- Lewis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
By my count, 60 percent of participants in the discussion supported moving the page, yet it was closed as no consensus. Could've at least benefited from a relisting.
Hot Stop (Talk) 13:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my closure. The RM was open for the full seven days, with no new input for the last several days. While numerically more editors supported the move than opposed, it wasn't overwhelming, and some of the oppose votes were very strong in discussing article traffic and incoming links, in line with the relevant policies and guidelines. I didn't detect a strong consensus that this wasn't the primary topic, let alone consensus for any one of the suggested alternatives specifically.--Cúchullain t/c 14:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The
60 percent of participants in the discussion supported moving the page, yet it was closed as no consensus sounds funny and Cuchullain closing the discussion instead of relisting after the discussion has been dead for a few days seems reasonable. However, I still don't like the close. I think the opposition arguments are pretty weak, mostly based on very questionable assumptions about how to compare page views between dabs and unadorned titles. I would love to see more discussion on this, and whether, for example, that Meriwether Lewis gets *way* more views than Lewis should matter. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the arguments against renaming were quite weak. They were very much Scotland-centric. I myself had never heard of the place until I saw the page and was quite stunned that such an obscure locale had such a primary name. That said, I'm not sure we can fault the close on this. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close (but not title!) The close looks reasonable though I'm also a bit flummoxed that we have the place at the primary topic since Lewis is a very common name. The TV series is probably a lot better known than the town, for example. But, that's an argument that should have been in the move discussion and I can't fault the close itself. --regentspark (comment) 14:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Equally some of the arguments in favour of a move (e.g. "No way this is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC") were hardly the epitome of well-researched objectivity. The nub of the discussion would seem to be that the Scottish island is the most notable of locations bearing the name. There are also many famous Foo Lewis's and Lewis Foos, some of whom may be better known in some circles than the island but none are mononymous. In these circumstances do surnames/given names trump actual names? Those who favoured the former may have been a little more numerous but I don't think you can say that the evidence or argument was so convincing as to constitute a genuine consensus. I am not aware of any policy or guideline on surnames/given names vs actual names - it may be that there are few other examples. Ben MacDui 18:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples would be Jade, Rose, Heather etc. Ben MacDui 18:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A close like that would be well out of the scope of the RM.Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? It was proposed and supported there. Alternative names are often brought up in RMs. Closing is not a matter of counting support/oppose and deciding it is no consensus if the ratio is not over ~70%. The arguments used are more important than the count. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, that's true Apteva. But it does sometimes muddle things when a new name is proposed in an RM, so I can understand Cuchullain's reluctance to move it without a new RM. Why not open a new RM about this specific proposal? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For one thing, there was no consensus for "Isle of Lewis" any more than there was for "Lewis, Outer Hebrides". Second, there was certainly no consensus for redirecting "Lewis" to a new name. And that's on top if it being a terrible idea, as it would just redirect the simpler name to a more complicated one, and would have all the same problems of the current setup. Such a move would have been very far outside of what closing admins are supposed to do at RMs.Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn close. The close apparently gave excessive weight to opinions based on page views. Page views are tricky pieces of data. If 6,000 out of 31,000 is your only data point that is questionable as the indicator for it being the primary topic. My own personal guideline is 70%-80% of all relevant page views and not just two as present here (84%). What this argument ignores is all of the other uses of Lewis which did not wind up here or at the dab page. Also being the primary use in one country is not a justification to override what is the world wide primary use. So in the end the closer did not follow the closing instructions since undue weight was given to weak or faulty arguments. As to the discussion, the discussion of multiple possible targets is a red hearing about that can cause what appears to be a lack of consensus. There is nothing wrong with the closer selecting one of the presented options with decent support and moving the page there. A closing comment that says I went with A but if I misread the support for B, fell free to open a new move request. Closes don't need to be perfect, but they need to get consensus correct. Also a low number of bad inbound links is not support for retention. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I said overturn above, I'm not sure if Revise to use one of the proposed options was my intention. So if whoever reviews this decides to do the rename as the override, I would find that to be an acceptable action based on my comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close While I don't like the result, consensus is based on the weight of the arguments. A relist would have been probably a better option, but that is not required by the process. That said seems like Isle of Lewis would be a better title and perhaps a new RM should be opened suggesting that. PaleAqua (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close: After five days of inactivity and essentially a split of positions, a relist, although reasonable, would probably have not resulted in any significant change. At some point, all RMs have to be closed and a decision made. The decision that Cuchullain made was well within the bounds of WP:RMCI. In fact, as suggested above, it was correct of Cuchullain not to arbitrarily move the article to Isle of Lewis as that was not the subject of the RM. If he had done so, it would have amounted to a supervote!. Whenever a new plausible alternative name is introduced into an RM, all subsequent discussion should be very clear as to which name is under consideration--the orginal RM alternative or the new alternative. Nothing wrong with this close. Nom should start another RM with the Isle of Lewis name to see how it goes. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
