Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August

Communist Party of Britain (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

This has just been move to the old name of Communist Party of Britain, but this is out of date and is no longer used by the organisation. The talk page resulted in NO consensus for the name Communist Party of Britain indeed the arguments were convincing that Britain is wrong and the previously used and more accurate Great Britain be used. Garageland66 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closer's comment. Still looks like a pretty straightforward no consensus to me, so I defaulted to the long-term stable title, "Communist Party of Britain", which the article had been at from creation in August 2003 until June 2015. To elaborate slightly, we had four supporters of "Communist Party (Britain)", two opposers who favoured "Communist Party (Great Britain)", and another two commenters who preferred the original title, "Communist Party of Britain". Several of the supporters also suggested "Communist Party of Britain" would be acceptable for them. Of course number of votes is not everything, but you can also add to that concerns about ambiguity with
  article titles policy that we could discount the clear numerical split of voters. Jenks24 (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This has just been move to the old name of Communist Party of Britain, but this is out of date and is no longer used by the organisation. The talk page resulted in NO consensus for the name Communist Party of Britain indeed the arguments were convincing that Britain is wrong and the previously used and more accurate Great Britain be used. (Garageland66 (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• Endorse close Clearly no consensus. It is normal to move an article to the long standing name in the case of a no consensus result; so the move of the page back to the old name from before the recent move on June 3rd seems reasonable. PaleAqua (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion was "no consensus". Move back to the original name is the correct thing to do, given that all subsequent moves were not made with a demonstration of consensus and are disputed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The usual thing to do is revert to the last stable name, but we should not do that, per
  WP:COMMONSENSE, if there's a consensus that it's actually wrong. I don't know enough about British politics to know whether the "it's wrong" claims are as well-supported as they appear, but it's worth consideration by those who do. On first blush it looks like returning this for further discussion may be in order.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This is a good point. I don't think in this case there was a consensus that the status quo title was wrong, however. There were plenty of assertions thrown around in the discussion, some saying the party's official name had changed and some saying it hadn't. Certainly no sources were provided clearly showing there had been a name change, all that was provided was some parts of their official website using "Communist Party" and other parts using "Communist Party of Britain". This being the case and with several users making credible arguments for the old title, "Communist Party of Britain", I felt it acceptable to default to the long-term stable title. In general though, I agree with the principle that some admin discretion should be applied if defaulting to the status quo title will have a blatantly incorrect or absurd result. I also agree that a future RM will probably be useful for this article, perhaps in a few months when there might be more possibility to provide some sources to back up the claim that the name has changed. Jenks24 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The moot question is, "Whether Wikipedia must stick to its current naming Rasgulla when the naming is misleading or inaccurate, against Rosogolla (content here)." Rosogolla is the formal, original, familiar and most common name of this dessert, so the requested move would benefit the wider community.

Considerations has been made for this question that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore, content and title there, necessarily needs to be encyclopedic. The naming should be seen as goals, not as rules. Whereas, Oxford dictionary mentions rasgullā originates in Hindi, and the Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets highlights

(i) The closer Jenks24 did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he should have focused on the fact that how the article Rosogolla was not a proposed deletion, but a speedy deletion, bypassing a discussion even when there were practical chances of surviving a discussion, in closing this requested move.

(ii) The closer Jenks24 was requested to focused on the move discussion, as requester indicated him how clearly it was a rough consensus; considering the strength of his argument,

(iii) In addition to above, the closer Jenks24 was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: since requester's argument was too long, he summarized it and given, the summary clearly reflects how the move discussion was purely based on un-reasonability, therefore, the RM should have reopened and re-listed.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The result of the move request was: not moved". I request that all closers say something as to why not. For example: "Unanimously opposed, the nominator's
  WP:walls of text didn't persuade any other editor." Jenks could probably phrase it more nicely. The nominator needs to appreciate that concise writing is more persuasive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's a fair point, I'll take that on board. In this case I would probably say something like, "despite the strident arguments of the nominator, there was a clear consensus that the current title is the
    most common name". Jenks24 (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The nominator himself acknowledges and appreciates the idea put forward for concise writing – mostly caused due to lack of awareness of good practices, for the rationale he then believed more rough than a clear consensus, when the current title contradict
      most common name concerning ambiguity, mislead or inaccuracy. He feels grateful for the admittance of instant move review. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Given that every one of multiple other participants did not agree with you, there is absolutely no way a closer could have closed it any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • First part of the above observation needs to be interpreted that, other participants used
          most common name' described in Wikipedia policy, before closing it. Wikipedia suggests, "Editors should consider that ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used, neutrality also considered," " the name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedia sources may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register and what names are most frequently used." Ambiguity that the Oxford dictionary mentions rasgullā originates in Hindi, and the Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets highlights Rosogolla, describes often spelled as Rasgulla, primarily associated with West Bengal. Not Hindi, in India.Establishing both that the other participants disagreement & the close by the closer do not commensurate with the Wikipedia policy. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
          ]
        • Until now, none of the other participants preferred to say anything. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You would be better advised to compose a better renomination after waiting six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would like to thank for the unexplained advise above. I have my full faith in the Wikipedia Policy. In regard to the original Move review requested above, I will not prefer to express my grievance here, if any; irrespective of the outcome of the instant move review - fair or prejudiced. I will rather prefer to share my understanding with my circles relevant. However, since said policy and its maintenance are two different things, definitely, my understanding about said maintenance will depend in the way it would be decided. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close I'ld echo the message about closing summaries which Jenks24's has already aknowledged, but the concensus is clear. Note that this is the English-language version of Wikipedia; as such common names depends on usage in English sources over usage by sources in other languages. PaleAqua (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If allowed to comment on the above diktat, I would like to mention that Jenks24's aknowledgement ignored ambiguous name, nor considered 'most common name' as per Wikipedia policy mentioned above.. In addition to that, the consensus was more polling, when polling is not a substitute for discussion, did not address reasons commensurate to Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Besides the book, that I have cited, the Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets is not only from an English source but also from English speaking countries USA and Great Britain. So the basis of the Endorsement though questionable but who will address it? Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why so called consensus is more polling than consensus? (1) A thorough reading of ‘Talk:Rasgulla#Requested_move_14_August_2015' would reflect, most of the other participants preferred more on Odisha version of the article name than following Wikipedia:Article_titles. (2) The references in naming the article could not establish Odisha's prevalence in sources among English-speaking countries. (3) The only source cited from English-speaking countries is Oxford Dictionaries, mentions Rasgulla - an Indian sweet consisting of a ball of curd cheese cooked in syrup, from Hindi rasgullā ras 'juice' + gullā 'ball' - the source does not mention Odisha but the words Indian and Hindi. (4) On the other hand, the source cited by the nominator is encyclopedic in nature also from English-speaking countries. The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets by Michael Krondl & others. The book mentions in page 580, - rosogolla, often spelled rasgulla, is a popular Indian ball-shaped sweet prepared from fresh milk curd soaked in sugar syrup. The book continues, rosogolla is primarily associated with West Bengal, where it is just one, if perhaps the best known, of numberless chhana-based sweets. Page 259 mentions, "Bengalis - inhabitants of the Indian state of West Bengal and the Republic of Bangladesh - are famous for their love of misti, or sweets, considered the apogee of the Indian sweet maker's art." (5) These observations rather reflect a biased attitude of the other participants in Odisha. Also Rasgulla - an ambiguous name taken from Hindi language, admittedly, Rosogolla is primarily associated with West Bengal and the 'most common name' as described in Wikipedia policy. Statements of the other participants, quoted from Talk:Rasgulla#Requested_move_14_August_2015, would reflect they are biased towards Odisha, (i) "Moving the article to "rosogolla" will result in an unnecessary Bengali-vs-Odiya troll fest, considering the fact that people of Odisha had celebrated "Rasagola Dibasa" very recently. utcursch | talk 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)," (ii) "The Odiyas (who claim that their state is the dessert's birthplace) have other spellings for the name, including "rasagolla", "rassogolla", and "rasagola". utcursch | talk 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)," (iii) "Moreover if historians say that there is documentary evidence of Puri being the origin and the 13th century Madala Panji has a mention of rasagulla in it's chronicles then it should be taken as the basis of deciding the sweet's origin," (iv) " Now the evidence of origin of such words can be traced to the Odia language and it being an ancient language(classical language) has such words. I will give an example - the sweetdish Kheer was originated in Odisha 2000 years ago in Puri(same place where Rasagulla/Rasagolla) was originated,".Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. One person insisting on more discussion becomes disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir and I do apologize. My argument appears to became disruptive. I'll rather maintain silence. Meanwhile, I'll just see the above recommendation.Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The debate appears to die a natural death. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The close clearly reflected the consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bongbong Marcos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I would like to request a move review because the RM was closed by Kharkiv07 and normally, a non-admin closure could be warranted after the week period but there was no discussion at all. Seeing as the previous discussion on that page consists of mostly of opposing comments, and no new arguments were really brought up in the new section I find that this RM was not closed properly. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Endorse I'm somewhat disappointed this wasn't discussed with the closer, as explicitly required as part of the
  T|C 04:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC) [reply
  ]
  • What is there to discuss on the closer's talk page that can't be done here? It would probably make sense to discuss his reasoning behind the close when there would be a lot of other opinions to consider, but in this case there was no discussion at all.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - 2 months is a bit long for a move review especially without any apparent discussion in the mean time. Especially as other editors made changes to the article during that time, so would have had a chance to object or raise concerns. Also while it is best that closers consider wider policies etc—especially any explicitly mentioned; they aren't really bound by old move discussions—two and a half years in this case.
  I suggest that it you believe that there is reason for the page to be move back or to another title to put together a new requested move. That said while 2 months is a bit stale in this case, given that the result of moved, another requested move right now might be a bit soon. You should referencing any facts etc. that you want considered such as providing data showing which name is more common in any new RM. PaleAqua (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there certainly is no requirement for minimum participation in an RM, it might have been better to relist the RM considering the previous discussion was mostly in opposition and that those factors haven't changed.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two months is really long for relisting, especially with no other comments in the mean time, and only one comment besides the nom during the RM. PaleAqua (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relisting isn't really the outcome I had in mind.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as any old uncontroversial uncontested move. Sure, it may be questionable, so start a new discussion on the talk page. No problem with the RM process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure there was no problem with closing? Classifying it as uncontroversial wouldn't do the old move discussion (and contesting comments) much justice.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies. I looked only at Talk:Bongbong_Marcos#Requested_move_4_June_2015 and did not scroll up to discover a much better discussion closed 23:25, 22 January 2013. I would ask User:BDD to comment on whether the previous discussion is properly considered over-ridden by the later poorly attended discussion. I wish for a rule that repeat RM nominations *must* acknowledge and summarise the previous discussions, or be considered invalid, and now I lean overturn (move back and relist for more discussion acknowledging the 2013 consensus to not move). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (
  consensus can change. Finally, with response to the "no discussion" remark that you made, I'd like to quote from the closing instructions: "no minimum participation is required for requested moves". All in all, I personally believe that this was a fair, policy-based close. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Like I said, it might have been better to relist the RM.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no opposition so the move was uncontroversial. None of the participants in the previous discussion came back to oppose the move so maybe consensus changed. Maybe it didn't, but there wasn't evidence of it in the new move discussion. Further, the discussion is over a month old and no one has been
  bold and tried to move it back giving some support to the idea it was uncontroversial. If you oppose it, start a new discussion. Nothing raises a serious red flag for me. Wugapodes (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It is entirely possible that the opposing parties from the previous move discussion were not aware of the new discussion due to various reasons. Regardless, engaging in a new discussion without considering the old one--in fact, completely ignoring it is not how this should be done. I felt that if I moved the page anyways, someone would move it back arguing that the "consensus" from the "move discussion" overrides that.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus can change, particularly over two and a half years. And they may or may not have been aware, but either way the current discussion showed that no one else on the page or watching RM cared enough to oppose this move. Honestly, on your part a
      WP:Canvass) to show that there is infact consensus against the move. But that's not apparent here. Going off a two year old discussion that none of the participants came back to change isn't a strong argument for me. Would I have closed it differently? Probably. But I don't see anything against policy or that justifies overturning. Wugapodes (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Perhaps we should change the policy then so that it includes a rule about how people need to consider, or at least summarize the old discussion, as suggested above. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta (manga) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I am requesting a review of the

Comment GS seems to be suggesting this was a vote. I went by the strength of the arguments, WP:AT, and CONSISTENCY. I have no problem with my move being reversed or changed (really, I was just trying to help clear out the move-request backlog), but bear in mind the discussion in the thread following the move request (Talk:Gangsta (manga)#Good example for WP:AT?), where people raise the possibility of modifying WP:AT or SMALLDETAILS to reflect any consensus to keep the article at "Gangsta.", and the consequent possibility of moving any number of other articles about albums etc. that are styled with a full stop/period. (Several are mentioned in the two threads.)

I'm not watching this thread, so please ping me if anyone wants me to comment further. — kwami (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I'm not at all suggesting it was a vote. I'm merely presenting some statistics to give a general idea of the debate. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, supervote and inappropriate closure. The closer just ignored the policy-based arguments opposing the move and moved the page to his favorite title. As far as I can see, there were good arguments in both parts, but the proposal to move the page just failed to got consensus. Kwami should had just voted and not closed such a controversial discussion. Cavarrone 17:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I could care less which name is used. You have no reason to assume bad faith. I moved it according to my reading of WP guidelines and the consensus demonstrated by multiple other articles. You may be correct to overturn the move, but you are wrong to cast aspersions. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – I suppose my endorsement is predictable [since I supported the move during the discussion], but please note that a very similar example, "skate.", is listed explicitly in the
  MOS:TM guideline, along two others that are somewhat similar (Se7en and Alien³), and the outcome is consistent with the other recent outcomes with the same issue of the inclusion of a full stop in a name – Melody (Japanese singer), Janet (album), Shakira (album). And the quality of the sourcing in the article was rather questionable. All of this was pointed out in the move discussion prior to its closure. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse First, in the interest of full disclosure, both Cavarrone and BarrelProof participated in the move discussion; I didn't, but found this while watching Kwami's talk page.

It seems to me that

I (don't) like it. And above Kwami said that he used the parallel discussion at WT:Article titles to determine more global consensus which seems there to show that periods aren't a good title dab (I'd even venture to say that that discussion has more and better participation than the one in question here). So while more people !voted for oppose there, more globally, and with proper weight applied to the arguments in the discussion, I don't think the closure was unreasonable. Wugapodes (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Wugapodes: I am not suggesting that the process was a vote, which you would have seen if you read my above comment to kwami. That being said, if enough people take one side of a debate, it should be considered as to why they are taking that side - personally I believe the opposers had better arguments, but I'm biased. And when ignoring the majority in a close, one should at least have the courtesy to write a well-reasoned closing statement. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus I opposed the move. No reasonable administrator would have closed the move request as consensus to move, because there wasn't one; Kwami's closure amounts to a
  T|C 04:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. It is not clear what WP:Supervote claims refer to. The closer's "guidelines and multiple precedents with similarly styled names" was evident in the discussion. If anything, the close should be criticised for its brevity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen: Most of the supporters of the parenthetic disambiguation are misreading
  MOS:TM. I would reverse my original !vote in the RM. This does not appear to be a matter of original artist intent, but a "hey, let's transliterate it this cool way like so-and-so is doing" gimmick being imposed externally by the publisher (even if RS also tend to honor it in some cases). This use of . is especially problematic, beyond just article titles, because of the difficulty it poses in correctly understanding sentences. The new information about cases like Melody (Japanese singer), stylized as "melody.", changes the analysis. Pinging those who have !voted her "per" me: Jenks24, PaleAqua  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn (no consensus). SMcCandlish's summary is a pretty good one. Disregarding the disambiguation question for a second, there was a clear consensus that the full stop should be used in the title – as noted, that is how the vast majority of reliable sources portray it.
  Gangsta. (manga). On the question of whether the full stop is enough disambiguation, this is definitely no consensus. The voters were roughly numerically split and the arguments for and against were equally valid. The reason for this is because, as anyone who has followed RM recently will know, SMALLDETAILS/DIFFPUNCT is a mess at the moment and needs to be sorted out at the policy level (where discussion is ongoing) rather than with a piecemeal approach through RM. As the policy currently stands, both interpretations used in this discussion are valid and it is impossible to declare one more correct and hence have a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn (no consensus). Per SMcCandlish and Jenks24 above. I especially agree with the issue that the SMALLDETAILS / DIFFPUNCT needs to be hammered out and it seems like while the larger issue is being resolved it is hard to see a consensus, especially in cases being explicitly discussed in the larger context. PaleAqua (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-open. I'm not sure that any result is logical; I oppose the result in practice but support the parentheses, and many other people had different opinions. I wish the closer had simply had the wherewithal to contribute to the discussion. Red Slash 02:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear (re: both Red Slash's and Jenks24's comments), we'd use either
    WP:AT#PARENDIS. If DIFFPUCT is satisfied, there is no need for additional parenthetical disambiguation; we just don't do it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  I have to disagree, brah. The title is "Gangsta." but that's too hard to distinguish from "Gangsta" so we can add parenthesis. But there is no manga called "Gangsta" and we should not pretend there is with a title like "Gangsta (manga)" Red Slash 02:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with Red Slash. The sources use "Gangsta." and we should follow that, regardless of whether it's decided that extra disambiguation is required. Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  My point was we'd have no need to add extra disambiguation unless something else is also called "Gangsta.", with the dot. If you and Red Slash believe that

  WP:DIFFPUNCT to begin with. Just read the policy. We would only switch to parenthetic "when this can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA", which is not the case here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Seems to me that this dot is like

  Gangsta.. My third choice would have been Japanese comic thing potentially containing a period, and my fourth and final choice would be the one that was chosen seemingly at random by the closer. Red Slash 12:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

WP:Don't feed the divas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I am requesting a close review of

• Comment by proponent of the rename (whose version of the text was developed in a sandbox and later history merged with the original text): In what way is it alleged to be "an improper close per WP:RMCI"? There was clearly a consensus to rename. This was determined the first time the RM ran; it was relisted because it wasn't clear what to rename it to. While some people liked
  WP:PRAM, and it's just a shortcut with no actual title. After it was relisted, the most favored name was the one it was eventually moved to. PS: This was not even among my initially favored potential names, but someone else's idea; I have no "vested interest" in defending it. It simply appears to be the winner that emerged, from a discussion that most participants were already tired of because of all the re-re-repeated "this RM is just politically correct nonsense!" yelling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  My assertion is that consensus was not properly weighed and that there was no actual consensus for a move. There was no explanation of how consensus was determined in the close itself, or from JzG when I asked on his talk page.

  WP:RMCI states "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept...." That would seem to apply here. - MrX 18:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Um, except two closers in a row agreed there was a consensus to move. [i.e. the first

  WP:ANRFC responder who closed with a consensus to move but reopened to get more discussion on what to move to, and the final closer.] Diffs: [1] [2]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse close Seems to be a reasonable close based on the arguments. I don't see an issue with using a name that came up during the course of discussion given the strength of the arguments moving away previous name. PaleAqua (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Note in particular I don't think that it should be moved back to the old name, though considering the discussions below, further discussions/RM/XfD probably should be held considering the concerns with the current contents of the essay and name. As the concensus mostly seemed clear on moving away from the old name vs. the strength of argument for the new name; I don't really see a problem with such a discussion starting now. Except for by IAR, this is really not the best venue for trying to come up with a better name to move to or what should be done with the essay. PaleAqua (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: There is unambiguous consensus against the "divas" name. Several competitors were proposed, all of which would require a greater or lesser degree of refactoring of the essay, so I went with the one that had a proper draft of the requisite refactored content. People are free to move the result to some other title, just not back to where it was, so there's actually nothing to review here. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it puzzling that would say there is unambiguous consensus against

  Flyer22) said she would support WP:TANTRUM or WP:HISSYFIT. There are three comments in support of "high maintenance" ( SMcCandlish, Ihardlythinkso, and DrChrissy) and two opposed (WhatamIdoing and Cuchullain). Doc9871 stated that HME is the best option he's seen so far, but the bulk of his comments seem to lean toward WP:DIVA. The only way I could see this as consensus is if you ignored most of the comments from editors who opposed any move.- MrX 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I also find it puzzling that a nearly even "vote" is interpreted by anyone as "consensus" for or against anything. I would be sorry to learn that discussing possible alternatives in a good-faith effort to find something that might be even better had been interpreted as supporting a move at all. For the record, I specifically oppose the "high maintenance" idea on the grounds that it is verifiably a gendered insult, and if the main purpose was to avoid "diva" on the grounds that it's a gendered insult, then moving to a different gendered insult does not solve the problem. (Also, high maintenance is wrong: "diva" behavior is about demanding that others pay attention to your emotional problems; being high maintenance is about expending resources on your appearance or image. It's the difference between pitching a fit if you are not the center of fawning attention and spending half your paycheck on haircuts or cosmetics. A person might do both, but the two behaviors are separable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  To interject: a) RM isn't a head-count vote; b) two closers in a row concluded that the pro and con arguments were not of "roughly the same quality" or would not have concluded there was a consensus to move; c) even the most vociferous opposer, Doc, himself thought "high maintenance" was the direction to go in if it were to be moved; and d) WP:TANTRUM or WP:HISSYFIT are not names, but shortcuts (both of which redirect to this page). So, what again is the actual issue to review here?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The purpose of a move review is to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. I don't know what you mean by two closers—there was only one closer. There's no explanation in the close statement that even addresses consensus, or the relative strength or weakness of the arguments.- MrX 02:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Ping

  WP:MR is for; that doesn't answer what this MR is for. If you don't like "two closers", "two consensus assessors", then. Covered this in detail elsewhere. I also think your interpretation of "high maintenance" is idiosyncratic; it definitely doesn't reflect the usage I'm familiar with, which is entirely about attention-demanding, overly emotional behavior patterns. Sources: Forbes, Urban Dictionary. Note: Both of these indicate the term is used generically, not just of women.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think that you meant to ping User:MrX for half of that.
  Also, did you actually read all of those sources? The Forbes source has a section on the money woes of high-maintenance employees. The very first definition at Urban Dictionary is about money ("expensive"), and nearly all of them directly include a statement about money. This website says that the claim that "high maintenance women are selfish and money-obsessed" is common, and there are thousands of similar sources .
  Also, these words are not used equally for men and women. See this and this, or even see Urban Dictionary, if you like that as a source: "low maintenance ...Usually male, as most women are high maintenance." The very source that you claim says that "the term is used generically" says exactly the opposite. The Dictionary of American Slang gives only gendered examples: " high-maintenance hair/ high-maintenance girlfriend". Sure, you can say that some cars are high maintenance (cars are also traditionally referred to by female pronouns, like ships), and pets, and it can be applied to men (just like all insulting words for women can be applied to men, so that you can insult their character and dismiss their masculinity all in one go), but it is definitely a gendered term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  So it's sometimes used in a gendered way, sometimes not. I think we'll have a hard time finding something that can never be used in a gendered way. I care less about the exact name than about rescoping this away from an attack page model. [gasp] I used "model"; that's often a gendered word. I guess I should go slap myself. Oh! That's gendered, too, since women slap more often while men punch. [sigh].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of process, I endorse this as a reasonable close given the discussion. I think it was plain that there was consensus against the previous title. Since
  WP:TANTRUM - it's a net positive and JzG was well within his admin discretion to make this call.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I disagree that diva is always aimed at women. In my experience, it's usually aimed at a gay man (and it's often a label applied by the man himself: "I'm sorry if I'm being a bit of a diva, but...") WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your clarification Cuchullain. I agree with WhatamIdoing that diva is frequently used to refer to gay men, although usually lightheartedly.- MrX 20:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly doesn't make it more appropriate for use in a Wikipedia essay.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. It just increases the offensiveness level in multiple ways.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more offensive than any most of the alternatives offered, and only when it's used in an argument to discredit another editor. - MrX 12:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as Doc indicates in multiple places in the discussion, is the entire point of the page as it was then named and written, a purpose he defended as valid, helping editors ID and shun "divas". But what I meant in my above comment was that if we posit that it's a slur used against women, the fact that it turns out to be a slur that can be used against gay men, too, doesn't make it less of a slur, just liable to be interpreted as one by more editors, and liable to be perceived as as a slur more often, since it has an additional connotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your basic logic, but I dispute that it's a slur, at least in American culture. In fact, it's more a term of endearment. Are you aware that there are television programs with "diva" in their title?

Diva (Asia TV channel); There's the Diva Cup, a product marketed to women, and Diva Magazine, "monthly glossy newsstand magazine for lesbians and bi women in the UK". As far as gay culture—I can't speak for all gay men, but I can speak for a great many of them who would laugh at the suggestion that "diva" is a slur. The contention that "diva" is widely-regarded as offensive strikes me as absurd.- MrX 14:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Several of those are a different usage, closer to the operatic meaning. But all of this is really beside the point. Possible offensiveness was only one of the rationales; the principle one is that we don't need an attack page, which is what that page is for. What would be useful would be an advice page on behaviors to avoid in this vein. WP interests are not served by a "how to peg other people as some alleged personality type you can shun and be a jackass toward".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's a pretty obvious mischaracterization of what I wrote. My assertion is that "diva" is widely-regarded as unoffensive, and I've given plenty of examples. Where are the examples of it being "inappropriate" and where is the Wikipedia policy to back it up?- MrX 15:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed that in the RM, and I explained my position again here: the fact that it's a gendered insult and is used on a website that's had a terrible time attracting and keeping women, and that we lose nothing significant by changing it. But of course the point of a move review isn't to rehash the move discussion, it's to discuss whether the close was reasonable; it was.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. No reader would ever just look at the title of the essay only, walking away thinking that WP discriminates against women with this term, without bothering to readi the first sentence, that very clearly states that WP divas are quite definitely of both sexes. The close was just unwarranted PC handwringing. Doc talk 03:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, but it says nothing about how the close was so out of process in terms of

WP:RMCI that it must be overturned.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It does speak against the closer's claim of unambiguous consensus, and of your perception that "diva" is as gendered as you think it is. While some spoke of gender discrimination of diva, a few others spoke against that, and most did not engage. I did not regard the gender discrimination case as having been seriously made, and think that Diva is read in line with its original intent. Some of the opposers cited "getting straight to an important point" and the advantages of being curt, while others cited offensiveness / political correctness. I don't agree that there was a consensus, and in particular feel that the discussion was decidedly lacking opinions from female editors. I recognized User:WhatamIdoing, but her input was tentative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it speaks only to the claim that the term is gendered - or rather, that it "discriminates against women", which wasn't my point - and thus just rehashes the RM. It says nothing about the consensus. To get back to that, it was pretty clear that there was consensus to move away from the former name, and the closer was well within their remit to close as they did.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (no consensus). There was a strong current of straight opposition, and less support for any suggestion including the one implemented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no consensus). Very predictable outcome, but hardly the way things should be done around here. Absolutely no consensus for this poor rename. Doc talk 00:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the outcome was predictable, that's a clear indication there wasn't a lack of consensus, by definition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SMcCandlish, that's a remarkably illogical assertion. One can easily predict a lack-of-consensus outcome. For example, we can easily predict "no consensus" for any RFA reform discussion, without even knowing what the specific proposed reform is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @WhatamIdoing: That's reaching and non-responsive. Doc isn't talking about a hypothetical outcome, but the specific one that was arrived at; you're comparing imaginary apples and very real oranges. The fact that he thinks it was predictable because there's some evil p.c. conspiracy to censor him and ruin WP and [insert another personal attack about me in particular] is immaterial; he concedes that he knew what the outcome would be. Its disingenuous and fallacious to simultaneously declare that the result was as he predicted and yet also deny that the result was in fact the result and should thus be overturned. Note how this relates strongly to his other doublethink pattern, repeated multiple times here and at the RM: This essay should just be deleted, but simultaneously it should be kept as long as it's his "right" version. And another one: He was adamant that I write an alternative version of the essay – he demanded this numerous times – and is now apoplectic that anyone might prefer it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's not a reach, and it's entirely responsive. Doc says that he's not surprised that this community would have trouble coming to a consensus about how to rename that page. You said that if he could accurately predict a lack-of-consensus outcome, then his ability to predict a lack-of-consensus outcome proves that the lack-of-consensus outcome did not happen. Your reply is illogical. His ability to predict not-X does not prove that X happened. He does not "concede" that he knew the outcome; he says that he predicted that there would be no consensus in that discussion.
          Perhaps this will be simpler: Doc says that there was no consensus to move the page to the name that Guy picked, and that he knew weeks ago that there would be no consensus for that page move. "Overturn (no consensus)" means "Overturn this closing statement, because there was no consensus in that discussion, no matter what the closer wrote". It does not mean "Overturn this, but I concede that there is no consensus to overturn it and/or to do what I want". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • SMcCandlish is saying the opposite; that, if Doc could predict that participants would arrive at a consensus, then it is unsurprising that there was a consensus. It all stems from his misinterpreting (or appropriating) "predictable" to apply to consensus, rather than the closure, which is what Doc meant, as you have correctly identified.
            talk) 18:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
            ]
          • (edit conflict) I think you're both not correctly parsing what Doc said and WhatamIdoing is misinterpreting what I said, while Alakzi thinks I'm engaging in equivocation, which I'm not. Doc predicted (in more than one place) a "p.c." outcome, in his terms, and gave reasons for why, like alleged admin timidity, etc. I'm saying, then, that if he predicted such a finding of consensus (regardless of the reasons for the prediction, which seem to boil down to "everyone's a cowardly, oversensitive moron but me") he's not in a position to say that there was no such consensus simply because it didn't zero in on the option he preferred. You're saying he predicted no consensus, and (in WhatamIdoing's case) that I'm saying something about him predicting no consensus, both of which are counterfactual.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • What you're saying is, then, that Doc is contradicting himself in the space of two sentences: there both is and there isn't a consensus.
              talk) 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
              ]

Something similar to that, technically a form of equivocation in which a consensus he doesn't like is a so-called "consensus" not a consensus, and this is then combined with four other fallacies. I'll respond further at your user talk, since some people think I've been posting overly-long messages here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong neutral Obscure project page whose name is inconsequential, either name would have been fine in any event, and there's really nothing to be gained by moving it back. --Jayron32 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. I don't see how someone could find a consensus to move the page to the high maintenance title unless they went in there looking to do just that; as Smokey Joe noted, there was significant opposition to the move. And several supporters of the move said they wanted it at a less sexist title. "High maintenance," however, is a phrase used almost exclusively in reference to women whereas diva is used to desribe (straight) men [3] -- so those conditional supports should not be viewed as supporting a more sexist title. In my opinion, "prima donna" would work just as well and I'm not sure why that seemed to get ignored during the move discussion.
  T|C 02:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Knee-jerk PC rulings ensure that no imaginary toes are potentially stepped on, while eroding due process. No consensus to move this article existed before the move. Dreadful. Doc talk 06:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not knee-jerk anything, there was a thoughtful debate. And whenever you write PC? Try replacing it with "treating people with a bit of common decency" and see how well it reads. There was an unambiguous consensus against the previous title, the new title was a case of pick one that works, and that was the one for which content was already done. You're welcome to move it to any other title apart from the one that consensus showed to be inappropriate, which is the only one for which admin tools would be required. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so while this review is open would be disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would need another RM (to determine the name, not to determine whether to rename) since we already had a double-length RM that was reviewed by two independent ANRFC peeps concluding there's a consensus to move, and the title that pretty clearly emerged was this one. There seems to be a mistaken view among some respondents here that an RM consensus only ever equates to a numeric majority on one exact name. This is not so and never has been so. PS: The principal opposer, Doc, has repeatedly suggested in the RM that the entire page should just be deleted rather that be subjected to what he calls "political correction". If that's not "knee-jerk", I'm not sure what could qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought. Actually read and carefully consider the Opposes instead of backslapping each other for a another successful PC patrol cleanup correction feel-good smackdown. Actually consider that maybe your opinion is not (get ready for it) actually "consensus". Thanks for playing. Doc talk 06:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "backslapping". I think the opposes were carefully considered. Yours amounted to dismissal of everyone's concerns (even the ones that had nothing to do with offensiveness) as just "PC nonsense", sour-grapes suggestions to delete the page, denial that anything could be wrong with the page, insistence that the people targeted by the essay are some kind of psychological "type" who can't be reached in any way, justification of what amounts to an attack page on the basis that it "helps" other editors identify this "type", refusal to provide any evidence of anything you were insisting was true, avoidance of addressing a single issue or concern raised by anyone, lots of hand-waving accusations and indignation about an essay you feel proprietary about but wrote very little of, and similar lines of "reasoning". It seems perfectly valid to not give such views much weight in that discussion. No one's back needs any slapping to make evidence-before-one's-eyes observations of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - No consensus The only way this could stand would be if the oppose votes were found to be of less weight than the support votes - and there is no real justification provided for that - there are potentially a number of reasons that could be the case, but no argument was made for them and even then it would be marginal. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, the closer simply adjusting their closing statement to be more explicit about the analysis should resolve that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly get rid of the 'supervote' comments and should have been done in the first place. But to be honest I dont think it would be strong enough to forge a consensus about it. A number of support votes concentrate on it being sexist, a number of oppose votes point out in their opinion it isnt sexist. To disregard/place lower weight would require a determination that it is intrinsically sexist to describe someone as a Diva. Given the amount of gay men and straight women who revel in being described/self labelled a Diva, its a pretty poor argument that its sexist using it in this context. Some people might feel it is sexist, that does not make it so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it require any such "intrinsic" analysis? A general perception is sufficient. Any time a large group of people are apt to find an epithet offensive, I'm afraid that defenders of its usage and deniers of its offensiveness don't have much of a leg to stand on. I have relatives who still called African-Americans "colored" and "blackfolk" among other terms, and they're convinced they're in the right in doing so. They're not. And your approach here does not compute, because gay males as a insider thing repurpose various misogynstic epithets like "bitch" in a playful way for their own purposes. Such usage is subcultural jargon and has no bearing on this essay, its meaning, or its perception outside such a context, and in the general encyclopedic editing community context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is equally a general perception is that it is not offensive or sexist. As for the rest of your examples, thats blatant otherstuff. To disregard someone's opinion/rationale for voting would require that the opinion is either obviously or provably false/non credible. "I think it should be moved because it would offend blue opera singing aliens" is clearly and obviously a bad reason for a Support. "I dont think it is sexist for reason X" is not. The point of judging consensus is to judge consensus on the part of the people participating and taking reasonable oppose/support arguments into consideration. One the closing editor substitutes their own opinion for that of consensus - thats when it becomes a supervote. In this case given most of the discussion appeared to be over the sexist/gender nature of the title, to disregard *either* sides votes would be making a judgement on if it is sexist or not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it a different way then: There were quite a number of other arguments for the move, that had nothing to do with offensiveness. If you consider the offensive vs. not-offensive views cancel each other out, then consensus would still conclude (as it did twice) in favor of a move, since the don't move rationales left were essentially ILIKEIT (e.g. "it's fine as it is", etc., without any explanation of why it's fine). Meanwhile, various oppose rationales (mostly from Doc) were not policy or common-sense based, e.g. justification of having a page the explicit purpose of which is to be hostile as "helping other editors" peg someone they don't like as some kind of incurable psychological "type" (that happens to be unknown to psychiatry). I call

WP:BOLLOCKS on that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

In my humble opinion, I don't think you are in a position to make sweeping generalizations on how essays should be written. You endorse moves that don't actually meet

WP:CON, so that's not good. You are, however, successful in riding on a wave of PC bullshit, and you know it. Bollocks to your wormy acumen. Doc talk 06:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You just go ahead on there and rack up more personal attacks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a plausible reading of the discussion. It is entirely appropriate to disregard the "muh freedom of speech" crowd, who have been told the term is both gendered and offensive, as per
  talk) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "Nuked from orbit". Cute reference. I suggested it be nominated for deletion rather than be dragged through the sickening PC grinder, but apparently that's not acceptable either. Nominate it for deletion, please. Doc talk 06:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that "there is a consensus to move it to something else" is a plausible reading; I disagree that "move it to this name, which has been disputed on exactly the same grounds as the first" is a plausible reading. I think it ought to have been kept open, and more discussion and brainstorming encouraged. I think that most editors would have been satisfied if we had moved the page to something with no gender connotations at all, like WP:Don't be demanding and self-centered or WP:You are not the center of the universe (both options that we didn't consider, because I hadn't thought of them until after the discussion was closed). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds fair enough. Though I can understand why JzG chose to close it, if we're gonna have a fruitful discussion, then by all means, relist.

  talk) 08:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  What would be workable, but it's unnecessary for MR to close against the RM for us to do that. We just go have an RfC on it per normal (no matter how the MR closes).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: This MR has two hurdles to cross, because two
  WP:MFD about the page): "I wrote this ... about a certain pattern of behavior I had observed over time. ... intended as a light, mostly harmless, observational essay. ATren (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)". It has shifted a very long way from this intent, into a labeling/denigrating exercise, largely under the hands (2012–2013) of the present most vocal opponent of the rename.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You have used your admin status to further the undue closure of this witch hunt of a tempest in a teacup. For shame. Doc talk 06:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never been an admin, don't want to be one. [See my common.css and common.js for a pair of code snippets anyone can install that tells you at a glance who is and isn't an admin. Pretty helpful. :-]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you've abused and misplaced "political correctness" to turn this once decent essay into an unrecognizable piece of shit. Congratulations. Doc talk 06:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [plonk]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (no consensus) per my nomination. This was obviously not a carefully considered close. Vague generalizations like "unambiguous consensus" are not convincing. The diverging opinions and sub-proposals should have resulted in a "no consensus close".- MrX 12:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the evidence of lack of care, though? Not explaining it to your satisfaction doesn't seem to equate to carelessness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already answered. - MrX 14:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I have reverted the essay to the version before it was substantially rewritten without any consensus. The move was for the name of the essay only, and it did not include an entire rewrite, slipped through without approval. Per
  WP:EDITCONSENSUS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." I dispute the edit here, and it therefore does not have consensus to be here. Doc talk 07:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What an incredibly unproductive thing to do. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the move and the copyedit to conform to it were made in the same decision being challenged, isn't it disruptive to revert half of this while the RM is still ongoing? I seem to recall a warning to this effect above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the essay has, since SMcCandlish's first edit to it on 2015-06-14, undergone a substantial change of nature and focus. The essay used to be on how to identify a DIVA, and how one should deal with a DIVA, with obvious similarities to dealing with a troll. The rewritten essay is directed to the editor that might be the DIVA.

Important, although not overriding, factors, include that Doc9871 is historically by far the most interested author, that there is substantial historical use of the essay through the DIVA shortcut or similar shortcuts, and that pageview stats indicates that no one was reading the essay in recent months. Its message has been effective, is well known in the community, and is a matter of historical fact, is not an ongoing issue, until the last month. In the early days of Wikipedia, there were many more & worse DIVAs than I have seen in recent years.

I agree with Doc9871 that the essay has been entirely retasked without consensus, by a heavy-handed rush job by more influential editors. Per BRD, the changes should be reverted. Doc9871 did that. Per BRD, SMcCandlish should not have reverted the revert.

Does WP:MR carry the authority to prevent reversion of substantial page changes?

The closer and several proponents of the move allege a consensus that the page was offensive. No evidence was supplied. No testimonials from editors offended was supplied. The original thrust and intent of the long-standing essay has now been reversed, and the current page is actually food for a DIVA.

I support Doc9871's reversion, label SMcCandlish's reversion as disruptive, and maintain that there was no consensus to move the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:VESTED editorial right to this page. He showed up at it out of the blue in 2012 and made long string of substantive changes to it without consensus himself, including patent editwarring to retain a personally identifiable quote, in Oct. 2013. It's not my "fault" that much of the discussion in the RM also concluded that the page would need to be redrafted to comport with both a rename and the general sense that we don't need an attack page, nor that the closer chose to use my version since it fit those needs and no one had objected to it other than Doc, who keeps clamoring unconstructively for delete-it-or-gimme-my-way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

SMcCandlish ☺

"How is reverting an out-of-process move, one time, "disruptive""? Reverting a revert to reinstate your own BOLD editing is to cross the first line. If your reasons are justified, let someone else do it.

" More to the point, this page is to decide ...". The RM close was a big surprise to be, I did not think it was nearly ready for an admin to call a consensus and impose a decision. Also, I believe that the close implements the wrong solution, cementing the substantial rewrite, something that is borderline beyond the scope of the RM process. If the RM process has produced a wrong result, it is perfectly correct to say so in review. (It is wrong because it has rendered historical use of WP:DIVA to now be directed at a different essay).

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:PROCESSish), and they were history-merged by another admin later that day. Doc reverted to the earlier text, I put back those closer's version (incidentally mine), doc reverted it again, someone else put it back, and he reverted it again, then the page was protected. The only user revertwarring was Doc, against the closer and two others (and I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on him; it's just a relevant fact). It didn't occur to me until just now that much of that timeline would be muddled for the MR respondents, due to the history merge. Anyway, I, too, was surprised by the decision to use my draft, which probably needs considerable compression. My un-revert of Doc's first revert was procedural, not a content-pushing edit, as its edit summary and my statements here have said clearly. I appreciate that you think I'm "influential" in in the sense you mean, though my aims are more practical than wikipolitical. I also have no objection to continued discussion, it just seems unnecessary to get to one via MR (the point of which is to tell a closer they were wrong, and many here don't think he was). A simple RfC on what the scope should be would suffice, and the final name would emerge out of that. PS: I observe that things get rescoped at RM pretty frequently, through just doing it, or having some post-RM discussions if necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This was a bold rewrite. It completely changed the thrust. This history is slightly confusing, the timeline muddied yes, with the closers actions, a history merge, involved, actions that I do not believe should have been done. It is a defense on your part that you didn't actually do it, but this is not a review of you but of a creative close.

Page renames do indeed occasionally implement major rescopes, but this is one of the most extreme, considering that it completely changes the thrust of an established essay. My main objection is of altering the record, the changing of the target of archived links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "bold" about rewriting something in a sandbox, in direct response to browbeating demands to write my own version, especially when I wrote it simply as a demo of how easy it would be to rewrite with a different tone; it was a one-sitting braindump. You seem to be sort-of-accusing me of something, but there is no "something" there. I agree the close is creative, but that's not necessarily a flaw. Point taken, of course, on procedural reverts when involved.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "sort-of-accusing" I thought we had agreed was due to confusion / muddied history following the closer's creative solution of including a history merge of your subpage braindump. It makes it look like your did a bold rewrite. The history merge was unnecessary, and this confusion is a negative outcome of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right; I think I was hitting stuff out of chronological sequence in responding to things.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this essay isn't officially deleted, only the name move applies. There is no consensus for the "conforming" rewrite at all. Doc talk 02:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The move edit warring must stop. Immediately. @

re}} 03:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

"Move warring" requires a page move. That's been done. Content removal against established consensus is the current issue. Doc talk 03:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring then. Just stop. This is beyond ridiculous.

re}} 03:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

For the record, I undid Doc9871's out-of-process revert, one time only, because it's improper do this during the endorse/overturn discussion about that change by the closer. He did it after being warned by an admin such moves would be seen as disruptive, and he did it again, after being told it was, and then did it yet again after a third party also restored the closer's version. I don't care what specific version of the content is in there right now, despite having written some of one version (my expectation was that there'd be a move discussion after the RM, not that my draft would be used as part of the close).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:CON. The content that existed for years enjoyed uncontested consensus until the overhaul "rewrite". Doc talk 03:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I know what CON says. Just stop escalating this. Stop the warring, stop the antagonism, stop the personal attacks. Walk away from this for a day.

re}} 03:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am preserving what had consensus, not escalating. This is not my esasy. It's everybody's. If you want it deleted: nominate it for deletion. If you want to write a parallel essay to replace this one: by all means do. But "rewriting" this one against policy is not happening. Doc talk 03:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "beyond ridiculous" part (other than all these screaming personal attacks) is that Doc himself repeatedly demanded that I produce such a write-up; it's not my fault that the closer decided that, since the rename involved a necessary rescope as well (half the discussion was about this, not about the name per se), and I'd already written a rescoped version, to use that. No one objected to that version other than Doc, who said there as well as repeating here (see above) that the whole essay should just be deleted. Why are we taking seriously the argument of someone who doesn't want to keep the essay to begin with? I really don't care if it ends up a separate essay to merge later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask around if I am one to quarrel with. I will "Wikilawyer" you, and really good. You don't have to like me: you have to reckon with me. I do not buy this bullshit move and will see it to its logical conclusion. Cheers ;> Doc talk 07:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice threat too. I'm pretty sure you are in fact headed for a block, though that was not my intent, as I said on my talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess again. i note your block log though. Blocked for "renewed disruption of move procedures, battleground behaviour", yes?. Ouch. Doc talk 08:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as an accurate reading of the consensus and clearly within admin discretion. There was a clear consensus to move away from the diva title, and a rough consensus for the high maintenance title. For whatever it's worth, it's also the way I would have closed it if I could have been bothered to deal with the inevitable backlash. Thanks to JzG. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, Jenks24.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-open - this one needed to be closed with care and precision. Red Slash 17:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no consensus) (or at the very least, re-open). At 7 Opposes and 8 Supports, at best this was a No Consensus, and there was zero agreement as to what any new title would be. Moreover, the change in title makes the text incomprehensible (a defect SMcCandish endeavored to correct by writing an entirely new draft). The best solution here is to retain the old title on the old text, and if someone wants a new essay with another focus, then they should create something new, not rename something that has a clear focus. What in the world is wrong with
  Calling a spade a spade? We do with all the other "don't feed" essays and their subsidiaries. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oh, I can clearly see where "calling a spade a spade" is headed on this PC wave of utterly humorless Big Brother "progression". We are racists! Facepalm Doc talk 06:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Except, a) we don't need two almost identical essays on the same thing, one an attack page and one an advice page; they'll just be merged, and we know which way the merge will go. b)
  doesn't mean much other than they're disused and nearly forgotten.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I am unconvinced by the assertion that these are "almost identical essays". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A different essay comes to mind, but it, too was renamed to sound less like it served no purpose but to insult people.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we don't all just automatically subscribe to your view of how essays should be written here around here. Tough shit. We use process instead. Doc talk 06:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, like an RM that concluded twice in a row with a consensus to move.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I'm sure that there was no consensus. Certainly not for the "rewrite". Doc talk 07:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The general inability of people involved in a discussion to determine consensus about it is why we have uninvolved third parties assess them when they're not snowballs. Twice in a row, consenus to move, the first time no consensus yet on what to move it to. Just go read it. It's not like I'm making that up. I'll save you the trouble: [4] [5].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "A "new, non-accusatory version substituted." Really?! What a disgusting whitewash of a PC non-issue that never should have been. Just bad all around. Delete it or create a new essay. Doc talk 08:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. I think JzG incorporated editors' legitimate concerns while respecting Wikipedia's policies (especially
  WP:NPA). There was an emerging consensus to move this to another title, and not all of the opposing rationales were based in policy, including "because the current title is hilarious" and it "seems like pandering". One opposer argued that people who said the title might be offensive were acting like divas themselves while another supported alternative titles. Jenks24 noted the rough consensus in favour of a move on 9 July. All of these combined lead me to believe that the close was sound. gobonobo ^{+ c} 08:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If it were a NPA issue, the essay would have been deleted long ago.[6] Unfortunately, it was a misplaced PC issue, handled as expected by a nervous admin corps. Doesn't make it a correct close. Doc talk 09:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Kumioko's ill-conceived effort to delete this certainly didn't prevent you from calling them a diva during their ban review. You can continue to disrespect editors you disagree with by calling them names, but that doesn't mean we have to stock the playpen full of knives. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Softlavender's thought of splitting the new essay from the old was also on my mind. The old and new essays are very different. They are different messages written for different audiences. The new one has no history, the old one was significant in the distant past. The old one was referred to almost exclusively through the meaning of a few "DIVA" shortcuts, and the records of their use now don't make sense. The re-write and title change have effectively deleted the old essay, over written it with a different essay. If there is a consensus that the old essay is unsuitable to be allowed to exist, I suggest that the pre-June 2015 version be history-split. The DIVA essay, with all old incoming shortcuts intact, archived. The BDHM essay to be treated as a fresh 2015 essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that might be appropriate. Despite claims that the new version is "almost identical", they are really quite different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I didn't mean almost identical in diffs, but in scope and the points covered, as viewed from a "why do we have two essays that are so similar, and why don't we merge them" perspective. The argument against the split is "why split it just to merge it later?" I don't feel proprietary toward the version I drafted; someone could probably considerably compress it, but I was trying to retain a lot of the tone of the original while removing it's rip-your-junk-off character and replacing it with a how-to-avoid-people-wanting-to-rip-your-junk-off character. I was surprised that it was used as-is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish. Your essay is not a refinement but a change in direction. Ostensibly you sought to remove offensive labelling. Actually, what you did was turn "Advice to ignore DIVAs" into "Advice for DIVAs".

If split, should the two essays be merged? No, because they are different messages for different audiences. Also, I think your position would be that the old essay should be archived and its old shortcuts discouraged from being further used. This is fully consistent with the apparent consensus against "DIVA" oversimplistically interpreted as a consensus to rename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're just making stuff up now and trying to put it in my mouth. I would in fact argue for a merge (or at least !vote for one), since the rewrite you mischaracterize as just "Advice for DIVAs" also includes an entire section of advice to ignore (or otherwise to not enable) such antics, while all of the major points of the original essay are retained (minus some minor and counterproductive "divas actually win" messaging that was added, mostly by Doc, and objected to on the talk page by others). This makes the older version redundant to the newer one (or some refinement of it), both as to purpose and scope. Moving the rest to user talk to keep my posts here shorter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - I agree with JzG that there's a substantial consensus against use of the term "diva", but I see that as part of a clear consensus against using any gendered insult, and it was pointed out in the discussion that "high-maintenance" is also a gendered insult. I suggest that editors continue discussing an appropriate non-gendered title for the essay to live at, but that can be a new thread. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Relevant Airplaneman ✈ 16:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to find a better page title. I don't object to the page move, but I cannot support replacing one gendered insult with another, equally gendered insult as a means of solving a complaint about gendered insult. There was little support and some objections to the current name. I am still pretty sure that we could find a non-gendered title if we keep talking about it. Also, I agree with Jayron about this being an obscure page in the back recesses of the project: Page views run about 10 per day. That's not enough to be worth fighting about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's close but essentially boils down to ILIKEIT vs. IDONTLIKEIT with a reasonable consensus for the correct view that "DIVA" is not a good term to use. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - we have
  WP:NPOV for a reason. close was policy-based on these. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• NPA is important. However NPOV doesn't apply to Wikipedia essays. The best essays are NPOV, but it is not a requirement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more a

WP:DENY, and has been for a long time.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Update: This has stayed open without resolution for so long that other things have happened since then.
  Wikipedia talk:Don't be high maintenance about what the final title and scope should be (since there's clearly not a consensus here or there that "high maintenance" is the best possible title, either). The present MR is so stale as to be effectively meaningless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yeah, this discussion is meaningless now. If it's endorsed, fine. If it's overturned, well then subsequent discussion renders the decision moot anyway. Can someone uninvolved wrap this up? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not moot that this review should be closed in favor of the one-man train wreck rewrite by a self-described professional activist with an agenda. Trying to force its closure in SMcCandish's favor with an "update" on its staleness does not impress me as being in the interest of community consensus. There was no real consensus to move it in the first place, and there is absolutely zero consensus for the rewrite. Keep it open as long as it takes for a truly uninvolved admin to handle it. Doc talk 00:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about using my text. For about the fiftieth time: That was a sandbox draft, created in response to your own constant demands that I write my own version, and which the closing admin chose to replace the older text with, and which was later history-merged to save the history of the original version, which had been clobbered. The insertion of that version into the essay was not my doing, nor my intent. Its intent and assumption was and still is that some kind of scope/rewrite/merge discussion needs to take place, since whatever title is arrived at, the extant text won't make sense (it goes on and on about "divas"), and various objections were raised to its wording, by multiple parties in the original discussion, about a) the attack-page-like focus on labeling people instead of doing anything useful, b) numerous assertions in it that do not appear to be supportable or based on anything, and c) several

WP:BEANS claims along "the diva always wins" and "this diva behavior really works" lines. But you can continue to misrepresent my statements, my intent, my history, and other facts if you like, I suppose. Just one example: I never described myself as professional activist with an agenda, relating to this; I was a civil liberties and fair use activist, and trying to link that to this is like saying "don't let this guy rename a comic book article; he's a self-described airplane mechanic!" Does not compute.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I told you to write your own essay. In other words, a counter essay. Also known as another essay. I sure as hell did not ask you to "rewrite" and destroy this essay! Doc talk 10:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was my own essay, and it is a counter-essay [counter to intent, not overall meaning]. Not that I'm obligated to do what you order me to, anyway. No one "destroyed" anything; I wrote a different-approach essay in a sandbox, just to demonstrate how easy it would be to adapt the idea to a behaviors-to-avoid advice page, instead of a denigrate-other-editors page. I feel we've been over this about 50 times before, too.

Why doesn't the message get through?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You shouldn't quote IDHT so much. It's hackneyed. Doc talk 10:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not moot. How to proceed depends on whether the close and merge is to stand or be overturned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See reply to Doc9871 immediately above. Even if this were to close in favor of endorse, there are enough issues raised with my draft, the text the closer used, that a discussion about what the text really needs to be would have to happen anyway [whatever the name is, the text would have to be adjusted for it]. I.e., there is nothing to do here, only to do at what is presently

Wikipedia talk:Don't be high maintenance: Pick a name, then rewrite to match it and to address concerns (different ones) raised about both versions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The RM close should be overturned. The essay moved back to its long standing title, the history merge of the sandbox undone, your sandbox version sent of to be separate competing essay, and the presumptuous RfDs consequently overturned. You have ambushed an important historically significant essay, turned it into something else (different message to a different audience), and confused our history with respect to past references to the essay. I get it that a term is offensive and people should be asked to stop using it, but

disappearing its history is not OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Like. Doc talk 12:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:DENY, and the really historical page, at Meta), instead of one. Why do something inconsistent in this case?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]