| Revision as of 01:55, 8 November 2015 editSafiel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users58,994 edits →Move review?: Comment← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:58, 10 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,913,185 editsm →top: merge blp/living/activepol params into blp=activepol; cleanupTag: AWB |
| (486 intermediate revisions by 84 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{GA|11:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)|topic=Politics and government|page=1|oldid=723160275}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{reqphoto|judicial and penal systems people|people of Kentucky}} |
|
|
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|age=14 |
|
|
|bot=MiszaBot}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<!--{{not forum|what you think of Kim Davis or same-sex marriage}} |
|
|
{{article discretionary sanctions|topic=blp|style=long}}--> |
|
|
{{Afd-merged-from|Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy|Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy|9 October 2015}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi |
|
|
|page=Kim Davis (county clerk) |
|
|page=Kim Davis (county clerk) |
|
|date=2 September 2015 |
|
|date=2 September 2015 |
| Line 23: |
Line 10: |
|
|result2='''] keep''' |
|
|result2='''] keep''' |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Afd-merged-from|Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy|Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy|9 October 2015}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=activepol|collapsed=yes|class=GA|listas=Davis, Kim|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes |politician-priority=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low|charismatic-christianity=yes|charismatic christianity-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|KY=yes|KY-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Twofingered Typist|date=November 8, 2015}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Image requested|of=lead/infobox-quality photo of Kim Davis|judicial and penal systems people|people of Kentucky}} |
|
|
{{Connected contributor |
|
|
|User1=DavidErmold |U1-EH=yes |U1-declared=yes |U1-otherlinks= ||U1-banned=no |
|
|
|User2=Someoneyouarenot |U2-EH=yes |U2-declared=no |U2-otherlinks= ||U2-banned=no |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Old moves | list = |
|
{{Old moves | list = |
|
* RM, Kim Davis (Kentucky politician) → Kim Davis (clerk), '''Moved to Kim Davis (county clerk)''', 2 September 2015 (]) |
|
* RM, Kim Davis (Kentucky politician) → Kim Davis (clerk), '''Moved to Kim Davis (county clerk)''', 2 September 2015 (]) |
|
* Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy), '''Withdrawn''' (after discovery that a separate article on the other topic already existed), 20 September 2015 (]) |
|
* RM, Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, '''Withdrawn''' (after discovery that a separate article on the other topic already existed), 20 September 2015 (]) |
|
* RM, Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, '''Not moved, per absence of consensus''', 6 October 2015 (])}} |
|
* RM, Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, '''Not moved, per absence of consensus''', 6 October 2015 (]) |
|
|
* RM, Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis, '''No consensus''', 21 October 2015 (]) |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
**MRV, '''Closure endorsed''', 9 November 2015 (]) |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |listas=Davis, Kim |living=y |class=C|activepol=y |politician-work-group=y |politician-priority=low}} |
|
|
|
* RM, Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis & Kim Davis → Kim Davis (disambiguation), '''Not moved; interim moratorium on new RMs until the RfC is closed''', 23 March 2016 (]) |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity |class=C|importance=low|charismatic-christianity=yes|charistmatic-christianity-importance=}} |
|
|
|
* RM, Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis & Kim Davis → Kim Davis (disambiguation), '''Moved''' 16 March 2017 (]) |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies |class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Mid|KY=yes|KY-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{Archives|search=no}} |
|
|
|
|archiveheader={{aan}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize=200K |
|
== Requested move 21 October 2015 == |
|
|
|
|counter=7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft=5 |
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|algo=old(90d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|archive=Talk:Kim Davis/Archive %(counter)d |
|
The result of the move request was: '''No consensus''' - after 6 days of inactivity on this discussion and a clear division in application of policy, there is no indication we'll be able to find consensus any time soon on this issue. {{rmnac}} ] (]) 22:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|search=no|archive_age=7|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Kim Davis}} |
|
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Kim Davis (disambiguation)}} |
|
|
– Per ]. There are two other uses of '''Kim Davis''' on Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
* ] is typically viewed under 200 times per month. , , |
|
|
* ] is visited even less often - about once per month until this Kim Davis, the county clerk, hit the news . <p> |
|
|
There is no comparison. This Kim Davis article got , and thus clearly meets the PRIMARYTOPIC criteria: ''"highly likely — much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined — to be the topic sought when a reader searches for"'' '''Kim Davis'''. Granted the number of views are likely to subside in the future, but we don't have a ], neither of the other uses has ever come close to this amount of notoriety, and the criteria is likely to apply for a long time into the future, if not forever. There is certainly no justification for ] this title at this time. Some may argue that the parenthetic description is necessary for ], but, again, this is exactly the type of situation where PRIMARYTOPIC applies. ] ] 20:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC) {{small|Updated to be a multi-move to reflect move of dab page too}} ] ] 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' per request. I agree there's no question about this subject's international notoriety. This is ''the'' Kim Davis now. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 20:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''oppose''' as this is still a ]biography of a controversy masquerading as a "biography" and the primary topic is still the controversy, not the person. -- ] 21:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:* ], I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Strong oppose''' per {{U|TheRedPenOfDoom}}. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 21:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**{{U|TheRedPenOfDoom}} and {{U|Winkelvi}}, after multiple AfDs and RM failures, that ship has sailed. Per ] developed at those discussions, this is a bonafide biography article, and, if I may add, far more encyclopedic than many, many other biography articles on WP, including the two other Kim Davises I listed in the nom. --] ] 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***read the close. there was no consensus to remain here, it is just here by default. -- ] 21:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
****Two wiki-wide AfD's were snow keep's. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*****] "The result was Snow keep, please request moves at WP:RM not WP:AFD" and "The result was Procedural close as merge We have an RfC recently closed as supporting one single article, the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen". per the close of the AfDs, the '''content''' is appropriate, but under what name is under discussion. -- ] 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
******I just stated a fact. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 21:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*******no, you stated a '''partial''' fact, omitting critical context, that you were well aware of given that your similar misrepresentation in the previous move discussion was pointed out to you then, as well. -- ] 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
********I think we can all agree that there there is no consensus for NOT having a Kim Davis biography. And, there is no consensus to change the title to reflect the event one way or another. So we're stuck with the status quo, which is a disambiguated biographical title. Therefore, the question before us is only whether we should retain the current title with the parenthetical disambiguation, or move it as proposed to remove the disambiguation. Either title is consistent with a biography title. The only question is about the disambiguation. --] ] 01:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
********* ], I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} {{U|BullRangifer}}, it is '''really''' inappropriate for you to tell editors who have !voted the way they see fit to change their !vote, or their opinion will be discounted. How is it you have a way of seeing into the mind(s) of the individual who ends up closing this RfC? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Comment''' To be a little magnanimous here, it's possibly too soon after other battles, with the nerves of many rubbed raw. Having a healthy delay before this request might have been the best idea. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 21:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
** Understood, and I considered that, but WP is not a ]. Let's treat it, and each other, accordingly. In other words, let's focus on the merits or problems with this proposal. --] ] 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***Hear, hear. We shouldn't use this discussion as a platform for re-arguing whether the article should be deleted or whether it should become a controversy article. The question is, does making this the page that readers land on when searching for our Kim Davis improve the encyclopedia, or not.- ]] 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***Wikipedians are human beings, and whether or not the wiki-legalisms fit, there have been emotionally scarring battles-a-plenty here. It would have been within reason to wait a while, especially because there's no discernible damage from retaining the current name for a while. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Most Supreme Support™''' per ] and the data presented by nominator. Not only have our readers indicated that they continue to seek this ''biography'', but there are strong indications that Kim Davis has already left a small, but lasting, impression in the historical record. - ]] 21:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': Please note that this is a malformed multimove request, as the suggested destination name is already occupied. —] (]) 23:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**Thanks. Fixed. --] ] 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', as ''nom''. Opposition based on ] is irrelevant here, as the biographical nature of this article would not be affected in the slightest by this proposed move, and repeated discussions have shown there is no consensus to delete or transform this article content or title based on PSEUDO anyway. With respect to the title, then, we have the quintessential PRIMARYTOPIC situation. --] ] 05:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. She is obviously the most notable Kim Davis. -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 06:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', clearly the primary topic. Even if there were only an article on the controversy, "Kim Davis" should redirect to it with a hatnote to the dab page. —] (]) 09:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' basically per TRPoD. A ''biography'' on Kim Davis the county clerk should be the primary topic for ], but this article is still ''not'' a biography on Kim Davis, it's an event article about a controversy she was involved in. It should be either fundamentally rewritten or appropriately renamed. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 14:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:* ], I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::*{{yo|BullRangifer}} there is no need whatsoever for you to post this same notice after everyone who writes an opposition to this move request; your badgering is not helpful to the discussion at all. I understand very well what the proposal here is, I ] that everyone else who's commenting here does as well, and I trust that any neutral closer will read what I wrote and understand my point; I really could not have given it more clearly. As such, I have no further elaboration to give. Thank you. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 16:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::**{{U|Ivanvector}}, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that in order for the proposed title (undisambiguated Kim Davis) to be appropriate for this article, then the article must first be "fundamentally rewritten" (to be more of a biography than an event article). I disagree with you about this article not being biographical as it is (it just happens to also cover the event for which she is most notable, which is not unusual and certainly not inappropriate for WP biographies, but I digress), though of course there is room for improvement (but that's par for the WP article course). That disagreement aside, doesn't your objection apply to the current (disambiguated) title just as much as to the proposed (undisambiguated) title? After all, the disambiguation is typical biographical disambiguation - noting the subject's occupation - and has nothing to do with the event. So while your objection is clearly stated, its applicability to this proposal is not. At least not to me. Are you simply trying to hold the current title hostage, so to speak, even though you recognize its incongruity with PRIMARYTOPIC, to inspire (shall we say) the building of consensus to change the content? In general do you support moratoriums on title changes when one dislikes article content? Is there any policy basis for such a practice? Perhaps you could expound on that? --] ] 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*Happily. Regarding my objection, yes it does apply equally to the current title; I had expressed that in a now-archived thread. I don't at the moment support a moratorium on anything, for Misplaced Pages is nothing without discussion and continuous improvement. What I continue to support is that per ] a page's title should as precisely as necessary (but no more precisely) describe its content. To extend that, I see no reason why this article should be preemptively titled according to what its content ''should be'' when its current content is a (slightly) different encyclopedic topic. So my argument is twofold: 1) if this is a biographical article about county clerk Kim Davis, who I agree is the most notable of the Kim Davises we have articles about, then its title should be ]; concurrently 2) if this is an article about a notable event which involved this person (no matter how primarily) then its title should be one which describes the event. At the moment I believe 2 is much more true than 1, thus my !vote above. Does this help? ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', per primary topic. Yesterday when I saw this proposal, I went into the ] disambiguation page and improved it; take a look. Unrelated side note: I don't think we're ever going to resolve whether this should be titled as a biography or as an event; the last discussion closed as no consensus. Anyone objective should be able to see that this article has a little of both, and that's fine. Anyway, her controversy is dying down and this is a harmless improvement. ] (]) 17:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
<s>*'''Oppose, now drop the stick''' — This situation on Misplaced Pages is just getting childish. We already just finished a RM discussion, and now we are opening another one? Can't we just drop the stick and do something ''more'' productive than fight over the name of the article? I am new here, so please excuse me for sounding rude, but I think there is bigger issues we face here on Misplaced Pages. I oppose moving this page per TheRedPenOfDoom. Thank ya'all. ] (]) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
**Some of us are trying to align the title of this article with policy (specifically ]). We are not fighting. We have no sticks. If anyone is fighting, it is those who oppose this effort, with arguments that are not even relevant to this proposal. --] ] 23:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Strong oppose''' ] this is verging on being still being news. We should wait to see what kind of long term popularity she has, since you're basing it on accesses. So, wait a year or two. -- ] (]) 07:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**{{IP|70.51.44.60}}, the subject of this article is clearly the primary topic today. It certainly can be revisited in two years, but '''why wait two years before remedying an obvious problem today''', especially given the very low notability of the other uses of "Kim Davis" making it highly unlikely that she will no longer be the primary topic ten, let alone two, years from now? --] ] 17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*** ] Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. This nomination is based solely on accesses, which is a RECENTISM issue. Waiting a year, or two, will see if there is any enduring access-levels. In a year, we can also more rationally analyze whether this is a ] person, since it will no longer be a news event. We don't flip-flop articles around based on temporal spikes in activity in other article names, so I don't see why we should start here. It's just like when new movie releases happen and people want to move the new movie to the base name. We should wait and see if the temporary spike in activity leads to a permanently higher level of activity. -- ] (]) 06:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' basically per the IP above. The 300k figures have ''already'' dropped off sharply - in the past 30 days, this article has been viewed around 136k times, and has since flatlined under 2k views per day. Sure, that's still significantly more than the other two, but let's see if page views are still even that high in 6 months. Let's not play musical chairs with article titles, please. ] (]) 12:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
<s>::Thank you for your common sense Parsecboy. ] (]) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
:::Common sense would suggest we look at not only views (where this Kim Davis continues to beat the others), but also media coverage differences between the Kim Davis's. Have the others ever gotten the kind of heavy international coverage this Kim Davis has received? Highly unlikely. Do others have a chance of ever coming close to the coverage this Kim Davis has received? We don't know, but it doesn't seem likely. It's not the worst thing in the world to wait before renaming this article (one could even call this RM kind of a trivial pursuit), but I think common sense suggests it will be very difficult for another Kim Davis to reach this level of fame/infamy. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 04:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You're looking at it the wrong way, Stevie - the question is not whether the other Kim Davises will rise to the level of this one, but whether this Kim Davis will recede back into obscurity. I would argue that is essentially a certainty. The news cycle has already moved on and people have lost interest, and page views are already reflecting that. ] (]) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{U|Parsecboy}}, are you seriously suggesting that it's likely that this Kim Davis will no longer be ''"highly likely — much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined — ... the topic sought when a reader searches for "'' in six months? --] ] 17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, that's ''exactly'' what I'm suggesting. The media cycle has ''already'' moved on, and barring any further incident (which appears unlikely at this point), I doubt many people at all will be typing "Kim Davis" into the search bar. As I said, page views have fallen off a cliff, and will only continue to decline precipitously. ] (]) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This statement is absolutely correct. I have stated many times on these pages that the controversy is over and it won't be long now before Kim Davis is as forgotten as ] (about 200 page views per day). I still support the rename per primary topic and because it doesn't do any harm; I'm proud of the article; but let's hear no statements about how wonderfully popular this Kim Davis is. ] (]) 19:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Even though I am happy to state that the two editors above are correct when they inform us that Davis' future popularity looks bleak, their popularity argument missed something: Davis' future bleak popularity is still likely to be more than the popularity of the other Kim Davis'. Those others each have daily page views of approximately 20, whereas this one will probably drop to around 200, so "that's still significantly more than the other two" and even the other seven; this one is likely to remain at least ten times more popular and be the primary topic for the foreseeable future. Couple that with the lack of harm this rename would do (there will still be a disambiguation page and it will be linked from a hatnote at the top of this article) and you have no good reason to object to this, certainly not for the reason they give. No, we're not going to "wait and year or two" and we're not "playing musical chairs", we are being reasonable, logical, and sensible. ] (]) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Exactly. Not to mention that ] did not have anything to do with any consequential legal issues. Kim Davis' actions clarified the meaning of a particular Supreme Court ruling. Finally, we're not supposed to ] about what may or may not be primary topic in the future. --] ] 22:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Guild copy edit request == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have submitted a humble ] to the ] of Copy editors for this article. In around a month, the article will have yet another improvement. ] (]) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Trimming header farm == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have commented out the ArbCom warning tag and NotaForum warning tag, as things are well calmed down here. Should the Kim Davis situation flare back up again, they can easily be restored, but I think for clarity sake, we can dispense with at least a couple of headers from the large header farm. ] (]) 02:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Move review? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== archives == |
|
Puzzled by the RM closing above, I left an inquiry on the closer's page, but there has been no response. I know of no policy that allows ignoring ] because that determination ''might'' change in the future, especially when all the other uses of the name in question are so obscure, no such policy was cited by those in opposition, and yet the closer claims "a clear division in application of policy". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archiving was set to 7 days and leaving 0 discussions. I've revised to 90 days, leave 5 discussions. ] (]) 21:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
Puzzling closing explanation by a non-admin closer, and no response to inquiry about their reasoning. Anyone else think this should go to move review? --] ] 17:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:It seems as if the closer may have counted votes, or simply gave inappropriate weight to essay-based arguments like ] and ]. It's troubling that they have not responded to your inquiry on their talk page. As such, a move review would be a reasonable next step.- ]] 18:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ul|Tiggerjay}} has been active since your message. Could be they just missed it. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 20:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Since it was a close made by a non-responsive non-admin, perhaps we should ask an admin to revert the close (only admins are supposed to close non-obvious RMs) and let an admin close it? --] ] 00:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Closes are not supposed to be reverted just because a non-admin closed them. Tiggerjay hasn't been on since my ping above, but if you think it's been enough time to respond then the next step is move review. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 00:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've seen a number of RM closes reverted for that reason. The RM close instructions are clear that non-admins are supposed to close only if there is a clear presence or absence of consensus. While counting !votes arguably results in clear lack of consensus here, that's not how we determine consensus. By considering policy I think it's a classic situation that requires careful thought, precisely the kind of RM that non-admins are not supposed to close. The Move Review process is supposed to be about questioning the decision. Here we have a procedural issue. --] ] 02:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::], let it go. The other discussion closed with no consensus also. That's just the way it has to be. And that's fine. ] (]) 04:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yeah, often they are reopened for just that reason, but ] specifically says not to do it. Anyway, I don't think you'll get the result you want at a move review, the discussion was pretty clearly no consensus and Tiggerjay was not involved. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's not about what result I or anyone else wants. When you say there was "clearly no consensus", do you mean by counting !votes? By trying to measure what result the participants wanted? This is the crux of the issue here. None of that should be relevant to determining ], which is unfortunately but understandably often confused with the dictionary definition of "consensus". How does ] look when you weigh the arguments in terms of which are based on policy and which are not? That's all that should matter in an RM discussion evaluation. --] ] 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::What I mean by "clearly no consensus" is that there was no obvious prevailing opinion in support of the proposal among the involved editors, nor one opposed to it. I'll save my detailed analysis for the move review I think you're going to open regardless of what Tiggerjay or anyone else says here. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 17:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: I agree there was "no obvious prevailing opinion in support of the proposal among the involved editors, nor one opposed to it". But that's not how ] is supposed to be determined on Misplaced Pages. You're conflating determination of dictionary ''consensus'' with determination of ]. As did the closer, despite his reference to "a clear division in application of policy". I see no basis in policy on the opposition side, which is why I asked him to clarify. . --] ] 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Look, I don't know what you want to hear here. I disagree with you. We disagree on how consensus is determined and we disagree on whether it was determined correctly in this case, and indeed we disagree on whether consensus developed here at all. We also disagree fundamentally on the original proposal, and even if you could convince me by continuing to flog this particular dead horse, there's nothing that either one of us could do about the issue, save for going to move review. Unless you want to take further action in the appropriate venue, this issue is settled. We both should have taken Prhartcom's advice a few lines up. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Disagree with me all you want; I think we can agree that doesn't matter. The important issues here are much broader than this particular RM - how they happen to manifest themselves here is why we're talking about them here. First, there is the issue about how we determine titles. Now, there is the issue of how we determine consensus. What's more concerning is that you apparently disagree with ]. True? --] ] 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I don't agree to that. (Kidding) - I can see from your user page that continuing to flog dead discussions until you achieve your desired result is your ''modus operandi''. That said, I also see that you have a great deal of experience in the area of proper article titles, and tireless pursuit of perfection is not a terribly bad thing. I'm genuinely interested in your analysis of the closed discussion, since we seem to be on opposite sides of the issue here. Mine is below the outdent. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 22:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
* In my view, the major policy/guideline points that were debated are (1) whether this Kim Davis is the primary topic for ] (] and others), and (2) whether a biographical title is appropriate based on the article's content (] mostly). Others came up but did not influence the discussion. On (1), most editors agree that PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied by the proposal. A small number of editors cited ] in opposition, but this view did not gain much traction even among other editors opposed to the request. On (2), the opinions are more varied and less clear. Several editors opposed the request on the basis of the proposed title not supporting the content of the article (PSEUDO). A small number of supporters opined that page titles are not restricted by article content, while others insisted that this argument simply could not be considered, but neither group of supporters provided a policy-based rationale to support their position. Thus I conclude that there is consensus that Kim Davis the county clerk is the primary topic for "Kim Davis" (important), and simultaneously that there is no consensus that the article here should be titled "Kim Davis" (not a consensus that it ''shouldn't'' be, just no consensus overall). Taking into account that several previous and recent move requests and other discussions have failed to reach consensus on a page title, this proposal to rename the article also failed for the same reason. |
|
|
:Of course I'm very clearly involved, so I'm interested in your analysis. If anything develops out of this, we can cart the whole thing over to move review. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 22:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The major policy/guideline points that were debated are (1) whether this Kim Davis is the primary topic for ] (] and others), and (2) whether a biographical title is appropriate based on the article's content (] mostly). Others came up but did not influence the discussion. On (1), most editors agree that PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied by the proposal. A small number of editors cited ] in opposition, but this view did not gain much traction even among other editors opposed to the request. On (2), the opinions are more varied and less clear, but nobody made clear how this point was even relevant to the proposal, since a) the issue was raised previously and remains unresolved, and the ] argument applies equally to the current title as it does to the proposed title. Thus I conclude that there is policy-based consensus that Kim Davis the county clerk is the primary topic for "Kim Davis" (important), and the article should be moved accordingly.<p>The point is: whether the article should have a biographical title or not is a separate question from what the title should be given that it is a biographical title. For better or for worse, the article currently has a biographical title. That ship has sailed, at least for the time being, per the previous discussions. So, given that the article is to have a biographical title, at least for now, the only question raised by this proposal is whether that biographical title should be ] or ]. Given the consensus view that the subject of this article is the primary topic for ], the article should be moved. --] ] 00:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*Either go to WP:MR or do not. Do not imitate it here. --] (]) 12:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Concur with ]''' Either go to ] or drop the subject entirely. This discussion here is pointless. ] (]) 01:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
