Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 December

Greenbelt Station (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

After all but one of the "Support" comments were in, the proposal was changed from lowercase "station" to uppercase "Station", on the basis of some pictures of signs, as opposed to any evidence from reliable sources. A good proposal got turned into a bad one, and many of us did not notice. I appreciate the closer's efforts here, but I expect that he, too was likely unaware of this change (though it is briefly mentioned in a comment); he did not mention the issue in the close. A whole raft of new RMs has now been opened, citing this as a precedent for capitalization (e.g. Talk:Route_772_(WMATA_station)#Requested_move_23_December_2014), even though most of the support was for the lowercase station. This needs to be re-opened with attention called to the controversial capitalization.Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lowercasing – Many of the supporters based their opinion on WP:USSTATION, which explicitly demands lowercase "station" when "station" is not part of the proper name. This late change was inappropriate, and is contrary to the USSTATION guideline endorsed by those in the discussion. None of these stations has "Station" as a part of their proper name, and hence, none of the "stations" should be capitalised. I believe that the articles should've been moved, but that the move should've been to the lowercase "station". RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a move review, not a place for your opinion on the renaming itself. I take it you mean the procedure was improper so it needs to be reopened? Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. The closure was simply in error, and I believe that this occurred merely as an oversight. However, I'm of the opinion that it should just go to the lowercase as a result of this move review, as that result was clear. If more deliberation is necessary, reopening it is fine. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse without prejudice against future RM (specifically those based on if Station is part of the proper names of the subjects of the various articles. ) The close was reasonable giving the arguments presented, specifically in regards to natural vs parenthetical disambiguation. However, the issue of if "station" is part of the proper names still needs to be considered as it is a separate issue. ( Yes the cited policy does cover "station" vs "Station" issue for proper names, but doesn't seem like the RM covered those details well enough. ) Was the close discussed with the closer before bringing it here? It might be possible to ask them to clarify the close in that regard and side step this MRV. PaleAqua (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not discuss it with the closer, other than to notify him. I expect he'll comment here as to whether he overlooked the caps or intended it that way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should not need to be a new RM. For the majority of the time, the proposal was to move to lowercase "station". Every participant except one saw the proposal as lowercased. Only the last one saw the uppercase. It was changed at the last second, which was both inappropriate and contrary to USSATION, which most users spoke in favour of. I believe this was merely an oversight on the closer's part. No one is concerned about the disambiguation problem, or the new names. The only thing disputed is the capitalisation. RGloucester — ☎ 07:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester, you're entitled to your differing opinions, but asserting that the proposal "was changed at the last second" is demonstrably untrue. In fact, the proposal was changed two days into the one-week listing period. So the names that were moved to were the names listed on the proposal for a majority of the time. It's conceivable that some participants never saw this change, but I suspect that at least some had the discussion on their watchlist and were aware of it. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. That's why I was was careful and stated the problem as After all but one of the "Support" comments were in, the proposal was changed from lowercase "station" to uppercase "Station". The problem is that people who had already looked and seen no opposition to the lowercase might not have ever checked back. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to RM without prejudice. Whether this is correct or not hinges entirely on whether the word "Station" is part of the station name. It was asserted that it was, but this was not discussed in detail. The guideline is clear that if the station name is "Greenbelt" then the article should be at "Greenbelt station", but if the station name is "Greenbelt Station" then the article should also have an uppercase S. The only thing that is at present unclear is the official name of the station. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decision was correct. Each system should be judged on its own merits, and how stations are named in one place cannot be applied universally. The decision must be applied to all WMATA stations - and only those. Let's not drag this out because, once this party is over, there will be a lot of cleaning up to be do. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why are there so few editors from the original discusiion here? I had trouble finding this. Should they have been notified? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would presume they would notice via their watch list, but maybe not on Christmas day. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Return to RM without prejudice, per nom. The fact that whether the proposed name was capitalized or not what changed in mid-RM has confused the entire nature of the RM, and it should be delisted for a proper discussion, especially if it's being questionably cited as "precedent" for anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's speculative to say that capitalization change "confused the entire nature of the RM". If capitalization were at the crux of the initial proposal, certainly that could be the case. Rather, it was primarily about WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE. Even before the change, no editors were commenting on the capitalization. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Secondarywaltz. This capitalization need not apply to other systems, but as long as all WMATA stations have "Station" as part of their actual name, I don't see a good reason to deviate from that. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea that all WMATA stations have "Station" as part of their actual name came in late in the RM, and led to the mid-stream change of case, and was not really discussed. My point is that it needs to be discussed if that's what the midstream change relied on; and it has not been, so the RM needs to be re-opened. I think you'll find, as you have already at subsequent RMs that you have opened, that multiple editors reject this premise. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dick, the idea came up two days into the one-week listing period; calling that "late" is a stretch. And while I see comments calling for further disambiguation of certain stations in the other RMs, I don't see others that focus on the capitalization. Perhaps I've overlooked those. --BDD (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My original statement was After all but one of the "Support" comments were in, the proposal was changed from lowercase "station" to uppercase "Station". Which is true, and is the problem. Perhaps "late", a time-based term, is not a good way to describe this problem. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closer seems to have accurately gauged the consensus. The spirit of the guideline is that if "Station" is typically capitalized in the relevant sources, it should be capitalized on Wikipedia; if not, it shouldn't be. Beyond this minor issue, it appears there's universal consensus for the changes; no sense holding them up over a minor disagreement like this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't even want to wait for the closer to return from holiday and tell us what he thinks? Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes. User:Dekimasu's last edit, of 24 Dec., is the one that clued me in to the problem. It would be good to hear from him to know whether he realized that the RM he closed had been modified after most of the support votes were in for the original lowercase "station" proposal. I expect he didn't realize, since he didn't mention. Dicklyon (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer comments: I am not able to be very active at the moment, so it's good that so much discussion was able to be done here; I don't mind that this wasn't discussed with me beforehand. At any rate, I do not have particularly strong feelings about this. The proposal was changed with 5.5 days left in the request, and no one objected over those 5.5 days, but it does seem like it would have been helpful to ping the editors who had already expressed opinions. If a single page was involved, relisting would seem to have been an option, but moving all the pages back and reopening in this case seems like a lot of work for questionable benefit. I'd hope that a compromise position--e.g., opening a new move request to lowercase titles, and having "no consensus" default to moving the pages to lowercase titles--might be sufficient in this case. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome back. Yes, that makes sense to avoid the work of moving them all again right way. In either case, whether we sustain or overturn here, the result would be a new open RM discussion on that set of articles, so we can resolve it before the questionable result is further cited as precedents for capitalizing Station. As Cuchullain says, The spirit of the guideline is that if "Station" is typically capitalized in the relevant sources, it should be capitalized on Wikipedia; if not, it shouldn't be. So we need to get clear about whether seeing Station capitalized on sign posts overrides the many sources such as guidebooks that use lowercase and official station name listings that don't include the word station at all. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum – the bunch of RM discussions that I had asked to "Hold" pending the outcome of this review have all been closed in favor of moving to upper case, in spite of the underlying issue never having been resolved here or discussed elsewhere, and in spite of some of the "support" votes supporting lowercase and following WP:USSTATION. This is a mess. I presume a reopen and discussion will apply to all of them, but it's not clear where to do it or how to get some actual attention on it. Maybe back at WP:USSTATION? Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dick, I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally would have no problem decapitalizing the Ss. I'm very pleased that these moves have occurred, and the big issue has been dealt with. If this move review results in decapitalizing, fine. If it results in reversing these moves, the core of which there was definitely consensus for, I will be quite disappointed. At this point, it might make more sense to close this discussion and either work out the capitalization issue centrally or have a separate, focused RM for the Washington Metro stations. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get some discussion going back at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)#Determining_official_station_name, but nobody seems to care. I suppose it will take a re-opened multi-RM, which would be more sensible to start if someone would close this thing. Dicklyon (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've started a new discussion at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February 2015 since waiting for this to close no longer feels like it will ever converge. Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Wong Yuk-man (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Given the history with past debates for the name of this article, it should have been relisted for further discussions. The last move request lasted a month, it seems premature to close the discussion given only a week of time was allowed on the second move request, and the community consensus on the naming decision was established by one supporting opinion from an IP user. The same IP user also supported all other the requested moves submitted by the same proposed user recently. I think article should revert back to its previous title and relist for more discussions. TheAvatar (discuss–?) 18:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Has this been discussed with the closer before coming here? At the time of the close it was nearly a week since any input, so not sure what a relist would do. The options in the RM were different from the previous one and had arguments for so the close seems reasonable on first glance. PaleAqua (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We agreed on the title in the previous move after very long debate, so this move seems very unnecessary especially with such low participation in the discussion. With the ongoing protest in Hong Kong and being a holiday month, low participation seems to be expected. TheAvatar (discuss–?) 17:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see how holidays and the ongoing protest might lower participation, it has been a week but it has been a week before any discussion of the close. So even if it had been relisted for an additional week would their have been more input? 8 months is more than the enough time for consensus to be reevaluated. That said in the previous discussion "Raymond Wong Yuk-man" was also brought up as an option by multiple supporters. So even taking those comments into account seems to support this latest move. PaleAqua (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse - No, this guy has not. The article has been moved twice: Raymond Wong → Wong Yuk-man → Raymond Wong Yuk-man. As I must admit, the administrator seems to be oblivious about the naming of Hong Kong people, and I just (as a nominator) got one vote, like all other proposals that I've done. As I pointed out earlier, any Hong Kong ethnically Han person wouldn't mind being called Julie or Sandy or... Raymond. Transliterating Cantonese language isn't easy, but people chose "Wong Yuk-man" instead in February 2014. However, in the recent RM, administrator agreed to add back "Raymond" without removing the Chinese name, despite one vote. I would be in favour of relisting if the declining Qing Empire had not given the British the 99-year lease of Hong Kong. I can't do anything about cultural differences between Chinese and Hong Kong and Macau cultures. --George Ho (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the person that proposed the original move, I think you have a conflict of interest here. TheAvatar (discuss–?) 17:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, People involved in the discussion are allowed to comment here/!vote here, but are expected to self-identify which George does "(as a nominator)". PaleAqua (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer. It seems like aspersions are being cast on the IP user, either for being an IP user or for some possible allegiance to George. 67.70.35.44 is a frequent enough respondent in move discussions that the IP might as well be a username; I can type the IP from memory, and trust that the opinions expressed are independent. The IP editor's comments and opinions are welcome and appreciated. As far as George's comments, I am not wholly "oblivious about the naming of Hong Kong people," but I don't have strong feelings about this either way. I would have relisted if there were ongoing discussion or the consensus were unclear, but these sorts of requests as a whole have not been attracting a lot of attention, no one objected, and actually there was a measure of support for Raymond Wong Yuk-man in the previous discussion. I might also have relisted had I been asked before the article was brought to WP:MR; there is a similar problem at Talk:Gary Fan Kwok-wai, but at that page too objections were made evident by dueling moves after the close and the initiation of a new discussion, not by asking to have the request reopened. Dekimasuよ! 06:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the last discussion was longer, but went five weeks between comments, including four without comments after relisting, and then the next comment had the edit summary "it's been a month and this still isn't closed?" so it doesn't strike me as the way we should want all move discussions to proceed. Dekimasuよ! 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally connected to that IP person, but I knew he has been attending my proposals on Hong Kong people. --George Ho (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the timestamps just seems very well coordinated, but that's just my opinion. TheAvatar (discuss–?) 17:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you don't express such opinions as "someone is trying quietly make all these moves to this non-existing HK convention as that IP stalker is saying without notifying anyone", which does not appear to assume good faith on the part of George and is a personal attack on the IP editor. If you are not going to open a sockpuppet investigation (and one is not warranted here), please restrict your comments to the changes you would like to see to the titles of the articles in question. Dekimasuよ! 17:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]