes that "the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator". WP:PRIMARYFILM (a specific guideline regarding films) specifically mentions that "partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) should be made and redirected back to the main disambiguation page or an appropriate section of it" - meaning that this subject area does not make use of "WP:PDAB". In this case, the high standard is clearly not met in this discussion, the film naming convention specifically goes against it, and the number of policy-based opposes clearly outnumbers supports - so this should be reversed and closed as "no consensus". -- Netoholic@ 16:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added: I will point out that the WP:NCMUSIC topic area is a lot more "accepting" of PDAB in their guideline... one cannot assume this is the case for other topic areas, and WP:NCFILM specifically mentions not doing it. The closer's motivation mentioning their close of Thriller is weak justification - and might actually be seen as insertion of a personal agenda here rather than a fair evaluation of the comments by participants of this discussion who acknowledge PDAB but point out the high standard is not met in this case. -- Netoholic@ 16:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The decision to move was based on the move of Thriller (album) that was done in 2019. Which had the necessary hindsight to know very well that that album was the album (released in 1982) when someone is likely searching for Thriller the album. Here, it is far far too soon to know if Parasite the 2019 film is the film that people will be looking for over all other possible Parasite films. It may be the most popular but we have to take into account RECENTISM which was ignored in the move closer. --Masem (t) 16:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own close, clearly. I made my closure on the basis that of those who opposed the move, nearly all of them were opposing the move due to a personal dislike of partial disambiguation. RMs are not the place to argue that; RfC is, and the most recent RfC allows it. If editors felt like the PDAB primary topic test wasn't met, then they should've brought that up in the RM, but they didn't, partially because I suspect they were aware that the test was clearly met (at the moment, 100:1 against the other films on pageviews; based on the trend of page views of prior recent Best Picture winners, it's still going to be 30–40:1 in a decade's time). Sceptre (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its bold claim that this is about "personal dislike" among discussion participants, when it seems like this close was based more on your personal opinion that the "high standard" is measured by page views (a flawed view because if that were the only factor, we could replace all RM discussions with an automated bot that tracks web stats). Your role as a closer though is to trust that the participants have taken many factors into account and, if they've given reasonable justification for their votes, to summarize the consensus. In this, you seem to have erased many participants from the discussion based only on your guess about their "personal dislike". -- Netoholic@ 18:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How else am I supposed to read a “per X” argument when X’s argument is based on a strong dislike and absolute rejection of the relevant guidelines? If this was AfD, and a bunch of editors wanted to keep an article “per X” when X’s argument attacks the notability guideline instead of arguing that the subject is notable, then an admin would close the discussion in favour of deletion.
Whether a subject is a primary topic is a valid point of discussion, and page view statistics, whilst not absolute, can be helpful in determining primacy. For the cases of the three films in question, Station1 in particular pointed out that the 2019 movie corresponds to over 99% of page views for other films. The 2019 movie, as I’ve pointed out on my talk page, is also a Best Picture (and Palme d’Or) winner, and winners of the past few decades have measurable significance. The 2019 movie is also hatnoted from the base title, which is almost an admission that people will be looking for the film when just searching for “parasite”. Where the “higher bar” lies is a matter of debate, but if this film doesn’t pass it, then very few other topics will. Sceptre (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The fact that WP:PRIMARYFILM says the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator doesn't mean that this subject area does not make use of "WP:PDAB". That needs to be explicitly stated. Otherwise it's just two guidelines contradicting each other, with no clear indication of which one to follow. El Millo (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (Involved) First off, and I can't believe I have to point this out, discussions are not a vote. The close in this case was correct because it is in line with our guidelines for disambiguation, in particular WP:INCDAB. Those opposing the move were either a) unaware of what INCDAB says or b) purposefully arguing against it. Either way, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says those arguments fall flat; it also says means that Wikiprojects like WP:FILM cannot create a fiefdom where such a rule doesn't apply. Masem above is also incorrect that this related to the Thriller discussion. In actuality it relates to a 2019 RFC, which I noted in the move request itself. -- Calidum 20:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. uninvolved That’s an argumentative closed based on the closer’s opinions and is not the summary of the closed discussion. That’s a textbook WP:Supervote. Others could have easily closed it differently. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Calidum and Sceptre. The only Oppose argument that isn't trying to re-litigiate the 2019 RFC (which I closed) is the one claiming that recentism means that the PDAB standard hasn't been met (yet). Some of the supporters disagreed, which when combined with their other policy based arguments are strong enough to make moving a reasonable result for this RM. When I closed the RFC without setting what the standard should be, I was hoping that RMs and Wikiprojects would focus on setting where the line should be, not on whether there should be a line at all... Iffy★Chat -- 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). No consensus has developed as to what the standard for determining a PDAB primary topic is. The closer's stated assumption above, that "the test was clearly met" is a faulty assumption on which to base a close against strong objection. Rerun the RM, and focus the discussion on what the standard should be, and how it applies to these articles.--Trystan (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The standard shouldn't be decided in an RM for a specific article, it should be decided at the talk page of WP:PDAB, putting notices on the appropriate places. El Millo (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No consensus for this move and is a clear supervote. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> The closer reminds me of me. I like how Sceptre tackles some of the toughest move requests that would wind up here at MRV no matter who closes or how. Calidum and Iffy show that this is a case of "Damn the torpedoes (!votes), full speed ahead! " (close only per the rationales.) I agree. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 08:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close was clearly a supervote. The closer did not assess the responses, they disagreed with them. There are principally two problems with the close:
The discussion did not relitigate Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_51#Primary_topic_and_Incomplete_disambiguation_conflicts. That discussion does not mandate a move to a partially disambiguated title; it actually sets a high bar for such a move: WP:INCDAB states "In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation."
The close states that there is clearly "a consensus that the 2019 film Parasite is the primary topic for all films called Parasite". That is not established for the page title actually under discussion i.e. Parasite (film).
The purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is to essentially settle competing claims for a title: the first criterion states it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Implicit in this instruction is that the reader is likely to search for that term. The article receives 14,000 hits per day, yet prior to the move Parasite (film) received on average17 hits per day. IMO this does not establish Parasite (film) as a term that readers search on to any significant degree, relative to the traffic the article receives. WP:INCDAB sets a high bar for assigning a primary topic to a partially disambiguated title. At the very minimum one would expect that search term to receive significant traffic i.e. readers would search on the partially disambiguated title as they would a normal search term. In other words, for a partially disambiguated title to be used as the primary topic title, a "high standard" must surely require that the term is in itself a legitimate search term/title for the work in the same way that other primary topic titles are. That was not established in the close and therefore there is no conflict between WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYFILM. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's because if you searched parasite film on Google the first result was Parasite (2019 film), and if you started typing parasite on the Wikipedia search bar, the first result with film in it was Parasite (2019 film) as well. People don't search for Parasite (film), they search for parasite film. Parasite (film) being a redirect to Parasite (disambiguation), it didn't even show up if you searched for it on Google. The pageviews show that 99% of people that search for a film called Parasite are looking for the 2019 film. That's why it's the primary topic for Parasite (film). El Millo (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If most readers find the fully disambiguated article via google or the internal linking system then great, but it means we are inventing a problem for a solution we don't really need. If visitors access the article through the disambiguation page it is most likely by searching on the term Parasite, not Parasite (film). Disambiguated titles are not real titles at the end of the day and we could literally call it anything reasonable: Parasite (film), Parasite (2019 film), Parasite (2019), Parasite (Korean film). In fairness, only an editor on Wikipedia—as opposed to a reader—is likely to type one of those phrases into a search engine. We are not actually gaining that much by moving the article to Parasite (film). At best we save 17 visitors out of the 14,000 per day an extra click, and in return for that we sacrifice full disambiguation. It just seems to me we are giving up more than we are getting in return. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: so you disagree with WP:PDAB in general, not just when applied to this article. Regarding the sacrifice of full disambiguation, in this case the percentage that searches for the other two films is so minimal compared to this film that the sacrifice is negligible. What we need here is to set a clear threshold to meet for partial disambiguation, but I think that, whichever it should be, this case meets it. El Millo (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that the test for determining a PDAB primary topic, once determined, will look just like the test for a standard primary topic, only with a higher numerical threshold. But the tradeoffs involved with PDAB primary topics are fundamentally different, so there is no reason to assume that the tests would or should be the same.--Trystan (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not just a higher numerical threshold, but I guess that would be at least part of it. @Trystan: how do you think it should be? El Millo (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the examples listed at PDAB, the other articles are generally of marginal notability and receive minimal traffic (often much less than 1,000 visitors per month). That's generally where I would put the threshold. The number of visitors shouldn't be measured as a proportion of of the primary topic candidate - that test was designed to determine how best to direct the traffic to the base name. The appropriate comparison is 1) the visitors to the INCDAB redirect and 2) the visitors to the other articles (my comment at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Requested move 12 September 2020 is an example of the approach I would take.--Trystan (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can't arbitrarily say that an article fails because of a literally non-existent test that may be stricter and different.The guideline says that there is a higher threshold and absent clarification, we can only hold this to mean that that means a higher threshold for the already existing PRIMARYTOPIC test, which is the only metric we have. That being said, the existing test already incorporates page views and long-term significance. It should be easier to apply for partially disambiguated titles because we would be comparing apples and apples versus the apples to oranges comparisons for PT tests at large. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could literally have our article titles be random gibberish and it wouldn't impact the overwhelming majority of readers because search engines are smart enough to scan the content of the pages and redirects exist. The precipitous drop in pageviews for "Parasite (2019 South Korean film)" wasn't because that exact title became a less ideal search term, it's because very few people enter full search terms into the Wikipedia search bar, since they usually reach their desired result before that point. Where article pages are more about the principle of the matter (and for those who navigate by URL/non-Javascript search) than trying to match exact search terms in Wikipedia's internal search. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add to El Millo's point, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC refers to searching in general, not what people search for using Wikipedia's internal search function. So even if low pageviews of a partially disambiguated title were useful, that's largely irrelevant to the actual question asked by PRIMARYTOPIC, which is what people searching for a film called Parasite expect to find. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). I think this is one of few examples that the RM not requires a majority vote majority. The move is reach via consensus. I see that many opposer of the move take their arguments based on personal point of view of the year's release of the film with similar name. My argument is those opposing the move were either a) unaware of what WP:INCDAB says or b) purposefully arguing against it. I agree with Calidum and other users said despite i'm not involved in the discussion. For someone who disagree with that guildeline please take to INCDAB talk page to discuss what consensus need to changed. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per all the reasons spelt out by Betty Logan. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). I respect the idea of this closure, since I've seen many good RMs flounder due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT-level opposition, and this one could easily be one of them on the surface. However, I'm not yet convinced that this is a case of an objectively correct move. The conflicting guidelines and intrinsic subjectivity of what constitutes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and what the "higher threshold" is) says to me that a partial disambiguation should still require a widely supported RM. Otherwise, you could make the case that any primary topic move is noncontroversial. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to single you out, because several others have raised this concern, but no one at the RM itself suggested that this higher bar for determining a primary topic had not been met. So how could the closer weigh such a consideration then? Regardless, it is clear from page views (not to mention the Best Picture Oscar) that this film is the primary topic for films named Parasite. -- Calidum 20:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn <involved>. I have no doubt that if search engine results were the main consideration, the Korean Oscar-winning film would overwhelmingly become the primary topic of the entire disambiguation page. If consensus accepted such a result then it would become so. However, consensus indicates a majority against partial disambiguation and especially, in this case [as well as in the case of Titanic (1997 film)], against partial disambiguation using "(film)". Furthermore, in subject-specific discussions such as this one, consideration should be focused upon and extended to members of concerned WikiProjects and members of WikiProject Film appear to be strongly against partial disambiguation. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). While I'm hesitant to go against a clear majority, as the closer notes, despite its unpopularity among some circles, partial disambiguation is still allowed under special circumstances per the linked RFC. Either the policy should be changed, or the voters in favor of including the year needed to provide evidence that the other meanings were more significant than expected. To be clear, partial disambiguation is only acceptable when there's like a 1000x+ difference in relevance, but that criterion is met here - one is a Best Picture winner, the other an obscure B-movie. So the closer was not without reason discarding some of the pro-additional disambiguation votes. SnowFire (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) with the WP:PDAB guideline as it is now. When the guideline is revised and changed, this RM should be reviewed as well. El Millo (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Per WP:INCDAB, partial disambiguation for article titles with parentheticals is allowed, though with a requirement that it meet a high threshold of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC test. The oppose !votes focus on opposing this kind of partial disambiguation in general, and the most-concurred with !vote even cites the existence of real-life parasites to show that the film is not the primary topic for all things parasite. These are irrelevant. The only relevant evaluation is whether the 2019 South Korean film meets the INCDAB primary topic threshold for all films named "Parasite", an evaluation which the oppose !votes did not engage in. Although INCDAB calls for a higher threshold, which many overturn !votes in this discussion have referenced, a higher threshold is not an impossible threshold and doing a primary topic analysis between the two Parasite films would put the 2019 film well above the typical primary topic threshold. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as egregious closure. Policy at WP:PRECISION indicates recognizing how Wikipedia projects prefer to approach naming. If it is okay for Leeds North West and M-185 to be fully disambiguated despite being 100% primary topics per the respective WikiProjects' guidelines over the general guidelines, then per WikiProject Film's guidelines, it should be okay for Parasite to be fully disambiguated from other secondary-topic films. WP:NCF clearly supports disambiguating secondary topics from each other fully, such as disambiguating Titanic (1997 film) from other films, and it has never been a problem to have this arrangement. To repeat, there has been zero problem with that setup all these years. This move is not an improvement; it is a superficial change that shoehorns in unnecessary ambiguity. WikiProject Film often disambiguates films by release year (a common disambiguation approach across film resources), which is only four additional numeric characters, which is minimalist yet abundantly clear about the film's point in time. Too much fun is already had with all WikiProjects wrestling with how to determine a primary topic among a set of topics in general, and WikiProject Film has had no interest in unnecessary additional wrestling about which film among a set of secondary-topic films so desperately warrants the release year being dropped from the parenthetical disambiguation. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good args for the RM, and I notice you left a "strong oppose" there. Gentle reminder that MRV is only for adjudging whether or not a closure should be endorsed, and not for continued arguing of the move request – imho your overturn rationale reads more like continued arguing of the RM rather than good reason to overturn. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 03:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these examples are useful for assessing the Parasite (film) RM. WP:INCDAB wouldn't apply because they aren't competing for a shorter, parenthetically disambiguated title with other articles. They could be at the basename, but are parenthetically disambiguated because it would otherwise be unclear what topic area the article belongs to. This isn't the case when a parenthetical disambiguator clearly identifies the topic area. Also even if INCDAB that apply, I feel like UK constituencies and US roadways are not prominent enough in the public consciousness to meet whatever the higher threshold should be, but that's another discussion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Most of the users were against the move and there was clearly no consensus to move. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). This was an astounding move and with only 25% support, the most egregious supervote I recall encountering since I became an admin in 2003. As per Netoholic and Masem, there is absolutely no consensus to move this, and even if all the concerns of Sceptre were on point, the only valid outcome would be to close as "no consensus" and to open up an RfC on particular points for clarity and further guidance. Masem rightly points out the problem of WP:RECENTISM in gauging the primary-ness of this topic, compared to Thriller (album) for which we've had decades to consider in terms of context. Also, I'm disturbed that the closer of this move request was also the closer of Thriller at around 50/50 (7 to 6) and with this at 25/75, we apparently now have the phenomenon of the slippery slope supervote (TM) as an acceptable practice by one individual. But this is not just a concern about numerical voting. Both the poor merits of the closing argument and the abuse of procedure warrant the overturning of this result to go back to the original status quo. If we don't honor one of the bedrock concepts of our community of editors, consensus, then we're doomed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The close is based on policy as written, and clearly explained as such, and all oppose votes, without exception, boil down to IDONTLIKEing the said policy. Textbook NOTAVOTE close. Local consensus should not override broader consensus, and, if WP:INCDAB is indeed so bad, anyone is free to start a RfC. No such user (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (I made a comment) although the arguments were convincing the consensus is that partial disambiguation should have very high standards and if a significant number of people disagreed we should find consensus against it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) - per nom, Patar knight, and other endorses above. WP:NOTAVOTE doesn't mean "it's not a vote unless there's an overwhelming majority, then it's a vote". The majority of votes ran directly against the global consensus of pdabs, and thus were properly discounted by the closer. The consensus was, as the closer correctly stated, that Parasite (2019 film) was the primary topic for all films named Parasite (no matter how high the standard, Parasite 2019 meets it), and the global consensus is that this means it should be at "Parasite (film)" and note "Parasite (2019 film)". Closer accurately assessed consensus and explained it well. Lev!vich 05:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The close rests on the assumption that the 75% of contributors opposed to the move not only did not offer a rationale other than general opposition to PDAB, but could not have done so. I think those editors deserve a chance to refute that. Sure, we could take the position, "Tough luck, it's over. You had your chance during the week the RM was open." But doing so makes it impossible to resolve the RM in a way that will represent a lasting consensus.--Trystan (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS isn't some new rule, so those opposers should have known better than to argue against the previous RFC. 2) What possible argument is there that the film is not the primary topic for films named Parasite? -- Calidum 15:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was considerable support expressed at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Requested move 12 September 2020 that Titanic (1997 film) does not meet the high bar of the PDAB test. The numbers are different here of course, and so the outcome may not be the same, but we should at least have the discussion, rather than operating on assumptions.--Trystan (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very familiar with the Titanic RM. In that case, those opposed to the move invented a fantastically high threshold for partial disambiguation that no page could possibly meet. While the threshold should be higher, it shouldn't be so high that nothing passes it. They might as well have pissed all over the PDAB RFC. In the case of Parasite, the 2019 film gets 99 percent of the page views of all films with the same title. If that is not a primary topic, what is? -- Calidum 17:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there should be a very high bar for partial disambiguation (plus IMP wide local consensus) while its true that we have consensus that they can be used in limited cases there has been strong reasons against them (and strong community consensus against) and that its nearly always preferable to just go with the fully qualified title and a WP:INCDAB redirect to the DAB. Although many !votes were not based on policy it can still be noted that community consensus is still not normally to use them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) Community consensus is to use partial disambiguation in some instances, per the RFC? 2) What is the bar that this film (Parasite) does not meet? It gets 99 percent of relevant page views. It won several Oscars, including Best Picture, among other prestigious awards, so it's not some flash in the pan. It's also a South Korean film, so "American bias" isn't a factor. -- Calidum 19:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to debate what the PDAB bar is or whether the film meets it. My point is only that there are reasonable arguments to consider. A move based on the assumption that the 75% of editors opposed to the move have no such arguments will not establish a lasting consensus and will make it likely someone starts a new RM in six months.--Trystan (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved as voted support) - Wikipedia is not a democracy and the value of the arguments must be weighted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (RM participant). An exemplary close that should inform all closers and RM participants about how RM should work: !votes are not supposed to be simply counted. They are supposed to be weighted based on how well they are founded in policy. In this case the RM closer did exactly that, and explained in detail how and why. If only all RM closes were considered and explained this thoroughly! — В²C☎ 08:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Nothing like a weighted policy-based close. The RM should have been reopened, not the MR. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.