User talk:ModernDayTrilobite

Archives

RM closure at Guyana–Venezuela crisis (2023–present)

Kind regards. For starters, Happy New Year. I wanted to ask if you could reconsider your close at the 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis article. From what I gather, WP:NPOV was one of the main reasons for deciding on the move; the nominator first argued this at Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, but this was something hotly debated in its move discussion, and I explained that it is rather a descriptive title in Spanish for The Guianas region and the Essequibo River. Additionally, with three editors against and three editors in favor (without including the nominator), I think it's too close of a margin to determine a consensus. Best wishes and thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out! WP:NPOV was one of the reasons behind the move, but the WP:COMMONNAME argument also played a major role in my decision. Editors made a compelling case that the term Guayana Esequiba was not widely used by English-language sources - on this point, I was particularly swayed by DankJae's Google News results and Unknown Temptation's spot-check of different outlets. Both of these arguments were raised by several participants in the RM, which suggested to me that they had a relatively wide degree of acceptance.

As for the margins: you're correct that the sides were roughly numerically even, but I think a closer look at the arguments indicates a stronger consensus to move the page than the numbers alone would suggest. Andrew Davidson's oppose was built on the assertion that "Essequibo dispute" is the English-language COMMONNAME, so while he was opposed to the proposed title of "Guyana–Venezuela crisis", he nevertheless appeared to support moving away from the Guayana Esequiba title. Meanwhile, GreatLeader1945's argument (that articles on historical crises are titled with a single region name, essentially an appeal to WP:CONSISTENT) didn't strike me as very strong; the examples she cited were all cases where there's an established historiographical COMMONNAME, whereas this article required us to pull together a descriptive title based on more scattered references, so I was skeptical of that argument's applicability. (If we're examining the numbers, I think it's also worth considering CMD's comment, which supported a move away from Guayana Esequiba but was neutral on preferred destination.) Let me know if this answers your questions, or if there's anything else I can clarify. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was hoping to answer earlier, I'm so sorry about the delay. I understand better your rationale, thank you very much for the explanation. Although I still disagree with it, I think it's reasonable. At any rate, I was still thinking about start a move review and wanted to let you know beforehand, if that was alright. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up! Even if we still do disagree, I'm glad I was able to make my thought process clearer. No objections from my end if you'd like to file an MRV. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your understanding :) I wanted to let you know I have started the move review on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February. Best wishes! --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upano Valley sites

I was reading about the sites yesterday and was curious where to link them or whether I should write up an article myself -- great work! Citing (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty close

This is rather late out of the gate and far too late for a close review (which wouldn't amount to anything since the page didn't move anyway), but your close at Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway was badly faulty. It is not possible per WP:CONLEVEL policy for some essay from a wikiproject to contradict site-wide policies like WP:COMMONAME and site-wide guidelines like MOS:&. (In fact, the entire reason thr CONLEVEL policy was enacted was specifically to stop wikiprojects from trying to WP:POLICYFORK their own "anti-rules" against site-wide consensus to make magical exception for "their" pet topic. This is not some case of "maybe" or "kinda-sorta", it's exactly what that policy exists to prevent.) Any argument presented by commenters in the direction of obeying an essay over P&G requirements necessarily had to be given no weight because it was contrary to policy and practice. This is not BothSidesAreAlwaysEqualPedia. Non-admin closures are certainly permissible for many things, including RMs that do not require admin (or pagemover) permissions to effectuate, but they have to actually be compliant with policy. Specifically from WP:CLOSE: "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision reached is within compliance of the spirit of Wikipedia policy ... The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments [including] those that flatly contradict established policy .... The closer ... is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. ... As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - you're absolutely right. I don't recall what led me to weigh the wikiproject's style guidance so heavily, but looking back on it, I agree that it was a clear error on my part. I'm not sure if there's anything concrete I could do about it at this point (I'd feel a bit dodgy revising a close I made months ago), but I wanted to at least confirm that I've received your message and have no intention of making a similar mistake again. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Upano Valley sites

On 13 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Upano Valley sites, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

You got on the Upano Valley sites article super quickly, and I just want to thank you for it! GunnarBonk (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi ModernDayTrilobite. Thank you for your work on The Great Bailout. Another editor, Tails Wx, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great work on this article as whole; especially the critical reception section! This article definitely passes notability guidelines and is in great shape; therefore I've reviewed it. Happy editing! :)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tails Wx}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 01:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the article. :) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joeyquism -- Joeyquism (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album)

The article Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) for comments about the article, and Talk:Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joeyquism -- Joeyquism (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna

Nice closing statement, quite detailed and explanatory. Thanks. Is it possible to add to it that the hatnote listing Mary, mother of Jesus is acceptable (it had support in the discussion and I, for one, did not weight in pro or con on the overall RM because the hatnote solved the concern)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I can add a quick note to my closing statement to mention that. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The hatnote probably gives the RM the result it sought without changing the current primary topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lord Mountbatten#Requested move 20 June 2024

Hi. A bit late, I know, but it's been playing on my mind and I keep seeing it. This, I'm afraid, looks a bit like a supervote to me. While Byron and Tennyson (who are usually known as Byron and Tennyson anyway rather than their names and/or titles) are exceptions, as listed at WP:NCPEER, almost every other peer except those notable before they were ennobled is at the standard naming. There was clearly no consensus to move (one vote for Louis Mountbatten, six for Lord Mountbatten, five for retaining the status quo). The supporters certainly did not have stronger arguments. The new name is frankly a bit weird and populist and completely inconsistent with thousands of other articles. The later RM for Talk:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Requested move 28 June 2024 was overwhelmingly closed as not moved with two editors saying that had they spotted this RM they too would have opposed. I think this needs to be revisited. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not certain I see the case for changing the existing close. It's certainly true that the "Lord Mountbatten" title is inconsistent with many of the other articles on British peers, but consistency is just one of the five article titling criteria; the titling criteria also include recognizability (discussed via WP:COMMONNAME in the RM) and concision, both of which were leveled in support of "Lord Mountbatten". I don't see the case for the consistency argument being so overwhelmingly dominant that it would outweigh both of the others; if I had allowed consistency to trump the other criteria so thoroughly, I feel that that would have been the true supervote.

As to the WP:NCPEER question, I found it pertinent that other examples of exceptions were raised during the discussion (Lord Kelvin, Lord Dunsany, etc). Byron and Tennyson are certainly the clearest-cut examples of COMMONNAME-driven exceptions to NCPEER's standard guidance, but the presence of other demonstrated examples made a plausible case that exceptions to NCPEER don't necessarily require the alternate title to predominate at the level that Byron's does. Looking back now, I think the phrasing of my original close overstates things by saying that the "Lord Mountbatten" title would be outright "preferable" under NCPEER's exception clauses, but I still do think a sufficient argument was raised to make the exception at least permissible. Ultimately, different commenters presented different interpretations of how WP:NCPEER should be applied to this subject, and I don't think either interpretation significantly outweighed the other. Consequently, the balancing of titling criteria continues to hold as the key policy question at play.

Finally, the comparable support numbers for Lord Mountbatten vs. the full title don't inherently prevent a finding of consensus. When the numerical margins are narrow on a consensus-building discussion, that's where the weighting of arguments becomes most relevant to determine whether a consensus has emerged. I would have no objection to a new RM on the topic (consensus can always change, after all), but I continue to believe that my close of the RM gave fair consideration to all the lines of argument presented in that discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Ka (rapper)

On 19 October 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ka (rapper), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede 66 03:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIM-174 Closure

Respectfully, I would argue that WP:RMUM is being ignored. This was an undiscussed move and WP:RMUM is being ignored. A "no-consensus" would bring us back to the the original title, it would not keep the undiscussed title. Perhaps I could have made this clearer rather than attempting to re-litigate. However, x2 "no consensuses" does not endorse the undiscussed title. This is a concerning precedent, that undiscussed moves can be brute-forced into acceptance. Lastly, the onus should not be on me to defend the original title. The onus should be on the mover of the undiscussed title to defend their title. Simply because out of politeness, I did not revert the move during the MRV process as I was entitled to do, I was stuck with the burden of WP when the opposite should be true. I'm open to re-opening the RM in time, as you suggested, but if you have any other suggestions regarding moving forward, I would appreciate it. cheers MWFwiki (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC) MWFwiki (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that a "no consensus" result on the RM would bring us back to the original title. However, a lack of consensus at a move review does not inherently imply a lack of consensus in the underlying RM. Rather, a no-consensus result at MRV implies that the original closure should stand, as there was not a consensus to overturn it. In this case, the original closure found there to be a consensus at the RM; thus, because the MRV did not find a consensus to overturn the close, the finding of consensus at the RM remains in force. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original closer agrees that there was a "clear lack of consensus." Additionally, as you said, "You're correct that a 'no consensus' result on the RM would bring us back to the original title," well, that's what happened; the move should have been reverted immediately upon the following: "The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus as responses have noted that the existence of future variants might change the situation and demand we re-visit this move at a later date." This original "no consensus" finding should have reverted us immediately, and I should not have been forced to go through this procedure. The onus should have immediately been shifted onto the mover. Perhaps I did not make this point clearly in my MRV argument, and if that is the casse, I apologize.MWFwiki (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original close isn't really relevant to this discussion – it was vacated by the original closer, so its findings are no longer in force. Even if the article title had been moved to AIM-174 at that time, it would have been moved back after the second closer found consensus for AIM-174B. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

…it was vacated because I requested the article to be reverted, and instead this process was started… so, again; the close improperly failed to revert the article. This needs to be addressed. There would not have been a "second closer" if this was handled per WP. MWFwiki (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're looking for from me at this point. The core of your concern seems to be that the first closer reopened the RM rather than simply moving the article. This is something they have the discretion to do; according to their own statement on the matter, they did this because they felt that the argument you made on their talk page introduced new facts that could affect the course of the RM discussion. Reopening the RM is a pretty common practice in such situations, but if you feel the closer acted inappropriately in doing so, the place to raise it is on their talk page, not mine—and they might even agree with you, given that they've expressed regret for reopening the discussion. (I too agree that things would have likely been simplest if the article was just moved then.)

Nevertheless, the RM was reopened, more discussion took place after the reopening, and it was closed again. This time around, the closure found consensus for AIM-174B, and this was the closure that was in force when the move review was opened. Accordingly, the participants at the move review all analyzed the closure that was currently in force, not the one that had been vacated weeks earlier. My only role in this whole situation was to evaluate the move review discussion and determine whether the participants there had reached a consensus on whether the extant RM closure was appropriate. I could potentially reopen the move review if you feel I erred in that evaluation, but if your goal is to change the underlying article title, I think it'd be easier (and likelier to succeed) if you just start a new RM discussion from scratch. The move review languished without comments or closure for so long because people were reluctant to untangle the complicated discussion history and figure out their opinions; by starting a separate RM, you can cut the argument loose from all its bureaucracy and make your case much more straightforwardly. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, my point of contention is primarily what you pointed-out in the first half of your response. And again, it was only re-opened at MY "request." Everything that occurred post-initial RM should be invalidated. It's a clear breach and again, improperly shifted the onus onto me for months. I was not the person that executed an undiscussed move.

Regardless, I appreciate your time and input. I will raise this issue with the original closer. Otherwise, I'm going to take it further. Just to be clear (and I will make it clear), no, I'm not suggesting you necessarily erred and I am most definitely not implying any bad faith on your behalf (or anyone else's). Simply that all action post-original RM is invalid, as the article should have been reverted upon a no-consensus closure, and that the executor of the undiscussed move should have been the one moving for RM re-opening and/or a MRV. thanks again, sorry to take-up your time :)

MWFwiki (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February music

Thank you for your support for the composer, with spring flowers and a songbird (in places)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your close at xkcd

Thanks for providing such a thorough rationale for your close of Talk:xkcd § Requested move 29 March 2025, much appreciated. ("Dispreferred"? You should write press releases. ;) ) Paradoctor (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing! I left that discussion after I felt I had contributed all I could to steer it and ensure participants understood the request and the tradeoffs. I was thrilled to see those tradeoffs accurately described in the closure notice. Thanks!

As for you, @Paradoctor - I know we've had some communications blunders, and I couldn't agree more that it was tiresome, but I hope you don't think ill of me. I think we can both learn from that interaction to define terms unambiguously when it becomes apparent that they are being interpreted differently by different people. I have a much greater appreciation for why every technical and legal document starts with Definitions! NeatNit (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You stayed civil and responsive throughout, even when the temperatur was high, that's apt to make me think the opposite of "ill" of you.

And if our interaction gave you an appreciation for the ambiguities running through all natural-language communication, then it was effort well spent. No worries here. Paradoctor (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close at Talk:Galactic Center#Requested move 21 March 2025

You have given weight to the argument that this title falls to MOS:GEOCAPS. This is clearly a pettifogging argument that should have been WP:DISCARDED. A simplistic definition of a proper noun/name is that it is the name of a particular person, place or thing. A fuller definition, such as our own article or this definition, is that a proper noun is not descriptive. As stated in debate: While specificity of referent is a property of proper names, it is not a defining property, since specificity is also achieved by use of the definite article (the). The notion that GEOCAPS applies was only introduce after the penultimate VOTE!. It was debated and garnered no support. The ultimate VOTE! did not even tacitly acknowledge it. The assertion that GEOCAPS was tacitly acknowledged by other editors is not supported. Where they have referred to it as being a proper noun it is reasonably apparent they have done so from the view of the simplistic definition. However, WP relies on evidence of usage and not definition to determine what should be capped. To the statement: per MOS:GEOCAPS—the term "Galactic Center" refers to a specific location within the Milky Way and therefore meets the guideline's standard for capitalization, one needs to consider the spirit and intent of the guidance evidenced through the examples: These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements: Japan, Mount Everest, Gulf of Tonkin. Terms for types of places and features do not take capitals: the town hall; the capital city; an ocean; the savannah; karst topography. Japan, Everest and Tonkin are not descriptive but the capitalisation of mount and gulf are determined by usage. The town hall, the capital city and the savannah all have specific referents by virtue of the definite article - as does the galactic center per the lead of the article. GEOCAPS specifically links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Geographical items and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). There is nothing that would suggest that the pertinent guidance applies to a descriptive name (galactic center) except by virtue of usage in sources or that the guidance is intended to apply to the celestial domain, for which we have separate guidance. Where you state: ...arguing that the capitalization served to distinguish the Milky Way's galactic center from others, is capitalisation for distinction that explicitly falls to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - a matter specifically raised in discussion and which we don't do. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very good close. The Galactic Center of the Milky Way is surely a geographical place (although I wouldn't want to visit). Walls of text are also a geographical place, but not subject to MOS:GEOCAPS, unlike the Galactic Center. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, your comment has two main arguments in respect to my close, so I'll aim to address each one individually:

First, re: whether it is appropriate to "read into" a !vote as being implicitly backed by a policy or guideline. I believe this is an appropriate and normal part of evaluating a discussion. The policies and guidelines give us direction as to which considerations to prioritize over others, but they are also intended as documentation of our values as an encyclopedia, and arguments that are aligned with those values should be considered even if the speaker doesn't fish out the exact policy name that described them. To use an example, someone who supports an RM because it "removes ambiguity" is clearly gesturing to WP:PRECISE, even if they don't realize it themselves. I'm not trying to say this scenario was as clear-cut as my example, but—when one person cites a policy or guideline in making their case ("GEOCAPS holds that we should capitalize this because...") and others make substantially the same argument but without alluding to the policy/guideline—I believe it to be reasonable to treat the same level of policy backing as applying to the other comments too. Of course, this approach hinges upon the actual policy interpretation being correct, which leads us to the other point...
Re: the underlying interpretation of GEOCAPS. My responsibility as a closer is not to impose my own interpretation of any guideline but to reflect the interpretation that prevailed among the discussion participants; I shouldn't be overriding their interpretations unless they're obviously faulty, such as an argument citing WP:PRECISE to support clear overprecision. While there were certainly debates in the RM over how to interpret the guidelines that came into play (CELESTIALBODIES, GEOCAPS, SIGNIFCAPS), I don't feel any of the arguments from either side were clearly erroneous enough to merit outright discarding, so my role was to compare the interpretations on offer and gauge which interpretations were more strongly supported by the participants at large. (This does necessarily involve some consideration of numerical support, but I aim to make sure it's not a simple headcount by according additional weight to participants who are able to cogently lay out arguments for why their preferred interpretation should hold.)

In summary, when taking this approach, I feel that it was within reasonable discretion to weigh the arguments as I did. I think a no-consensus closure could also be a plausible interpretation of how the different arguments balanced against each other, and I would be willing to shift my close to "no consensus" if people feel that that more closely captures the relative weight of the different strands of argument, but I don't feel that the discussion could be reasonably described as having reached a consensus to move. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why aren't you teaching a class in how to write up a closing analysis? Your close seems correct, as the fact that the Galactic Center is a defined 'place' gives adequate weight to the use of MOS:GEOCAPS. Understanding that the counter arguments in favor of lowercasing the page to a name that would fit any galaxy's center if further Wikipedia pages become written - and given the technology and discoveries the James Webb Space Telescope has already made, new pages may occur - also brings a bit of commonsense into the mix. Thanks for the time you take in presenting thoughtful closes. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the oppose comments, two out of four specifically make an a priori assertion that it is a proper name and a third, that it the formal name. None of these offer a substantive reason or evidence to support the assertion consistent with the prevailing P&G. They are a personal opinion falling to WP:DISCARD. In your example, using the word precision rather than a direct link (WP:PRECISE) is not a great leap. However, just invoking a particular piece of P&G does not give weight to a comment. Weight comes for establishing how a particular guideline applies to a particular case and that the conclusion is consistent with what the guideline actually says. Many that might cite precision to support their view actually argue for WP:OVERPRECISION - ie the P&G is being misconstrued. A closer is expected to discern that the P&G actually contradicts the argument being made - particularly if it is refuted in the debate as being incorrect. In this case though, it would be a substantial leap of faith to assume or imply that any of these comments (apart from Randy) is making even the vaguest allusion to GEOCAPS. All four comments assert capitalisation for distinction - which is flatly contradicted by MOS:SIGNIFCAPS as a rationale for capitalisation on WP. Randy's argument is essentially: Milky Way's [galactic centre], which, like Moon, is uppercased per MOS:GEOCAPS and naming convention. But each galaxy has a galactic center, so to differentiate the Milky Way's from the others (like the uppercased Moon) it is a proper name. Setting aside that the Moon is capitalise because of CELESTIALBODIES not GEOCAPS, the argument is that because it is a specific place, it is a proper name capitalised for distinction. However, as explained in the debate, specificity of referent is not a defining property of proper names and the examples at GEOCAPS bares this out - eg the savannah has a specific referent but is not capitalised. There is more to GEOCAPS (and what is a proper name) than just having a specific referent. The spirit and intent of the GEOCAPS is being misconstrued. Per WP:DISCARD: Closers are also required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy. As you say, it was convincingly shown that there isn't a usage-based case for uppercasing the term. The rationales given in the close appear to try way too hard to give weight to a pettifogging argument to overturn an argument for which the consensus is otherwise very clear. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look up the word "perttifogging". For readers in the same boat I was: "Pettifogging refers to giving too much attention to small details that are not important. It is an old-fashioned term and is often used disapprovingly to describe behavior that focuses on insignificant matters or is meanly petty." The 'small detail' here is that the Galactic Center, in astronomical and scientific circles, describes an exact place. Something you can put your finger on. Thus it fits MOS:GEOCAPS. Pettifogging, as defined, is not used correctly here. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When all's said and done, I think we ultimately have incompatible interpretations of the underlying policies. I evidently read MOS:GEOCAPS as having a broader mandate than you do (and conversely, read MOS:SIGNIFCAPS as having a narrower one), and I think that dichotomy is what's at the root of our disagreement here. To my eye, the participants in the RM drew a clear semantic distinction between a general "galactic center" and the specific location "Galactic Center" within the Milky Way—and because of this semantic distinction, I don't believe that SIGNIFCAPS covers this situation in the way you've been describing. Meanwhile, I don't feel that the Galactic Center being an example of a galactic center necessarily precludes GEOCAPS from applying. I agree that it's necessary to ensure compliance with the spirit of policy, but doing so becomes a complex question when we're not in agreement about what the spirit of policy is in the first place.

Admittedly, my view has shifted slightly since my initial close, such that I think a no-consensus closure is probably more appropriate than a consensus-against-moving. While I still think that the GEOCAPS argument is sound, you've also highlighted a salient point that any questions around the policy basis for or against uppercasing the term are ultimately competing against a mixed usage pattern, with the result that I think the usage argument and the GEOCAPS argument counterweight each other enough to prevent either from becoming clearly dominant. The reason I'm just describing this shift and not yet editing my actual close is because I imagine, if you're still looking to overcome the underlying differences in our policy interpretations, an MRV will probably resolve our debate more decisively than further one-on-one conversation would. Changing my close shortly before a likely MRV seems like it would needlessly muddy the waters of that discussion, so I'm happy to hold off on making any edits to my close until I know whether you'd like to pursue the MRV route or not. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 04:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are actually going to edit your close please consider adding more weight to the the Simbad uppercasing brought forward near the end of the discussion. Instead of a minor point, Wikipedia asks us to consult Simbad in situations like this. When the editor did so they arguably, and correctly, cemented uppercasing. In addition, and importantly, if you are accepting new arguments like those above, here's a new one which further places Galactic Center uppercasing in place: Wikipedia's naming conventions tell us to first and foremost consult IAU for anything related to galaxies. Here is what IAU has to say about it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would give more weight to GEOCAPS but less weight to SIGNIFCAPS, which raises several questions.

If I said that I am going to: Japan; Mount Everest; the Gulf of Tonkin, Boston (which could be one of two dozen odd places); or, the town hall, the capital city or the savannah; in each case, I am referring to and going to a definite specific place. In the latter, this is because of the definite article (the). How is it (why does) the galactic centre (of the Milky Way) fall to the former examples and not the latter? What in GEOCAPS makes the distinction clear?
SIGNICAPS states: This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context. Those that oppose the move assert a need to capitalise to distinguish the Milky Way's galactic centre from that of other galaxies. Isn't this a case of impress[ing] upon the reader the importance or specialness of our galaxy's centre? Capitalising for distinction is inherently using caps to denote the specialness of the Milky Way's centre compared with the centre of other galaxies. How is it that, capitalisation for distinction does not fall to SIGNIFCAPS in a way that the assertion is flatly contradicted by the P&G and should be discarded?
Where an argument is made that caps are necessary for distinction, this has been effectively rebutted: While an argument is made that there is a distinction in capitalisation between the galactic centre of our galaxy and that for other galaxies, this is not bourn out by evidence, where the majority of references are to our galaxy [made in the context of a review of google scholar]; and, Per the actual evidence indicated, it is far from always capped in sources in the context you indicate and is not a proper name that we would cap per NCCAPS, where the indicated evidence would be google scholar. To paraphrase this a question: If capitalisation to distinguish the Milky Way's centre is necessary, why then is it that a good majority of authors writing about the Milky Way's centre see no need to capitalise galactic centre?

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GEOCAPS, I think the fundamental distinction is whether a given appellation is an established name of an entity or just a descriptor of it. Sometimes, the name of a location can overlap with one of its descriptors—London's Natural History Museum is just one of many natural history museums—in a way that blurs those lines. You ask what in GEOCAPS makes the distinction clear, but honestly, I don't think there is a clear distinction drawn for these particular cases; we have to evaluate the evidence on a case-by-case basis to gauge whether there's a proper noun or not.

Re: SIGNIFCAPS, I disagree that capitalizing for distinction is attempting to indicate the importance or specialness of what's being distinguished—it's simply indicating that the term covers a meaning distinct from that of its lowercase version. The example given in SIGNIFCAPS is of a capitalized "Scientific Consensus", where the caps are solely being used to identify the term as a significant piece of terminology within its passage. In this example, a Scientific Consensus is not identified as being anything different from a lowercased scientific consensus, and so the caps are purely for signification. By contrast, supporters of the capitalized "Galactic Center" made the case that there did exist a semantic distinction to justify the capitalization.

Ultimately, though, while I wanted to clarify my thinking, I still can't help but feel like our views on this policy are too divergent to really be bridged. In the interest of not going around in circles any further, I'm going to vacate my close and reopen the RM. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the close resolves the key issue. However, you may or may not realise a very pertinent point you have made in reply: but honestly, I don't think there is a clear distinction drawn for these particular cases; we have to evaluate the evidence on a case-by-case basis to gauge whether there's a proper noun or not - which takes us back to the evidence of usage. What is a proper name is something generally poorly understood since many rely on the simplistic definition. A true proper name is not descriptive and unfortunately, people are inclined to categorise all of the things that are conventionally capitalised in English as proper names. For example, we conventionally capitalise the names of businesses and institution such as London's Natural History Museum, even though such names are often descriptive. Whether the title of a work (eg a book) is a proper name is debatable. There are many books printed with the same name and we would use the indefinite article: I was reading a book called "To Kill a Mocking Bird". The intellectual property is abstract, not concrete and cognitive development studies relate that proper names are associated with the concrete. Rather than categorising titles of works as proper nanmes (even though the title might be quite descriptive of content), it is perhaps better to say that we use title case for the titles of works. Place/feature names like: London, Pacific, Tonkin and Nile may have an etymology but are not descriptive, though they sometimes have an associated class descriptor such as: ocean, gulf or river, which is sometimes near always or sometimes much less often capped. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) acknowledges these descriptors should not always be capitalised. In some ways, it begs the question of whether it is galactic or centre which is the descriptor here, but both are. Something like the Rocky Mountains are inherently descriptive but it is still an arbitrary name, in as much as it might just as easily have been given a different name (eg what if the Pacific had been stormy when Magellan sailed into it?). My working hypothesis on the capitalisation of these descriptors is that we tend to translate cartographic conventions into prose. SIGNIFCAPS refers to terms of art, which are part of the jargon of any field of study or occupation. Such descriptive terms often have a more specific meaning than denoted by the descriptive phrase and are often distinguished by capitalisation. This is directly analogous to capitalisation of galactic centre to denote the centre of the Milky Way, rather than any other galaxy. WP:SSF addresses this use of capitalisation and that essay is supported by citation. The understanding of vocational jargon as a barrier to learning was part of my studies as a vocational educator. This isn't so much to convince you but you may be interested in a different perspective. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you didn't answer my added information above, especially the IAU link which, alongside the Simbad focus brought late in the discussion, should have addressed your concerns about maybe-maybe not. Reopening the discussion seems to be giving into the noisiest bell, but on the other hand it does give me the chance to introduce IAU and the galaxy guideline into the mix. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my original close, I hesitated to place too much weight on the capitalization in Simbad, since I thought a fair concern was raised in the discussion as to whether Simbad uses sentence case or title case for titling its entries. A title-case source won't be much help for determining whether a term is capitalized or not in sentence case, after all. That said, the reopened discussion will hopefully allow editors to discuss Simbad in more depth; if that further discussion leads us to a consensus, whatever that consensus may be, then it will have been a success in my book. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is done, but if it is maybe you can come by and reinstate your original close edited with information provided since you relisted the page a couple of weeks ago. If anything the case for "not moved" is stronger since the relist. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the outreach, but personally, I prefer not to reclose discussions I've already closed and reopened—even if more discussion has taken place, it still feels to me like I'd be taking two bites of the apple by closing the same discussion again. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 04:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thought I'd ask as you got it right last time. Makes me wonder now where that expression came from and what is wrong with taking a second bite of an apple. I'll look around and try to find out. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

aha, seems to be taking two turns at bobbing for apples. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on guidance for alternative/bonus track-listings on album articles

I've started an RfC about the guidance at MOS:ALBUMS for alternative and bonus tracks. I've notified you because you've participated in a past discussion of the issue. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#RfC_on_bonus_and_alternate_track_listings.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification! I'll take a look. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RM closure on Kiko Pangilinan

I know that it's not a vote, and you alluded it on the close, with the nominator, Pat, and Royiswariii supporting and only me opposing. Pat's !vote rested solely on the fact that it was the "WP:COMMONAME", and was disproved by the replies to my !vote. Royiswariii materially misrepresented his !vote. I would have appreciated this to have been relisted for the meantime. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expound on my reasoning in a bit more detail: given your criticism of the sources Royiswariii linked, I spot-checked them myself to confirm how Pangilinan's name was used, and I noticed that—while you correctly pointed out that both ABS-CBN and the Senate biography first mention him as Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan—they also both go on to refer to him later as "Kiko" alone. Thus, I felt it was ultimately fairest to factor in those sources when making my analysis, with the result that there were a comparable volume of sources provided in the discussion supporting either name. Accordingly, I don't think the WP:COMMONNAME argument was disproved so much as contested. And, while a discussion as a whole isn't a vote, I think that—where a discussion includes a dispute on the interpretation of a given policy, and the arguments are of comparable strength—it can nevertheless be useful to consult the relative numbers supporting either interpretation to determine which interpretation is the "mainstream" one, so to speak. When I took all of those factors into account, I felt that a closure of "moved" was ultimately most appropriate. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the ABS-CBN article was the WP:RS among the two, with the official Senate biography being WP:SELFPUBLISHED. With that being said, Pat's reasoning was ill-informed; he thought that "Most media outlets" referred to Bongbong Marcos as "Ferdinand Marcos" when it wasn't the case. His !vote was based on wrong information.

Ultimately, it boils down to the nominator TheNuggeteer, who did not offer proof(!) and Royiswariii, who misrepresented sources, vs. my findings (and comparisons to other people, notwithstanding Marcos). Howard the Duck (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point on the Senate biography being self-published, but even if we remove that from consideration, that doesn't dramatically change the ratio of sources presented. (The GMA article, which I forgot to mention before, is analogous to ABS-CBN in first using both names but using "Kiko" later down.) As for the other concerns you mention, I'm not sure any of them rise to the level of affecting my findings. Media outlets' discussion of Bongbong Marcos isn't relevant to this RM; Pat may have been wrong about how media outlets refer to Marcos, but that doesn't have any bearing on the actual topic of the RM. TheNuggeteer may not have furnished proof for their claim, but it was substantively the same claim for which Royiswariii later offered evidence, namely that "Kiko" is Pangilinan's best-known—i.e., common—name. If multiple editors make the same claim, it would be needlessly bureaucratic to require them each to independently prove it. Finally, as I mentioned in my previous message, I evaluated Royiswariii's sources myself due to the dispute over how they name Pangilinan—and while Royiswariii could have been more forthcoming about the sources mentioning the name "Francis", I don't believe they "misrepresented sources" in a materially significant way. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did offer other WP:RS that exclusively use "Francis Pangilinan", exclusively without the "Kiko" name (it was a reply to Pat's reply); while I do not expect that completely invalidates Royiswariii's materially misrepresented submissions, it should have been given at least a relisting (sorry I dunno if WP:RMs are relisted).

To recap:

TheNuggeteer made a claim with no basis.
Pat seconded TheNuggeteer's claim, also with no basis, and even had the wrong impression on other things, that had it apply to the discussion at hand.
I presented WP:RS that specifically excluded the "Kiko" name, and pointed out Pat had the wrong impression on how Marcos was primarily known, and that it should not had applied on how Pangilinan's article is titled here.
Royiswariii materially mispresented some of his findings. He is the only person aside from me to present actual proof from WP:RS.

At the very least, this could had been relisted if that was an option. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the RS you mentioned in your comment on the RM as well, yes; I apologize if I gave the impression that I had overlooked them. However, reviewing the evidence collectively from all parties suggested that both names were used for Pangilinan, at roughly comparable frequencies. With the evidence not obviously preferring either name, I also factored in editors' broad appraisals of the overall usage, to get a sense of which interpretations of the COMMONNAME argument appeared to be found most compelling by the community of participants. To that end: while an evidence-free assertion like those made by Pat or TheNuggeteer would not have been convincing in a vacuum, it was significant to me that they were substantively identical claims to the one made with evidence by Royiswariii. Roy's evidence made clear that the COMMONNAME argument was at least plausibly sound (again, I disagree that any misrepresentations he made were material). With that evidence presented, it would be unduly bureaucratic to throw out other comments that made the same argument, even if those other comments were posted chronologically before the evidence was provided. Finally, as I said in my previous comment, Marcos was not the topic of this RM and questions of how to present his name did not impact my decision-making process. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To sumarrize, TheNuggeteer initiated the RM with no proof. If this was AFD this should have been pointed out already. Pat then seconded TheNuggeteer. Again, if this was AFD both !votes should had been discounted. I then said people know this guy as "Francis" with the nickname "Kiko". It's different from the list of people I listed on my first comment. Now, I should not have brought Bongbong Marcos onto the discussion; that's on me. Pat asked about the exception (people know Bongbong's given name is "Ferdinand"), since if people know Bongbong=Ferdinand, so Francis=Kiko, with him saying " media outlets and government sources refer to him as President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.", which is empirically false. I had the impression he based his !vote on TheNuggeteer's opening statement not based on any policy, then asked me if my !vote was grounded in policy. Which I did, and presented two WP:RS that use the name "Francis Pangilinan" without the name "Kiko" (to demonstrate the difference with Paolo Benigno, Christopher Lawrence, Victor Ma. Regis, Maria Josefina Tanya).

Royiswariii then, and materially represented saying "all sources"... "recognized as 'Kiko Pangilinan'"... "demonstrate the WP:COMMONAME". This is an empirical example of material misrepresentation LOL. Only one of his submissions "demonstrate the WP:COMMONAME"... "as 'Kiko Pangilinan'". One other submission was not WP:RS, or what were indeed WP:RS combine Kiko with Francis. If he's arguing for the article to be named as "Francis Kiko Panglinan" his argument made sense.

Again, I am not saying for you "to throw out other comments". I was asking for relist. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A relist is certainly possible, but the RM was already relisted once prior, and I'm generally skeptical of the utility of RM relists beyond the first. The discussion had been open for 45 days and hadn't received a comment in 22; I think it's very well within standard norms to close an RM that's been languishing unedited for three weeks, and to be honest, I'm not at this point convinced that I've made any errors in my close that would necessitate overturning it.

To further clarify my thinking on Royiswariii in particular—while several of the sources he linked did indeed use the structure "Francis 'Kiko' Pangilinan" when first introducing Pangilinan, each source that did that also went on to refer to Pangilinan at least once as simply "Kiko" in the article body (and never as just "Francis"). I can furnish quotes if desired. Where both of these behaviors coexist in a source, my interpretation is that that source views "Kiko" as the subject's most recognizable name, and uses a more comprehensive form at the start for purely introductory purposes (not unlike how, in biographical articles here on Wikipedia, we break out a subject's full birth name a single time at the very beginning of their lead). That reason is why I didn't view Royiswariii as having made "material" misrepresentations; he didn't describe the sources he linked with complete accuracy, but when checking the actual source content, I believed that they still supported the argument he was trying to make.

(I think I've already explained my views on all of the other comments you refer to, so I'll avoid making this already-long comment any longer, but please feel free to let me know if there's any points on which further clarification would be useful.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 01:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can relist so many number of times, I'd concede that at that stage of the discussion, it may have been extended to a point nobody cares anymore.

As for material misrepresentation, we are not moving the article to "Kiko" or even "Francis Kiko Pangilinan". News articles do not use the entire name, and my personal rule on this is how the subject was referred to in the first reference, that's how the article wants to call the person. Otherwise, we move Michael Jordan to "Jordan" and Michael Jackson to "Michael", Or that Cristiano Ronaldo is "Ronaldo", ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

I'm glad though you conceded that Royiswariii "didn't describe the sources he linked with complete accuracy", which is a rather lengthy way to say he materially misrepresented his !vote, and his vote being the only material of those who supported, including the nominator. With that being said, I'll see what else can be done about this. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, if you're interested in formally contesting the close, the standard venue for that is Wikipedia:Move review. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the "Non-lethal weapon" move request closure

Hello ModernDayTrilobite,

You recently closed the move request for "Non-lethal weapon" to "Less-lethal weapon." I appreciate you taking the time to close the discussion.

However, having reviewed the decision in the context of previous discussions on this same topic from 2021 and 2020, I believe the closure warrants a second look. The rationale that "non-lethal weapon" remains the WP:COMMONNAME doesn't seem to fully account for the significant, policy-based arguments that have been consistently raised. I would like to discuss this with you before considering a formal move review. My main concerns are as follows:

1. Flawed Interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME and Consensus: Your closing statement suggests a clear consensus around WP:COMMONNAME. However, this issue has a long history of being contentious, with the 2021 move request on this exact topic being closed as "no consensus" because there were "valid argument[s] made on either side." The arguments in the most recent discussion were largely the same, yet the outcome was a firm "not moved." This suggests the current closure may have relied more on a simple headcount of !votes rather than weighing the policy-based arguments, which is how consensus on Wikipedia is determined. When a common name is not definitively established or is actively contested, other policies like WP:PRECISION must be given greater weight.

2. Weight of Evidence for COMMONNAME and Authoritative Sources: The claim that the "data furnished appeared to corroborate" the use of "non-lethal weapon" is an oversimplification that ignores compelling counter-evidence. Usage Data: The discussion about Google Ngrams showed that combined usage for "less-lethal weapon(s)" in books has overtaken or matched non-lethal. Additionally, my point about Google News traffic—which reflects more current, common usage in media—was not substantively addressed. As was detailed in the 2021 discussion, a closer look at sources like The Washington Post reveals a clear editorial shift toward "less-lethal" in recent years, indicating that common usage among high-quality sources is actively evolving.

3. Authoritative Sources: Furthermore, the argument about WP:OFFICIALNAME is not as clear-cut as presented. While the Department of Defense and NATO may use "non-lethal" in official definitions, many other authoritative bodies, particularly in law enforcement and justice, have adopted "less-lethal." For instance, the U.S. National Institute of Justice uses the term "Less-Lethal Methods" in its use-of-force continuum, and the California Penal Code provides a specific legal definition for "Less lethal weapon." This is echoed internationally by the United Nations, which uses "less-lethal" in both its Peacekeeping standards and Human Rights guidance, and the UK's College of Policing. This indicates "less-lethal" is not an informal term but one with formal standing among a wide array of authoritative sources.

4. Ignoring the Core Issue of Accuracy (WP:PRECISION): The central, recurring argument across all discussions is that "non-lethal" is factually inaccurate. These weapons can and do kill. As one editor noted in 2020, this isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Even sources that use the term "non-lethal" often feel compelled to add a caveat explaining they can be fatal, which itself proves the term is misleading. Wikipedia's naming conventions aim for accuracy. When faced with a choice between a precise term ("less-lethal") and a demonstrably imprecise, even propagandistic, one ("non-lethal"), the encyclopedia should favor precision and NPOV.

This is not a new or frivolous request; it is a long-standing issue rooted in a fundamental conflict between an inaccurate, though historically common, term and a more precise, modern alternative now widely used by authoritative sources. The persistence of this debate shows a genuine, policy-based concern that has not been adequately resolved.

Given the prior "no consensus" result and the significant evidence favoring a shift in usage and the importance of precision, I believe the recent closure was premature. I would appreciate it if you could reconsider your close or provide a more detailed rationale in light of this history.

Thank you for your time and for your work as a page mover. Sincerely,Poketama (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To address your points in turn:

It's important to remember that consensus can change—an argument that fails to gain consensus at one time could gain consensus at another, due to shifts over time in any number of factors. The whole reason that this RM was started was to pursue a consensus that was not found in 2021, so it seems illogical to argue that finding consensus on a previously no-consensus topic is inherently suspect. Additionally, while a discussion is certainly more than a simple headcount, it's also the case that—where a discussion involves competing (but both plausible) interpretations of the same policy, as happened with WP:COMMONNAME here—it can be useful to refer to the numbers favoring each argument to get a sense of whether one interpretation is substantially more mainstream than another.
The full discussion of the Ngrams made a compelling case that the data showing "less-lethal" as having surpassed "non-lethal" was rooted in methodological errors. When reviewing the final Ngrams data presented at the end of the conversational thread, even when adding "less lethal weapons" as you'd suggested in the discussion, I saw a clear lead for the various forms of "non-lethal weapons" over the forms of "less-lethal weapons". As for Google News, when I reviewed the Google News links you shared, it showed me 22,300 results for "non-lethal weapons" vs. 13,700 for "less-lethal weapons". Thus, even if Google News is inherently more reflective of common usage than Google Books (a premise that I'd want to see more widely supported before accepting, honestly), its findings don't seem to change the calculus.
This is a fair point, but it moves the argument of "what name predominates in official definitions" to "it's inconclusive" rather than "less-lethal weapons is clearly favored". In any case, it's long-held practice that COMMONNAME supersedes arguments based on official names, so this point would not significantly change the result of the discussion unless there was a strong consensus that the COMMONNAME should not be used.
WP:PRECISION is about avoiding ambiguity, not about enforcing accuracy. Many topics are known by names that aren't fully accurate—as an example off the top of my head, the flying squirrel can't actually fly. What matters for Wikipedia's naming conventions is that the title is accurate to what the topic is called, rather than necessarily reflecting how it functions in practice. (Descriptive titles are an exception to this, as those are titles that by design are specifically crafted for Wikipedia, but this isn't one such case.)

In summary, based on the arguments presented on each side of the discussion, I felt that the strength of argument supported the claim that "non-lethal weapon" remained the common name for the topic; the common name question occupied a large majority of the discussion, and other arguments were mentioned passingly enough (or, in the case of the official name, were dubious enough) that they didn't have a substantial impact on the overall consensus of the discussion. Let me know if there are any points that would benefit from further clarification. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure at Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre

Very nice close, imo, and a good reading of the consensus. Great job! I think it's very likely that the eventual title of the article should be Nuseirat raid, but this discussion provided insufficient consensus to justify that move. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the closure at Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre. Since you wrote such a detailed and thoughtful closure, may I ask you questions about your interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME policy, as you cited it in your closure? COMMONNAME requires a "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". But how do we determine "prevalence" and how do we compute "significant majority"? It seems that many places where we prefer "massacre", the name is perhaps not actually used by >50% of sources that actually use that name (see this comment) – and those results on whether you consider "massacre" to be a common noun or part of the proper noun (see this comment). I would love your thoughts on this issue. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been long enough since the closure that I can't recall my exact thought process from the time in detail, but I can certainly talk about general principles. The "significant majority" threshold is, in my opinion, deliberately inexact; its intent is to allow editors to review the fact patterns of an individual case and (strive to) come to a holistic consensus about whether a prospective title has reached it, rather than to create a bright-line standard at some percentage. (For one example of how fact patterns might affect the calculations at play: a common convoluting factor in RMs is WP:NAMECHANGES, which can make it desirable to downweight a large amount of sourcing due to its age.) Accordingly, when I'm closing a discussion, I don't come into it with a preconceived idea of "what constitutes a significant majority"; instead I review the specific arguments made in the discussion for strength and influence to determine how the discussion participants feel a "significant majority" should be defined in relation to the topic. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orion (constellation) move request

Thanks a lot for taking the time to evaluate the move request and for writing few lines.

I do understand what you wrote about WP:PT2, especially after Skynxnex very good comment probably did not just change my point of view.

I would however, like to ask you to reconsider your verdict that this was a consensus based on WP:PT1. I have discussed the previous closure with the closer Hilst here. In the meantime not much happened, which supports to close the debate. Only Joy argued in the meantime based on the disambiguation stats that they point towards WP:PT1 not being fulfilled, while I explained that the very low usage numbers of the disambiguation page do not allow statistical relevant analysis without a huge effort of disentangling all the influences. I provided three different ways of calculating the constellation pageview numbers, all being above 55%. And while 2 persons at the beginning of the debate said the numbers are clearly too low (based on stats going back to 2015, not current ones), 4 people agreed the numbers are high enough, two of them towards the end of the discussion (while even !voting OPPOSE, mostly argueing with WP:PT2). So if you subtract the persons simply writing statements and the ones !voting based on low number stats or outdated stats/numbers, there is a clear consensus that WP:PT1 is fulfilled.

This debate was a sobering expereince, because after 2 relistings and lots of OPPOSES, I could not get an answer why according to WP:PT2 Orion the hunter is equally long-term significant. Till the first closure noone gave an answer that was consistent with the guidelines, not based on name origin (given as non-determinative in the guidelines) or being proof by assertion. In this last week another 3 of such comments were given and, however, to hightlight it again ONE very good comment.

I do not think more discussion will bring a consensus. But I would appreciate a lot if you reconsider why you see a consensus of WP:PT1 towards being not fulfilled. I am aware this would only change the result from not moved based on consensus to not moved based on no consensus, but future potential discussions should not be hindered by a not moved based on a consensus, which has not been reached in the debate.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but it feels a bit disappointing if it is the case that enough OPPOSES based on non guideline conform reasons or no reasons are enough to steer a debate to a 'consensus'. To my best knowledge such a case should not even stop a consensus in the opposite direction, otherwise it can probably never being reached. I can see your doubts regarding WP:PT2, while the doubts in the debate are actually very weak, almost all comments being against guidelines, which would warrant more discussion, that will likely again not lead to a result, but your point on WP:PT1 I can not see why.

If you can tell me based on which part of the discussion you see the consensus towards not moving proven, maybe I missed some good reasons, I would appreciate that and of course accept it. Thanks again. Stevinger (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the opposition along PT1 lines is as weak as you portray it, honestly. For instance, I would disagree with the characterization of longer-term pageview stats as "outdated." In my view, pageview stats that stretch from 2015 to the present are often more informative than stats that only show a snapshot of a brief moment; as an example of their utility, they can show whether trends at any one time are anomalous or are part of a consistent pattern. I also didn't find myself convinced by the arguments to discount WikiNav numbers. From what I've seen across various RMs, WikiNav data tends to be a well-trusted reference point for investigating possible primary topics. That norm can certainly be overruled by consensus in a given discussion, but I didn't see the breadth of support that I would want to see in that process.

I was also unconvinced about the utility of adding the pageviews of "Orion Nebula" to those of "Orion (constellation)"; the two articles are separate, even though their topics are related, so—even if we accept that interest in the nebula's article inherently counts as interest in the constellation's article—the resulting sum would likely include duplicate views from readers who visited both pages.

That said, while I do think it appropriate to use some of my own discretion to evaluate the strengths of various arguments made, ultimately I close based on what arguments were found to be most convincing by the discussion participants themselves. And there too I see editors largely supporting the idea that the stats, read as a collective, favor keeping the articles at their current titles. Bkonrad/Older and Joy both made their cases at length in the RM; Srnec seconded Bkonrad's analysis, Mdewman also gave a brief concurrence, and Jruderman argued that the 3:1 pageview ratio (i.e., of "Orion (constellation)" alone vs. "Orion (mythology)") fell short of the much more likely than any other single topic standard of PT1. This is a large proportion of the RM participants, using several angles of analysis that to my eye were consistently fairly sound, and all coming to a shared opinion that the constellation does not meet PT1.

Regarding Skynxnex, their comment makes the case that 65% more for the constellation than everything else combine probably does meet WP:PT1's test [...] but not by much. The 65% number they quote also counts Orion Nebula's views toward Orion (constellation), though. In the RM you note that "Orion (constellation)" alone only reaches 55% of search results; given that Skynxnex views 65% as meeting PT1 only narrowly, I don't think their stance can necessarily be assumed to hold true at 55% as well. For that reason, I was hesitant to place too much weight on their analysis of PT1.

To summarize the above lines of thinking: the viewpoint that "Orion (constellation)" did not meet the PT1 standard attracted broad support in the discussion, backed by various editors with various arguments, and—based on my review of the rebuttals—I didn't think they had the strength or prevalence to have fully countered those arguments. Accordingly, I felt that the argumentation on balance supported that the constellation did not meet PT1. Hopefully this clarifies my thinking; if there's anything I haven't fully explained, please feel free to ask. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I'm not sure I completely processed that the 65% included the Orion Nebula (my own fault) and probably wouldn't have suggested it meets PT1 if I had. I hadn't really followed up much more since it is a some what close call, there was a lot of text, and I don't think there was much much to add more since it seemed clear to me the consensus was against the move (I'd probably argue that the earlier close shouldn't have been undone). Skynxnex (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to say that longer-term pageview stats are useless, this is why I used the term outdated. I agree it can give more information, but I was suggesting to use the information differently. If you follow the pageviews from 2015 you can see, that almost all Orion related pages stay constant in pageviews, but Orion (disambiguation), despite being front page, gets less and less, reducing its numbers by a factor of 4-6 from 2015 to now and that Orion (constellation) increased its numbers by 50% - 100% compared to 2015 in the recent 2-3 years. This is valueable information. But this is also the reason I took the stats from the last year, as it is more representative of the current situation, while keeping the development trend in mind.

This can be very important, as the the 3:1 pageview ratio (i.e., of "Orion (constellation)" alone vs. "Orion (mythology)") is within the last year about a 5:1 that more reasonably seems to fulfill the much more likely argument. Most of the original contributors were !voting based on the assumption the constellation does not have the majority, but counting Orion Nebula against Orion constellation. This might be equally flawed as counting it to the constellation article.

To me it felt clear, we clarified this point, why I gave several calculations, confusing indeed. But I only ask to compare the case on the same rule basis:

A) Ignore Orion Nebula (I will show under B why) and calculate the numbers: Gives you 61% at ratio ~ 5:1 or higher to others

B) Take all the side typics into account, like the Mitsubishi Orion engine or the brother of Mark Twain. But then you need to not ignore that people reading Orion's belt (outsourced article of Orion constellation), or others of this kind Orion Nebula, Betelgeuse, Rigel. If you directly go to Orion's Belt you do not count to constellatioon, though you came for that. On the other side Orion (Star Trek) and lots of other article were ignored, too not related to the constellation. The constellation articles, however, have up to 10 times the pageviews, so it is unlikely enough Orion related other articles can be found to lower the 61% number. The numbers, e.g. some here, if you don't play out e.g. Orion's belt against Orion constellation, but assume it is connnected, suggest > 61 % for Orion (constellation) among all Orion related articles (I did not do the full math, but I also did not suggest this approach) at a minimum ratio of ~ 5:1 against Orion (mythology) as well as 5:1 against Orion (spacecraft) (only using Orion (constellation) numbers !!)

C) the most reasonable to me is this one. You take only the ones people would expect to find if they only type Orion as a single word. This e.g. not includes Mitsubishi Orion engine, but also not Orion Nebula or Orion Pictures, ... please see the numbers here: You reach 66.7% for Orion (constellation) at a minimum ratio of again ~ 5:1. The mythology, constellation, SF race, spacecraft and comic book character are the ones identified with Orion, not just nicknamed from a longer name or related.

So we are back to a ~ two-third majority. Different people discussed based on different statistics. I assumed that the PT1 had a clear consensus for moving, if the rules of calculating the numbers are properly defined.

I don't mind if the debate is closed. But my question is, based on which rules for the statistics, not the number of !votes !voting on flawed statistics in the one or other direction, do you assume that PT1 gives a consensus towards not moving? Again the ones against it were at the beginning. I agree I exxagerated the weakness of the opposition along PT1 lines. But I did not exxagerate on how weak the statistical background opposition is in my point of view. Is two-thirds and a ratio of 5:1 or more really considered weak???

For the extreme case I found, the constellation Centaurus ~ 21 % of pageviews and a ratio of 3:1 (vs. Centaurus Greek mythology) or 1:3 (vs. Centaur Greek mythology) was enough that the constellation is the primary topic.

Thanks again for your time. Stevinger (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me, if this amount of text is a bit much. I discussed that with Hilst. According to what is given at WP:RMCOMMENT 'the debate is not a vote'. Of course every recommendation should matter. But while for PT2 the situation is difficult, PT1 seems to boil down to mathematics. And I don't see how multiple solutions to a defined problem (for the numbers at least, not the interpretation) should be possible in this case. And the interpretation limits or at least orientation for limits are given in WP:PT1 (more likely than all the other topics combined - check). Stevinger (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PT1 as written is fairly mathematical in that respect—"more likely than all the other topics combined." But even so, there's a degree of interpretation involved in reading any policy; for the example most relevant to this case, I occasionally see people argue that a topic that only marginally surpasses other-topics-combined isn't in keeping with the spirit of PT1 even though it meets the letter of the policy. Thus, when I'm working on a close, one of the aspects I examine is: where the interpretation of a policy is debated, and both interpretations feel comparably plausible, does one interpretation prevail among the participants at large? This can lead to inconsistent outcomes between different discussions, but I think it's a necessary step in determining one particular discussion's consensus.

To tie this back to your question: I think the underlying ratios at play in the Orion RM were in a sort of gray area, where a plausible case could be made that the constellation either did or didn't pass PT1. And with that fact pattern in place, I had to look at not just which arguments were stronger or weaker but also which policy interpretations were inside or outside of the mainstream. And so—although I might have found the constellation's PT1 case stronger if I were making the decision unilaterally, my read of the discussion was (1) that the constellation didn't meet the PT1 standard as it was viewed by the participants at large, and (2) that this reading of the PT1 standard fell within the bounds of reasonability. And accordingly, the right thing for me to do as the closer was to acknowledge that interpretation as the consensus.

(No worries about the length of the comment, btw! I've definitely been known to be verbose myself.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. This all sounds very reasonable und understandable. However, I still think you are not aware of everything that happened in the debate, and so few additional questions arise:

You argued very clearly 'utility of adding the pageviews of "Orion Nebula" to those of "Orion (constellation)"; the two articles are separate, even though their topics are related, so—even if we accept that interest in the nebula's article inherently counts as interest in the constellation's article—the resulting sum would likely include duplicate views from readers who visited both pages.' I agree, this is understandable and I will take this into account in the future. This made you put less weight to Skynxnex's analysis and you mention 'Bkonrad/Older ... made their cases at length in the RM; Srnec seconded Bkonrad's analysis'. However, Bkonrad/Older argues 'all other combined certainly do not amount to over 9 million is easily disproven. Pageviews Analysis show views for just the spacecraft, mythological figure, and nebula amount to nearly 9M'. If Orion (constellation) and Orion Nebula are related, then putting it against Orion (constellation) to prove it has no majority is at least as misleading as bundling the two together. I assume this was not intentional but this way Bkonrad/Older and Srnec !voted based on the assumption that Orion (constellation) is at 44% of pageviews, while it is at 50%, if Orion Nebula is taken out and at 61% if current numbers from last year are invoked instead of 2015-now. This is quite a difference.

Regarding the disambiguation page. I did not want to argue that this is not a good rule of thumb and can be very helpful. But I tried to explain to Joy that it is not a good choice for the specific case of Orion:

1) If you search for Orion with a search engine from outside of Wikipedia, the constellation is usually preferred. So more people will directly land at the Orion (constellation) page, even the ones looking for something else. The hatnote at the Orion (constellation) page refers you to the Orion (disambiguation) page. From there you go to whatever you were looking for (but not the constellation!).

2) Even if you are directly going to the Orion (mythology) page via a search engine (less likely), there is no hatnote to Orion (disambiguation). I would in this case use the Wikipedia search on top of the page, not search for a disambiguation page. Thus people erroneously reaching mythology, looking for the constellation do less likely appear on the disambiguation page.

3) If you are already on Wikipedia and use the Wikipedia search on top of the page the Orion (constellation) page is the 2nd suggestion in the drop down menu opening after typing Orion, Orion (mythology) is the 6th suggestion. It is thus again more likely if you look for mythology to miss it and still use the first suggestion - the disambiguation page.

Regarding these 3 effects above the meaning of about 42 % of people that use the disambiguation page going then to Orion (mythology) vs. about 36% of people going then to Orion (constellation) loses statistically a lot of meaning !! Yes, we can prove more people looking for the Orion (mythology) page use the disambiguation page, but whether this proves that Orion (constellation) is not the primary topic taking the three effects on top into account is very doubtful. Btw, I assume this assymetry of hatnotes and suggestion in the drop down menu in the Wikipedia Search is not always present when the disambiguation page is used as rule of thumb and gives nicely fitting result. At least this proves, the page should not be the deciding factor here.

Now back to tie this back to your answer and whether PT1 is met or not. In total 9 people commented on PT1, if I counted right. One person only wrote: 'several major topics share this name, there is no primary.' I hope it is fine to not count this statement. It is very general and seems not to meet the guideline ''The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.' (WP:RMCOMMENT) or take 'Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.' (WP:RMCOMMENT)

(2/8) argue PT1 is not met based on the usage statistics majority (Bkonrad/Older and Srnec), which I just explained happened on flawed statistics and seems thus of less weight than others.
(2/8) argue PT1 is not met based on the disambiguation page (Mdewman6 and Joy), which is also not a very strong argument regarding the assymetries in the hatnotes and in the drop down of the Wikipedia search
(2/8) argue PT1 is met (Jruderman and Skynxnex) based on the/my bundled statistics, so also not very strong arguments for it
(2/8) argue PT1 is met (the nominator 21.Andromedae and Stevinger (me)). Bkonrad/Older argued Orion (constellation) does not have a majority including Orion Nebula against it. 21.Andromedae replied this is not correct this way. Srnec seconded Bkonrad's analysis, why I seconded 21.Andromedae's analysis, that this is still not correct this way.

This means depending what you count it was a tie of 4 vs. 4, or a 4 vs. 2 for moving (if the first erroneous statistics is dismissed) or a 2 vs. 2 (if the bundling is dismissed, too) or a 2 vs. 0 for moving or a 1 vs. 1 (just in the week after the recent relisting) or a 0 vs. 0 (if you regard my and Joy's statistical analysis as erroneous, too). So a maximum of a tie or more !votes for moving. I btw included Joy as !voting for PT1 not met from the context, while Joy technically never !voted (recommended).

This long text later leaves me with 3 questions:

1) Why should Orion Nebula be allowed to be included against Orion (constellation) if it is related? I understand the duplicates of pageviews if it is bundled together, but if people directly reach Orion Nebula (related or within Orion (constellation)), never go to Orion (constellation) it is equally or even more skewing the stats if they are put on opposing sides.

2) If there are at least two/three effects that skew the disambiguation outflow/usage stats here, namely the assymetric use of hatnotes at constellation and mythology page and the very different suggestion position (2nd vs. 6th) in the Wikipedia search drop down, why should the disambiguation stats be an equally good rule of thumb here than for other cases?

3) If I missed a natural explanation, which surely can happen, for 1) and 2) my last question is why do you consider a 4 vs. 4 tie, even if all comments towards PT1 count, no matter how flawed the reasoning in either direction is, has a 'mainstream' or that one side 'prevail among the participants at large'? Of course lots of people !voted oppose based on PT2 arguments which you wrote is discussed with 'less precision', which I regard as strong understatement, as barely any edit is consistent with the guidelines, but this does not explain '(1) that the constellation didn't meet the PT1 standard as it was viewed by the participants at large'

I would appreciate a lot if you would also answer these questions. That would help a lot to understand your view in case you were aware of all these things. Thanks again. Stevinger (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To address your questions in turn:

(1) I'd disagree with the argument that the constellation and nebula being related means that their views can't be used in opposition to each other when attempting to calculate a primary topic; in fact, it's fairly common in the RM space for there to be debates about which of several closely related topics deserves the primary title. As a hypothetical example, one could certainly imagine a primary topic debate over SpongeBob SquarePants vs. SpongeBob SquarePants (character) vs. SpongeBob SquarePants (franchise). I think it's reasonable to extend that principle of "closely related topics may still compete for views" to cases like this one where the closely related topics aren't the only ones under discussion; multiple articles can't have the same title, after all, so any two articles on similarly named subjects are inherently competing for the primary one. (Downstream of this, my opinion on this matter also means that I disagree with the conclusion that Bkonrad's stats are erroneous.)

(2) Arguments based on predicted reader behavior, such as by the ones regarding the hatnote asymmetry or the suggestion position, are inherently somewhat speculative—accordingly, I usually only weigh them highly if they're widely supported in the discussion. I don't see that level of support as having occurred in the RM discussion; the note about the suggestion position was only mentioned by you, and doesn't appear to have been engaged with or to have slowed further opposition after its original mention on July 5. Meanwhile, unless I'm missing something (please feel free to correct me if I am), the hatnote asymmetry doesn't seem to have been discussed in the RM itself at all. With these factors not appearing to have been heavily supported in the discussion, I don't see them as successfully contesting the utility of the DAB stats for this purpose.

(3) To start by addressing the numbers: as I touched on earlier, while Skynxnex argued that PT1 was met based on the 65% number, their analysis ("not by a lot") did not convince me that they would feel the same about the 55% number that remains when "Orion Nebula" is discounted. Accordingly, I'm inclined to instead count them as neutral on the PT1 question. Then, as for Jruderman, their only comment states that the ratio is not enough to create a primary topic (emphasis mine) and then goes on to note other factors that they feel further weaken the primary topic claim. Thus, I think they should be counted on the PT1-is-not-met side of the debate. Based on those two adjustments, my read is that the numbers shake out to 5 vs. 2 in favor of not moving, rather than 4 vs. 4. Given these numbers, and my belief in the accuracy of the statistical arguments presented against moving, I think it was reasonable to conclude that the prevailing view in the discussion was that the constellation did not meet PT1.

Let me know if anything needs further clarification. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To address your replies: (Thank you)

(1) This response is surprising. But I actually fully agree to your SpongeBob SquarePants example. This shows related articles' views can be used in opposition. But there is a major difference to here. The character, franchise and series indeed compete for the very same name. It is not just about the relation but also about the name. The choice for the statistics of Orion was arbitrary (Joy said that in the debate). Why was e.g. Orion's Belt not included? If in another hypothetical example bacteria are found in the Atmosphere of Jupiter (unlikely), and everybody reads this article should this challenge Jupiter as primary topic? If someone decides this is not precise enough and creates Stratosphere of Jupiter and another one Upper Stratosphere of Jupiter, ... Or a more down to Earth example. If some famous person is injured (hopefully not) should a separate article about this injured part of the person, challenge the primary topic?

Or if there was only Orion (constellation) and Orion (mythology) for Orion. You argue that because of duplicates Orion costellation should not be bundled with subregions, understandable. But if many people are interested in all parts of the constellation this creates duplicates, too. You just need to include Orion's belt, Orion's sword, and Orion Nebula against Orion (constellation) and it lowers the apparent interest into Orion (constellation) enough that in this case the mythology can compete.

Or a less hypothetical case. There was the RM of Venus --> Venus (planet). Would you as hypothetical closer allowed Venus Williams (analog to Orion Nebula, but not even related) in the stats? It is dominant and puts Venus down to about 30%. Venus Williams is pretty famous, but it would surprise me, if I type Venus and Venus William's page appeared.

Regarding your example the equivalent of Orion Nebula, would be maybe SpongeBob Squarepants' Gary or SpongeBob Squarepants' Patrick (like Orion's Belt or Orion's Sword). These characters are very popular, but should not compete for primary topic of SpongeBob Squarepants. At least in my point of view.

I gave several examples because I think that such cases cannot be in the interest of Wikipedia. Either lots more related articles would have been needed to be included in the stats of Orion or only the ones that compete for the name Orion. Where am I wrong?

(2) I agree this is speculative. But the DAB statistics shouldn't be regarded as valid for every case and so do not not need to be contested individually. If we agree that the basis which I described for the DAB stats is speculative, then someone using it as an argument should explain why it is valid. Not after using it as argument in the first place, but after being asked, like I did with Joy. I hope we agree that an argument that is not engaged, if I understand you correctly, does not make the argument wrong. Not that I am saying some of my arguments weren't weak, but otherwise ignoring very good arguments in future debates would be beneficial. Joy reminded me that I shouldn't say only 1.4% of people use the disambiguation page because of duplicates, valid point. But if I argue we cannot disentangle several influences for duplicates regarding search engines, Wikipedia search, position in the drop down menu, assymetry in hatnotes, ... regarding the DAB this is not valid? I described the search engine differences btw with Joy. The word hatnote was not used, but it seemed not of interest. Again, not taking arguments into account does not make them invalid to my best knowledge.

Let's get back to the example of Venus. The WikiNav page of Venus (disambiguation) shows that Venus = Venus (planet) is only the 6th highest page to go to from Venus (disambiguation). I would assume this is because Venus (planet) is the front page Venus at the moment, but this is also speculative and can have very different reasons, too. Would you have allowed on the basis of reaching 30% vs. Venus Williams and being by far not the highest page to go to from the DAB that the Venus --> Venus (planet) move should happen, if it was mentioned and seconded by few people? This, as discussed with Hilst and the duplication problem are the reason why Orion Nebula should not be part of the stats. Again otherwise, where is Orion's Belt, Orion's Sword, ...? I was not trying to say the stats are erroneous (which I used to describe my stats, too), I am sorry that was not correct, but as my bundling it is misleading.

(3) You allow in the beginning that someone is counted as neutral if the stats are not valid. You should, however not use my misleading 55% value that was not correct in the debate either. This is why I gave you the A), B) and C) stats originally. Either it is C) with 66.7% or A) with 61%. The 66.7% appear when only the Orion name contenders are included as given in the stats above under point (1). If you allow that 65% were incorrect, then 55% are, too. And it seems reasonable 66.7% instead of 65% would not have changed something.

The same holds for Jruderman, you argue 'their only comment states that the ratio is not enough to create a primary topic (emphasis mine)', however, this refers to the 3:1 ratio, which is in several occasions discussed to be rather a ~5:1 ratio, which did not convince me they would feel the same about. And there is a second statement: 'leaving the constellation with only barely a majority of pageviews among articles with the same base name' (emphasis mine). While seen potentially differently, this confirms the majority needed and does not convince me it would change if the 66.7% would have been mentioned instead of the 55% (probably rather losing the barely from the sentence).

(If you get very technically on this, then the two DAB arguments shouldn't count, as they are not part of the PT1 point.)

Of course people could have reacted very differently, but they also might have not. And if 4 persons give sentences, that the majority is fulfilled, while the numbers after correction did not get lower, in the case of Jruderman even higher, independent of Orion Nebula artificially changing the stats, then there seems no basis to find a majority against it with 8 people in total.

Please correct me if you see problems. That examples need to speak of equivalent cases in (1), that doubts should lower the weight of an argument in (2) and that misleading stats on which decisions were made should be taken into account in (3) should always count for both sides, being for a move or being for a not move, right?

Thanks again. Stevinger (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on with the discussion for each numbered point...

(1) I interpret the core thrust of your question here as asking, which partial title matches should be counted as competing for a primary title? This is a question that can absolutely be controversial and have various interpretations, so it's a situation where I again turn to the discussion participants and see what they include (or don't) in their analyses. To that end, while there certainly wasn't unanimous agreement as to whether the nebula should be included as a competitor for the title, it was incorporated in multiple analyses (Bkonrad's and Joy's) that I viewed as solid. (I will admit that I found Joy's analysis to be overbroad in one area—the incorporation of human names like Orion Clemens—as, with exceptions for certain highly prominent figures, I don't believe most people are known mononymously. I mention this for transparency, and because it's relevant to the example of Venus Williams that you mention, but I don't think it affects the discussion as regards Orion Nebula.) The case for including Orion Pictures is also analogous to Orion Nebula here.

Overall, I recognize that this isn't the most empirical basis for determining what topics to include or exclude, but unfortunately that's kind of the nature of Wikipedia discussions. The role of closers isn't to create a fully logical analytical framework, but to assess the conclusions of the discussion as it took place in practice.

(2) I think I take a generally more positive view of DAB statistics than you do; when it comes to determining the relative usage levels of multiple topics, I'm inclined to treat those stats as relevant by default and place the onus on people seeking to challenge their applicability. As for the interpretation of arguments that were not engaged with, we have sort of a Warnock's dilemma issue here—it might mean that the argument was compelling enough to be unrebuttable, but could also mean that the argument was seen as not significant enough to need extensive discussion. When evaluating arguments in this situation, the factors I weigh include: (a) How many people are making the argument? Is it a widely agreed-upon principle by supporters of one side of the debate, or is it just a single person's idea with no sign of further traction? (b) How closely tied is the argument to the actual letter of policy? In this case, as the search-result argument was both speculative and mentioned by just one member of a discussion with roughly a dozen participants, my interpretation was that the lack of further discussion on the point more likely meant that it was viewed as of low relevance.

Circling back around to the Venus question: I agree that it would be surprising for the planet Venus to lose its primary topic status because of Venus Williams, and honestly I would probably !vote to oppose it if the question came up in practice... but if a discussion occurred where a meaningful proportion of participants backed that argument, I could certainly see it being necessary to view that stance as having gained consensus.

(3) You raise a fair point regarding Jruderman—given that point, I'm willing to push them to neutral too, which would adjust the headcount to 4–2. However, as I mentioned above, I think it was a fair read of the discussion to consider Orion Nebula as among the competing titles here; unless I'm mistaken, including Orion Nebula (and Orion Pictures, whose situation is comparable) is what results in the 55% number. With that being said, I'm also admittedly uncertain whether it would change much to use the 61% number, since the 4–2 count already omits the participants who seemed to be on the fence. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time.

'The role of closers isn't to create a fully logical analytical framework'. No, of course I cannot demand a fully logical analytical framework and it should not be needed. I am still struggling to understand how you apply your basic criteria to the discussion as it took place. I will try once more to provide my core difficulty, being more precise and concise, without the high amount of confusing examples.

You write: 'to assess the conclusions of the discussion as it took place in practice'. Here my difficulties start. There have been few major suggestions that have been acknowledged by several people regarding whether PT1 is met. E.g. the analysis by Bkonrad using Orion Nebula in opposition, that was supported by Srnec and challenged by 21.Andromedae and Stevinger, so 2 vs. 2. This you allow as solid. My analysis on the PT1 stats using Orion Nebula bundled was supported by Jruderman and Skynxnex and challenged 2 weeks later only by Joy, so a 3 vs. 1. This one you see not as solid. So the conclusion of the discussion as it took place in practice is different from yours.

For this you need to have a reason. You explained: 'Skynxnex argued that PT1 was met based on the 65% number, their analysis ("not by a lot") did not convince me that they would feel the same about the 55% number that remains when "Orion Nebula" is discounted. Accordingly, I'm inclined to instead count them as neutral on the PT1 question.' and this is explained in your first answer: 'I was also unconvinced about the utility of adding the pageviews of "Orion Nebula" to those of "Orion (constellation)"; the two articles are separate, even though their topics are related, so—even if we accept that interest in the nebula's article inherently counts as interest in the constellation's article—the resulting sum would likely include duplicate views from readers who visited both pages.' So duplicates are the problem! Ok. Btw, the Orion (constellation) page lists under features Orion's Sword and there you can read: 'Orion's Sword contains the Orion Nebula, the ...' (emphasis by me)

Now I have to include a hypothetical example in order to explain my difficulties to understand. Let's hypothetically assume only 6 articles exist for Orion: Orion (constellation), Orion (mythology), Orion's Belt, Orion's Sword, Orion Nebula and Orion molecular cloud complex. And hypothetically assume

A) 50% of readers are very interested in the constellation and read every article about the constellation and its subparts (everything except the mythology)

B) 50% of readers are very interested in Orion in general and read all 6 articles.

1) According to me previous suggestion to bundle the 5 Orion (constellation) related articles and their clicks the Orion (constellation) and bundle with the other 4 reaches 90% of all clicks. You argue this is not ok because of duplicates, this is understandable.

2) We ignore the clicks for everything except Orion (constellation) and Orion (mythology), since they are subparts of Orion (constellation), than Orion (constellation) reaches 75% of all clicks.

3) You suggest that even subregions of Orion need to be seen as independent articles. Then Orion (constellation) against all others in Opposition reaches 22.5% of all clicks.

So despite every reader in this hypothetical example was interested in the constellation and 50% of readers only came to Wikipedia for the constellation, the percentage is 22.5% in the opposition version analysis. I suggest number 2), because if all the material of Orion's Belt, Orion's Sword, Orion Nebula and Orion molecular cloud complex was in the Orion (constellation) article, which clearly fits there, too, the percentage in the hypothetical example would be 75%, too!

And it gets even worse, let's assume the very same hypothetical example with one exception, the first 50% of people are only marginally interested, just click on the Orion (constellation) page instead of all the constellation related articles and leave. Then the calculation with the all subregions on the opposing side (number 3) results to that Orion (constellation) reaches 60% of all clicks. So the less interested people are in the constellation, the less duplicates are created and the higher the percentage for Orion (constellation) is at the end. This clearly shows that duplicates while Orion Nebula is in opposition is a problem in addition to Orion Nebula in bundle with the constellation being a problem. Please reconsider this!

This means that Orion Nebula cannot be put in Opposition to Orion (constellation) while calculating the stats for whether PT1 is met. However, Bkonrad/older suggest this in their stats to confirm that Orion (constellation) has less the 50% of pageviews. Unfortunately you are indeed mistaken, including Orion Nebula on the opposing side does not result in 55%, but is the only way (in conjunction with using numbers that are not current, but reaching back to 2015) to reach a number below 50%, in the case of Bkonrad reaching 44%, confirming their claim that 50% are not reached. However, this is likely based on duplication, like in other cases you regard as 'neutral'. If you calculated the same stats with more recent numbers (last year) and most importantly removing Orion Nebula from the opposing side you reach 61% (Pageviews). This clearly shows their claim that it is below 50% is not backed by the numbers and the !votes by Bkonrad and Srnec should be counted as 'neutral', too.

A last example. If the 44% that likely include duplicates was not low enough to confirm that no majority is reached, Bkonrad could have included Orion's Belt on the opposing side, too, like here (pageviews), than Orion (constellation) reaches about 38% of pageviews. As in the hypothetical example above, you can add more and more subregions or subparts of Orion (constellation) on the opposing side against the constellation, which were likely seen by the same interested persons, creating duplication clicks and reach a lower and lower number of pageviews for Orion (constellation) if you want to.

I also disagree that Orion Pictures is the same case as Orion Nebula. 1) Orion Nebula is linked 9 times on the page of Orion (constellation) as a subregion, Orion Pictures once because of its related logo. (Orion mythology btw 2 times, at mythology and at see also).) 2) Orion Nebula is given to be a part of Orion's Sword, which is a feature of Orion (constellation), so clearly closely related. 3) If you watch a movie the current logo of Orion Pictures says 'Orion', not Orion Pictures or Orion Releases, LLC, so people might speak about the company as simply Orion.

So, finally I have to accept that you see the disambiguation page stats more positively than me and the rule of thumb can of course be very helpful. I might have gotten influenced by the sentence: 'Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons) include: WikiNav' (WP:DPT) I gave you 3 possible biases steering the stats. - Regarding the discussion as it happened, the inclusion of Orion Nebula on the opposing side to Orion (constellation) was seen more controversial (2 vs. 2) than inclusion as bundle (3 vs. 1). - If you correct for duplication problems 4 of the 8 !votes need to be seen as 'neutral' as they do not (Bkonrad and Srnec) or barely do (the other two you named) meet their claims about whether PT1 is met. This leaves us with a headcount, as you called it, of 2-2. The 2 DAB stat based !votes can simply not overrule the 2 opposing !votes to create a consensus instead of a tie.

So my core point is that Orion Nebula creates duplicates, no matter if bundled or put on the opposing side. In addition to PT1 being met at 61% of pageviews and a ratio of about 5:1 or larger for any other contender, the headcount reaches a tie for whether PT1 is met and the stats in the discussion for moving were generally seen less controversial by the participants in the discussion as it took place in practice.

Thanks again for your time. Please tell me, if something in this is still confusing or if I am mistaken. Stevinger (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an important distinction between the two types of duplicate you describe. Specifically, when determining a primary topic along PT1, what matters isn't that the topic is popular in absolute terms—it's that it's more popular than other topics that share its title. In this framework, if views are duplicated when a reader views multiple competing articles, that duplication is a feature rather than a bug; our hypothetical reader was interested in multiple topics, rather than being measurably more interested in a single one, and counting their views toward every article they view ensures that we represent that reader's topics of interest most accurately.

Meanwhile, if we bundle two topics, we're effectively measuring "depth of interest" rather than "breadth of interest." What I mean is, even if we assume two articles are on identical topics, the consequence of including duplicate views between those two articles effectively means that a person who's interested enough in a topic to read multiple articles about it gets to have their view counted twice. Wikipedia titling at its core is about finding titles that are useful to the greatest number of people possible, and a framework that privileges depth of interest over breadth of interest risks compromising that by creating an avenue for some viewers to count more than others. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, I mostly agree, but I still think you are misunderstanding what I meant:

I fully agree with your second paragraph and I do with your first paragraph, too, but only if we are talking about the same thing. Because for the examples that you gave which are clear, like SpongeBob SquarePants vs. SpongeBob SquarePants (character) vs. SpongeBob SquarePants (franchise) or Orion (constellation) vs. Orion (mythology), I fully agree. Being counted toward every article is not a bug, but a feature as these are the topics that compete sharing its title. This was neither the duplication that I meant, nor the one that I was describing from my point of view. What you write seems just to shift the problem one layer further.

Imagine hypothetically (!) you would decide the mythology article is important and long enough to put some of its content to several articles, e.g. Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) and the overview article Orion (mythology). Then imagine further we have again the case of primary topic, but only these 4 Orion (mythology) articles exist and Orion (constellation) as overview article, Orion Nebula, Orion's belt and Orion's Sword. Now imagine further only 2 people (for simplicity) read the articles. One person all 4 articles for Orion (constellation) and the other person all 4 articles for Orion (mythology). One would asume the outcome is 50% of people were interested in Orion (constellation), right? Since we don't want to measure "depth of interest" but "breadth of interest" every person should count ONCE, but instead the mythology interested person counts FOUR times against Orion (constellation) and the constellation interested person counts FOUR times, ONCE for Orion (constellation) and THREE times against Orion (constellation). So ONE count for Orion (constellation), SEVEN counts against it, resulting in 14.3% interest in Orion (constellation). You might argue, both persons counted 4 times, but if two further persons come in, one shortly clicking on Orion (constellation), one shortly clicking on Orion (mythology), the latter two people counted ONCE, the first two people counted FOUR times. This is the avenue for some viewers to count more than others!

So

A) We remove in this hypothetical example the related articles Orion's belt, Orion Nebula, Orion's Sword, Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) from the PT1 stats because they are shortly described in Orion (constellation) or Orion (mythology) and then in more detail in these extended articles.

or

B) We remove the articles Orion's belt, Orion Nebula, Orion's Sword, Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) because they lead to unwanted duplications, leading to an avenue for some viewers to count more than others.

or my favorite

C) We remove Orion's belt, Orion Nebula, Orion's Sword, Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) because they do not follow the rules in your first paragraph: 'when determining a primary topic along PT1, what matters isn't that the topic is popular in absolute terms—it's that it's more popular than other topics that share its title.' All of these mostly hypothetical articles do not share the title Orion (can be identified as solely Orion).

None of these 6 hypothetically extended articles would be understandable if they appear under 'Orion' only. Another example, imagine George Clooney gets a hypothetical scandalous tattoo on the leg. Neither Amal Clooney, nor George Clooney leg as articles should be able to compete as primary topic for 'George Clooney', no matter how popular they are, in my point of view, not even if they are more popular than the George Clooney article. This is an analog to Orion Cult (mythology) or Orion Nebula competing for 'Orion'.

So no matter whether Orion Nebula should be removed for reason A), B) or C) above, it should be removed to ensure that we represent reader's topics of interest most accurately. And not just the "depth of interest" (that the extended article was clicked on, too).

Btw, I would accept Orion Pictures as borderline case since it is shown with the logo 'Orion', but e.g. Mitsubishi Orion engine or Lockheed P-3 Orion seem very well suited under their respective names, not really sharing its title with Orion. If we do that we land at these Pageviews, again Orion (constellation) having about 60%. Stevinger (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point we're circling back around to the point I was trying to make when I brought up the "logical analytical framework" point a couple days ago. As a closer, it's not my role to create my own thresholds for which terms should or shouldn't be competing for a primary topic; instead, my role is to review the frameworks that participants in the discussion used, and to evaluate them against one another where they differ. To that end, when I'm evaluating an argument that was raised in a discussion I'm closing, I don't ask myself "is this exactly the framework I would use", I ask myself "is this a framework that could be reasonably justified." When I've talked above about e.g. evaluating the two types of duplicates, that factored into my closing decision insofar as it informed my comparative evaluation of the different pageview stats that were furnished in the discussion that actually took place; if an analytical framework on some data were to be uncontested, I'd check it for obvious errors before accepting it, but to impose my own analytical preferences onto the argument's logic would be supervoting.

To connect the above general statement to this specific case: I think all of the pageview analyses in the RM were at least reasonably justifiable, so I didn't see a need to throw any of them out entirely. However, there were also multiple analyses that disagreed with one another, so I was in the position to have to make a judgment as to which seemed sounder in comparative terms. I think my past comments have already covered my thinking on how I made that judgment, so I won't reiterate them, except to continue to stand by my opinion that treating Orion Nebula as a rival claimant to the primary topic felt like a stronger approach overall than treating it as a contributor to the constellation article's pageviews.

To further expand on my thinking here, I'd like to propose a counter-hypothetical to your hypothetical situation. Imagine the same pattern of pageviews you describe—one person reads the four astronomy-related Orion articles and another person reads the four mythology-related ones. The difference is, in my hypothetical, the person who read the four astronomy articles was only interested in Orion's belt and just read the other articles as a spinoff from that. Given that you and I only have access to the pageview data after the fact, we have no way of knowing whether the views for the four astronomy articles came from your hypothetical constellation-interested reader or my hypothetical belt-interested reader. Therefore, the fairest option is to treat a view for any article as a sign of interest in that specific article's subject, rather than trying to weave together disparate pageviews into a theoretical profile of a reader interested in some broader topic; we have no way of knowing if such a profile is accurate, so extrapolating beyond the direct facts of the data could cause us to work from faulty information. (The fact that our astronomy-interested reader gives us four pageviews "against" any given mythology topic is regrettable, I agree, but I don't think there's a way to correct for that without introducing larger problems to the methodology.)

Finally, let me switch from broader philosophical thoughts back to actionable, case-specific ones again. When I was bringing up my point about "reasonably justifiable" arguments, the takeaway I want to convey is: the granular details of my opinion on different types of title is of limited relevance to the goal you're trying to achieve here. What matters isn't whether or not I would personally consider "Orion Nebula" to be a plausible target for the "Orion" title, but whether I find it so implausible that the votes for it should be discarded wholesale. So the ball I would place back in your court is: regardless of whether I agree with it myself, I don't think the "Orion Nebula is a target" analysis was so fundamentally flawed as to make such discarding necessary. Do you view my stance on the matter as within the range of opinions a closer could reasonably hold, or as uncontroversially erroneous? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 04:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. We might make progress. Unfortunately not as fast as I hoped. Thank you for describing how you decided and what you have to take into account. Of course I assume you carefully and in best manner decided, otherwise you would not still explain it to me. Nevertheless, this does not solve the discrepancy of our views.

Yes, I am sure your stance is uncontroversially erroneous. But before I start to explain it in yet another way and properly, I would appreciate a lot if you would answer few more questions specifically so I understand why we still do not agree, maybe I do not understand or I do not ask decent questions:

- If all the material within Orion Nebula would be within the Orion (constellation) article instead of separate it would support the constellation. Why should the coincidence that it was separated decide on which side it is in a statistics?

- In the hypothetical example Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) was created. Why should interested mythology readers count once in the current Orion (mythology) version, but 4 times once these three articles are taken out of the main article? (I think you called it we're effectively measuring "depth of interest" then).

I was taught that methodology that changes its result strongly after slight chances in the input parameters are usually not well defined ones.

But of course I should answer your counter-hypothetical: This paragraph you gave confused me. Whether a reader read the other articles as spinoff of Orion's belt or was there for the constellation seems to not matter (it is anyway all part of the constellation). If you participate in a penalty shootout (for example) it seems not to matter whether you play for the money, the cheering crowd or just like to kick a ball, maybe slightly for the success rate, but it seems to matter more if you are allowed to shoot 4 penalties every time the opposing team only gets one. Seems the same case. (Not sure what you meant with the mythology in brackets. But yes, with Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) you could probably force Orion (mythology) to a disambiguation page itself, if you meant that. Another reason for me to doubt your suggested methodology that allows to split any primary topic up until it cannot be defended anymore as primary topic or if this is too complicated split up a competing topic, like in the hypothetical example Orion (mythology) to reach the same goal).

- Why should splitting up articles with the same texts afterwards, just forcing people to click several times to find everything, have an influence on how important or well secured a primary topic is? Stevinger (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a reader read the other articles as spinoff of Orion's belt or was there for the constellation seems to not matter (it is anyway all part of the constellation). The issue here is that this presupposes that the constellation is the primary topic, and that interest in topics that are geographical sub-components of it must flow from the component to the constellation. Given that the whole RM was about determining the primary topic for "Orion", I don't think we can necessarily rely on that assumption without consensus among the participants, and it was clear that—at least for the nebula—there was a meaningful contingent in the discussion that felt it was a valid contender for consideration.

Related to that, I think it also bears mention that not all subtopics are created equal. Sure, one could argue that Orion Nebula is a subtopic of the constellation, but the nebula is still a discrete, independently notable entity. By contrast, there are other subtopics that exist purely to provide more detail on one facet of a larger topic. As an example: New York City and History of the United States (1917–1945) are both subtopics of United States, but their relation to the United States as encyclopedia articles is clearly different. Merging the history article into the United States might introduce excess length and detail to the article, but merging New York City would add large amounts of material that's not even relevant to someone looking for the parent topic. I wanted to emphasize this because I feel like this is at the root of your confusion. Splitting out New York City from the United States is not splitting up an article purely to "force people to click several times to find everything" or to influence the pageviews of either article, and my read of the discussion was that people regarded Orion Nebula—as a subtopic—as closer to the New York City case than the History case.

To take these principles and apply them to the direct questions you asked:

Why should the coincidence that it was separated decide on which side it is in a statistics? Because it wasn't a coincidence that the articles were separated. The people who wrote the articles believed that the nebula and the constellation were each independently notable topics, and this view received enough support in the RM discussion as to not need to be thrown out entirely.
Why should interested mythology readers count once in the current Orion (mythology) version, but 4 times once these three articles are taken out of the main article? Frankly, I think they wouldn't all count even if the split occurred. Obviously this would depend to an extent on the behavior of the hypothetical editor in our hypothetical situation, but I think it's highly likely that topics like "Orion legends" and "Orion in culture" would be seen as subtopics that align with the History case and thus not as fully distinct topics in their own right. In fact, unless there were SIZESPLIT concerns on Orion (mythology), I imagine the articles would get merged back in. (One possible indicator of subtopics that fall into this category is when we have to use descriptive titles to name their articles.)

In short: I get the impression that your argumentation is hinged on the idea that "Orion Nebula" is not a topic that could be a subject of independent encyclopedic interest. However, I don't think that premise is true, nor do I think it was widely supported in the RM. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let's try to sort this out. Thank you for the answers. I have to disappoint you, I do think Orion Nebula is deserving the excyclopedic interest and people did very well how they worked out the current Orion Nebula and Orion (constellation) articles. I do think lots of things gets mixed up, but at the same time, I think you told me what I was interested in.

Your first paragraph has some conclusions I cannot follow. The counter-hyothetical situation, let's recapitulate: 'The difference is, in my hypothetical, the person who read the four astronomy articles was only interested in Orion's belt and just read the other articles as a spinoff from that. Given that you and I only have access to the pageview data after the fact, we have no way of knowing whether the views for the four astronomy articles came from your hypothetical constellation-interested reader or my hypothetical belt-interested reader.' If the 4 articles are read, I said it does not matter where you start. Basically the same thing you said in that latter sentence. In any type of stats, Orion Nebula against the constellation or any other way (bundled, ...) we discussed a person reading all 4 articles in different order counts the same way. Not more, not less. This does not depend on what is primary topic and interest can flow in both directions, nevertheless it counts the same way.

The "force people to click several times to find everything" sentence I wrote was just about my made up splitting of Orion (mythology), which you fortunately confirmed to probably not last long if done. You gave a very nice example with the History of the United States (1917–1945). Let's follow this a bit. I know you only said Orion Nebula is closer to New York City, but it is quite a bit off. So New York City is a quite good analog to Betelgeuse, the star of most interest in the constellation. Orion's belt would be comparable to maybe the Midwestern USA, Orion's Sword maybe the West Coast, then the Orion Nebula could be California, its substructure the Orion Trapezium Cluster could be the Bay Area and the stars in it again Citys there. So the Orion Nebula is a substructure of a substructure. Now I wonder whether you think California (to make ir more equal maybe United States' California) should count against United States of America in a United States primary topic discussion. California might include material that does not fit too well in the United States article, but on the other hand gives excess length and detail and is one of the United States. Orion Nebula is then even different from California, because except maybe its own history of the Nebula, the vast majority of material can be directly included in the Orion (constellation) article. It would make the paragraph about Orion Nebula much better as it mainly better introduces star-formation. This would especially work if you include the material of Orion molecular cloud complex into Orion (constellation), too, as it shows that the Orion Nebula is just the brightest one, there are Nebulas and star-formation all across the constellation, which make it a very valid topic for the constellation. You might argue that not everybody is interest in star-formation, then I would argue not everybody is interested in the United States history in the world war era. I am not arguing this material should be included into Orion (constellation), I just argue Orion Nebula is much closer to the History of the United States (1917-1945) article, then towards New York City. (Would you really make a difference whether the Orion Nebula is called 'Most prominent Nebula in the Orion constellation', 'Orion Nebula' or 'M42'??)

Regarding the 'Why should the coincidence that it was separated decide on which side it is in a statistics?' question, you technically did not answer my question. Because I did not ask, why it was separated, I asked why this should decide on which side of a statistics it is!

But back to the analog you brought up. It seems important that different people understand independently important as a phrase differently. California is a very well deserved independently notable article in the sense, that people just come to see this one and it is of strong importance. Nevertheless it is not a contender for the primary topic of 'United States', nor is it independent from the United States per se. I like that you bring up the difference between New York City and History of the United States (1917-1945). It helps to know you see the difference. But the difficulty seems that neither of them should be put in a statistics against the United States. They are well deserved articles and of individual interest, but they are still a part of the United States. Let's use another example. If we are at the 100 metres at the Olympics and the contenders are Orion (constellation) and Orion (mythology) or e.g. Orion (spacecraft), then Orion Nebula and Orion's belt, as an analog of the legs of Orion (constellation) can be of individual special interest, maybe the strongest legs someone has ever seen. However, the stronger these legs, the faster Orion (constellation) can compete. And the legs cannot and will not win the race, as the parental topic or in the analog the sprinter competes for the Gold Medal, not parts of the person individually. Or imagine in a very hypothetical example Europe decides to create the United States of Europe and someone wants a move United States --> United States of America. Then the United States, now sticking to this analog you brought up, could not compete against itself. Please take a look into these pageviews! United States has less than 50% without Europe anywhere seen. Subregions or structures should not be part of these stats.

I got worried when you wrote 'The case for including Orion Pictures is also analogous to Orion Nebula here.' You might have meant it very differently, but in the analog you gave, Orion Nebula is something like California. Orion Pictures is a company that only has the logo inspired by the constellation (most likely). The best analog I could think of was Liberia, as it has a flag inspired by the USA. You might need to call it United States' founded Liberia to make it more analog, but it is very different from California, not even close. And Orion Pictures is often just called 'Orion', in contrast to the Orion Nebula.

You write 'there was a meaningful contingent in the discussion that felt it (Orion Nebula) was a valid contender for consideration' and 'my read of the discussion was that people regarded Orion Nebula—as a subtopic—as closer to the New York City case than the History case' which might put the opinion of others instead of yours forward, but I am struggling to find this meaningful contingent. I can only find Bkonrad/older and Srnec. Not even Joy seems to comment on Orion Nebula. Please tell me if I missed it, so in total 2. However, 21.Andromedae said this is not correct, then Jruderman and Skynxnex speak about a majority regarding PT1, in contrast to Bkonrad/older and Srnec or directly give the bundled numbers as reference, so use the opposite counting of Orion Nebula than you suggest, counting as a bundle. And there is me. I personally think people were not considering this (the role of Orion Nebula) much at all, or do not necessarily know a lot about it, and they don't have to, also you as closer do not necessarily need to, but after being pointed to it, it being important in the context, it should be considered. 21.Andromedae explicitly answered to Bkonrad with Orion Nebula in the first sentence, so from this point onward it should have been considered. Srnec does not give any reasoning regarding it ... so in total 2 people supported the idea of Orion Nebula being a valid contender and 4 people either rejected it or used numbers that were connected to the opposite idea. Where do you see the contingent?

In short: I get the impression that your argumentation is hinged on the idea that being individual notable and important, automatically means a topic is totally independent of any relations it has to other topics and/or that even anything related is automatically a contender for primary topic if it is worthy and well supported as individually notable article of interest. (Your example History of the United States (1917–1945) is very good, it is individually notable, especially if people want details on that time, but does not exist in an empty space, so is not independent of everything, on the contrary.) As you wrote: 'I don't think that premise is true', nor was it widely supported in the RM. Stevinger (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the latest response, here's a point I particularly want to emphasize: primary topic determinations are, above anything else, about evaluating topics that have the same name. You ask, "Would you really make a difference whether the Orion Nebula is called 'Most prominent Nebula in the Orion constellation', 'Orion Nebula' or 'M42'"; my answer is, absolutely. If everyone agreed that the article should be called "M42", it's highly unlikely that the article would be in consideration for the primary title "Orion", because it wouldn't be a topic primarily known as Orion. This is also why I described Orion Pictures as analogous to Orion Nebula earlier; I'm not thinking at all about what either topic is as a real-world entity, I'm looking at them as words and titles, and they're both noun phrases in the form of "Orion [word describing the kind of entity]".

The above is one of the limitations of my previous United States analogy, admittedly; California (or New York City, etc) wouldn't count against the United States in a primary topic discussion because no one uses the term "United States" to refer to California specifically. I'll also admit that I don't have the kind of subject matter knowledge to be able to really comment on what material in the nebula's article could or couldn't be merged into the constellation article. My underlying point with the analogy was mainly to communicate, the status quo suggests that the nebula is (a) a discrete object called Orion (plus a descriptor) and (b) seems to be an object of academic study and interest in its own right. You characterize my argument as based on the idea that a topic is inherently a contender for the primary topic if it's supported as individually notable; I'd add the caveat that this only applies to same-named topics (as I discuss in the previous paragraph), but otherwise I think that's a fair description of what I think, and I would go as far as to say I believe that's the approach that most titling-focused editors treat as the default.

To address your point about the "meaningful contingent" argument: I deliberately stopped short of using language like "majority", because this is a category that I don't define entirely by numbers. Being one of the largest few factions to advance any single argument in the discussion, and providing a base of evidence that they argued supported their point, was sufficient for me to include that the group's views deserved detailed evaluation. (Regarding Joy, I should also note that—while he didn't mention Orion Nebula in his prose—it was included in the massviews analysis upon which he built his argument.) As for the conclusions I drew from my evaluation, I think I've already discussed them, so I'll avoid repeating myself there. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 03:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the explanations. I asked about 'Most prominent Nebula in the Orion constellation', 'Orion Nebula' or 'M42', because from my point of view this does not make a difference. But now I learned a lot about your point of view. Regarding the meaningful contingent. I will not focus now on this one. I just wanted to write that I found it a bit funny that you mentioned the massviews analysis of Joy. Not that I do not take it serious, but I assume you didn't mean that as major argument, when also Optimus Prime is mentioned, and Orion Nebula is between Sirius Black and Ascension. (Sirius Black btw is mentioned because his father is Orion, in case you care, I was too curious to not check).

So everything you do (you write) is checking for the form of "Orion [word describing the kind of entity]". I see now why Orion Pictures and Orion Nebula were in your same category. Your explanations are all very reasonable, but I think the case of Orion Nebula is not accordingly, specifically regarding 'a topic primarily known as Orion' and 'only applies to same-named topics', which can mean slightly different things in different context. Yes, Orion Nebula includes 'Orion' in its name, but let my try to explain what I mean:

The easy version of the difference between Orion Pictures and Orion Nebula is, that if you show a logo of Orion Pictures and the constellation of Orion printed out and explicitly point at the Nebula and say Orion in both cases, people will know what you mean in the first case, but not exactly in the second one.

Let's use the 100m Olympics analogy again. You are the organizer deciding who is allowed to start in there. In my opinion, starters need to (a) have the requirements/abilities to start and (b) need to have interest to win. In case of Orion Pictures, this company is also known as 'Orion' so fits point (a), and if being primary topic, could nicely use it. In case of Orion Nebula, it is neither known as 'Orion', is a subregion of Orion, so rather the legs of a sprinter, not being able to run alone. Even if you don't care about the subregion fact, in addition if winning Orion Nebula would still need to stay as the 'Orion Nebula' page, so no interest to win. All it can do is hinder Orion (mythology) or Orion (constellation) or others to win.

I think I found what I was looking for. I will send you the previous paragraphs anyway. Let's try it slightly different:

What does an article title need (so also a primary topic article title): Precision according to this page (WP:PRECISION). The page states 'On the other hand, Columbia would not be precise enough to unambiguously identify the Columbia River.' This is a very good analogy for Orion Nebula. The head of this proper name is Nebula. I do see two categories of your "Orion [word describing the kind of entity]" that should lead to different results:

(1) Orion Pictures is a borderline case for me. You might count it either way. However, it is regularly called 'Orion'. The Orion Pictures page is a good example. Already in the second sentence the article switches to calling it 'Orion' and does that in several occasions (while Orion Nebula keeps this wording across the full article). Thus it is closer to the individual contender case for me. Orion Pictures is mononymously known as Orion as you described it discussing Orion Clemens previously.

(2) Now it is getting important. I understood now, that California and New York City are for you fortunately not contenders based on the name. However, still some names remain in the analogy. Please see these page views, they follow the noun phrases "Orion [word describing the kind of entity]". Some have one additional word like 'United States Navy', some several 'United States Declaration of Independence', but are at least all similar. Interestingly these are still enough to push 'United States' below the 50%, without any other contenders! Orion Nebula is in several ways comparable to them. (A) No one would call United States Navy 'United States', no one calls Orion Nebula 'Orion', both are sometimes called the Navy or the Nebula (not mononymously known or primarily known as 'Orion'), (B) Writing Navy (United States) or Nebula (Orion) would not qualify for primary topic United States or Orion, (C) Writing United States (Navy) or Orion (Nebula) makes the identification ambiguous, at least in the latter case, while both United States Navy and Orion Nebula as proper names make the identification unique. In the case of Navy you could e.g. mean the blue color used for the United States (law enforcement, ...), in the case of Orion Nebula you could mean lots of Nebulas in Orion (see e.g. some at the Orion molecular cloud complex page). The horsehead nebula is famous, people probably also like the Witch Head Nebula, (D) finally United States Navy can be seen as descriptive or not, like Navy of the United States, depends what you think. But Orion Nebula was created like that. Please see Fig. 5 by this 19th century author of the Encyclopedia Britannica and the text below, 'A remarkable example is the great nebula in Orion, discovered by Huygens in 1656'. So it used to be 'Great Nebula in Orion'. (you wrote 'highly likely that topics like "Orion legends" and "Orion in culture" would be seen as subtopics that align with the History case and thus not as fully distinct topics in their own right.' and 'One possible indicator of subtopics that fall into this category is when we have to use descriptive titles to name their articles.')

So 'Most prominent Nebula in the Orion constellation' in my first paragraph was a clumsy version of 'Great Nebula in Orion', this is why I did not see a difference to Orion Nebula or M42, that would change the outcome of the stats discussion.

I assume you would not count United States Senate or United States Navy in opposition to United States, despite your category of 'same-named topics' might apply in a way. And I hope you see why I think Orion Nebula is a direct analogy of this. Stevinger (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see where you're coming from with the United States Senate comparison—it's a reasonable argument and I do personally find it fairly compelling. That said, when closing a discussion, I have to go beyond my personal stances and take into account the opinions of all of the participants; and (I apologize if I come off as repeating myself on this point) there were multiple analyses that included "Orion Nebula" among the contenders for the primary title. While a closer does retain the right to discard plainly unsound arguments, it would be inappropriate to do so except in particularly clear-cut cases, and I don't think that regarding "Orion Nebula" as a contender for "Orion" alone is so egregious as to necessitate that step. The threshold isn't "do I think this is the best argument that could possibly be made," it's "do I think this is an argument that could be reasonably made at all."

(This is a possibly irrelevant tangent, but I also wanted to quickly mention that "Orion Nebula" remaining the preferred title for the nebula article wouldn't necessarily preclude it from being the primary topic for "Orion"—we could theoretically have a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation. For example, Obama, Japan could potentially just be called "Obama", but instead that title redirects to Barack Obama, despite the fact that his article will almost certainly never be titled "Obama" alone. Again, probably minimal bearing on our main line of discussion, but I wanted to mention it for reference.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: This is very interesting. I just saw it is the same thing with Einstein. However, there seem to be several levels of how much this fits. The highest for me is people like Madonna or maybe Shakira, known by a single name, that do not even need the redirect. The next one is as you write Obama or Einstein, for which people know the full name, still shorten it. However, in your example Obama is known as Barack or Obama. It would be more comparable to Orion Nebula, if you use his middle name Hussein, and the weird thing is that in the media Barack Obama was very likely more often called Hussein, than Orion Nebula was called Orion. Obama is usually not known as Hussein, Orion Nebula and United States Senate are not known as Orion or United States at all, this is rather using the wrong term. But thank you for the tangent. By the way, my favorite for Barack Obama is O'Bama, as he was called visiting Ireland, since he is also partly of Irish descent.)

I am happy you see my point with the United States Senate there. (Don't worry about repeating things, that happens, especially if fitting). You wrote: ' The threshold isn't "do I think this is the best argument that could possibly be made," it's "do I think this is an argument that could be reasonably made at all."' That is understandable, however, this time I would like to place the ball back in your court with a question:

You told me you would not be sure about whether the material of Orion Nebula can be copied into Orion (constellation), which is totally fine, so I would like to use the analogy of United States Senate and United States Navy for my question, with which you seem to feel more comfortable:

What is a situation/circumstance/case in which United States Senate and United States Navy are used in opposition of 'United States' as an argument that could be reasonably made at all ? You might have thought about a case, since you wrote the sentence like this. I thought about it and can't think of one. Even in the case Europe unites politically in every way as the 'United States of Europe' and challenges the United States title (having more inhabitants e.g.), using the two examples above at the beginning of the paragraph in opposition is not reasonable. I am asking, because if there is no 'argument that could be reasonably made at all' in this case, than in analogy "Orion Nebula" as a contender for "Orion" alone is so egregious as to necessitate the step to discard this argument. Stevinger (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree insofar as I can't see any reasonable argument for treating "United States Senate" as a contender for the primary title "United States"; I think the lasting gap in our opinions is just that I don't see that same principle as necessarily extending to the Orion Nebula. The distinction I see is that entities like nebulae tend to be given unique names that characterize them—for example, the Horsehead Nebula is named just for its appearance, not because it's part of any "Horsehead constellation" or anything. To my eye, this creates a sort of sense of identity around a nebula's name. By contrast, an entity like the United States Senate has a much more utilitarian name; the "United States" portion of the name exists purely to identify the body of which it's a sub-unit, rather than describing any of its traits. It's "a senate belonging to the United States" rather than "a senate called the United States," and I think that's a vital distinction in gauging whether a topic could be validly referred to by its descriptor.

(I think one possible indicator toward which category a title falls in is to examine how naturally an entity could be referred to as just the underlying entity type without the descriptor. To explain what I mean: if someone having a conversation in the United States mentions "the Senate" or "the Navy" without further context, people will likely be able to intuit that the speaker is referring to the United States Senate or United States Navy specifically. The "United States" part of the name easily ceases to be a load-bearing identifying factor. But—while I'm not an astronomer myself and have to be somewhat speculating here—I'm skeptical that people talking about the Orion constellation would refer to the Orion Nebula (or any other nebula in the constellation) as simply "the Nebula." Which is to say, the name of the individual nebula remains core to its identification even in context.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a lasting gap in our view on the Orion Nebula, but fortunately we begin to use the same arguments for different sides of the coin, so I assume we converge somewhere. Also I am relieved you also do not see arguments for treating "United States Senate" as a contender for the primary title "United States".

I also agree with your analysis regarding the Horsehead Nebula. However, I disagree this means all Nebulae are named after some of there (spatial) traits, if you implied that. So you cannot conclude from a property of the Horsehead Nebula on all Nebulae. I am not an expert on Nebulae, but there are at least 3 types regarding the name finding:

1) Nebulae named after their spatial traits, like the Horsehead Nebula, or the Ring Nebula.

2) Nebulae named after people, sometimes the person that discovered it (or in the similar case of the Magellanic clouds named later after the expedition leader, while someone else discovered them. Now the Magellanic clouds are known as galaxies, so are not counted to the Nebulae anymore, but were originally only called "the Large Cloud" and "the Small Cloud"). A search engines says: 'Several nebulae are named after people who discovered or extensively studied them, including Barnard's Loop (named after E. E. Barnard), De Mairan's Nebula (Jean-Jacques d'Ortous de Mairan), Gum Nebula (Colin Stanley Gum), Hubble's Variable Nebula (Edwin Hubble), McNeil's Nebula (Jay McNeil), Minkowski 2-9 (Rudolph Minkowski), Pickering's Triangle (Edward Charles Pickering), and Shapley 1 (Harlow Shapley). Other examples include Fleming 1 (Williamina Fleming), Hind's Variable Nebula (John Russell Hind), Kleinmann–Low Nebula (Douglas Kleinmann and Frank J. Low), Pease 1 (Francis G. Pease), and Westbrook Nebula (William E. Westbrook).'

3) Few exceptional cases which are named after the constellations they are in. Search engine again: 'The Orion Nebula is the most famous nebula visible to the naked eye, appearing as a faint, misty patch below Orion's Belt in the winter sky. For Southern Hemisphere observers, the Carina Nebula is also visible.' The also called Great Carina Nebula mentioned here is another example of a Nebula named after its constellation Carina.

So while 1) is named describing any of its traits, 2) and 3) are not named after traits, and only the few in number 3) are fully analogous to your description about "United States Senate": 'It's "a senate belonging to the United States" rather than "a senate called the United States," and I think that's a vital distinction in gauging whether a topic could be validly referred to by its descriptor.'

(as written before, the Orion Nebula is often given as 'Great Nebula in Orion' in older sources, see e.g. Fig. 5 here. It originated from a descriptive name (Great Nebula in Orion) and the Great was dropped at some point, which seems very utilitarian to me.)

I think you are right on what you write about the "the Senate" or "the Navy" and to intuit that the speaker is referring to the United States Senate or United States Navy specifically. This can be wrong, I checked and currently in the news also the Senate of California or Texas could be meant, depending where the persons are, but you are right. So about 'just the underlying entity type without the descriptor' and whether the descriptor is 'a load-bearing identifying factor': The search engine again says: 'Yes, the Orion Nebula is often referred to simply as "the nebula" by astronomers and the public, especially in the context of the constellation Orion, because it is one of the most prominent and well-known nebulae in the night sky.' and 'Historical Significance: It's been observed for thousands of years and was one of the first nebulae to be studied in detail, contributing to our understanding of star formation.' So your speculation is unfortunately wrong, which might be hopefully totally alright for you. You might ask how this can be and why this one and not others and how it can be observed for thousands of years. Only a very few (less than 10?, I am not sure) of Nebulae can be seen by the unaided eye! The search engine again: 'No, the Orion Nebula (M42) is the only nebula visible to the naked eye in the constellation Orion.' and 'Why only the Orion Nebula? Brightness and Proximity: M42 is the closest and one of the brightest nebulae to Earth, making it visible even with the naked eye. Other Nebulae in the Area: While M42 is a "star factory," other nebulae in the region, such as the Horsehead Nebula and the Running Man Nebula (NGC 1977), are much fainter and require binoculars or a telescope to be seen.' So the Orion Nebula is again an exception, it is "the Nebula" of Orion, or at least was it until the telescope began to be in use. So the "Orion" in its name does not remain core to its identification even in context.

To sum up I am very happy if anybody can and wants to participate in debates, coming from all walks of life. And I am also fine when people write assumptions into their arguments, like the one where Orion Nebula should be situated. Sometimes they fit, sometimes not. But I joined the debate after 21.Andromedae wrote 'Orion Nebula itself is not known just as "Orion", so it does not count.'. True, it could have been a defiant reaction to a good argument, but this was not the case here. And I joined after someone wrote boldly as answer: 'Oppose per Older's evidence and the weakness of the response. ...', seemingly not understanding it or meaning something else. So, everybody should be able to participate, also with assumptions or speculations. But if things are wrong, the wrong assumption, should in my point of view also not be of disadvantage for any primary topic contender. In several occasions you wrote it is fair to put the page views of Orion Nebula in opposition to Orion (constellation). On the contrary, I have to say, that I think the constellation did not get a fair shot in the debate to prove its tentative primary topic title. Indeed Joy was right, that there are others, the long list provided that would need to be evaluated for PT1, but the vast majority of them has about 1% of page views of Orion Nebula and 1 or 2 might have 10%, so it will be hard to press Orion (constellation) below the 50% even including the valid ones, maybe the ones using Orion as nickname, as more or less Orion Pictures is doing it, maybe the Orion nicknamed engine (?) and others ... so from my point of view the constellation has reached the majority in PT1. PT2 was barely properly discussed, I agree with that, but again, the fact that Orion (constellation) is a top-importance constellation on the wiki scale, while Orion (mythology) is mid-importance was barely picked up, I don't think at all. I like greek mythology, too, but when people speak about a very strong (part) deity they are usually referring to Heracles, or rather his more well known Roman name Hercules. I don't remember anyone I know that has compared someone to the strength of Orion in my presence, not even on TV, admittedly I did not read the Odyssey, yet.

So I would appreciate a lot, if you would either move the page (probably not) or if you could change your result to 'no consensus' and adapt the sentence on PT1. Thank you again for your time.

Of course, I am happy to further discuss if you do not see the same result. I am very tired today, hoping my sentences are reasonable, but I did not want to let you wait longer. Stevinger (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the categories of name: I think the (2) case is much closer to the (1) case than the (3), in that nebulae named after a person are still being given a name that's designed to be unique and arbitrary (i.e., as opposed to flowing directly from a hierarchical naming scheme). The (3) case is more of a gray area, and I can certainly see the argument for considering it as analogous to the "United States Senate" case, but personally I would argue that the comparison still doesn't quite hold due to the lack of a one-to-one correspondence. The United States only has one senate (and only one navy, etc.), which I think is another part of why "the Senate" and "the Navy" can be assumed (in the context of a US-based conversation) to refer back to their equivalents. By contrast, Orion has many nebulae, only one of which is referred to as "the Orion Nebula." The fact that this nebula in particular was named as the Orion Nebula is probably at least in part just from its historical circumstances (I'm guessing it was the first nebula in the Orion constellation to be discovered), but the fact that it's continued to be known as the Orion Nebula seems to suggest that it's a nebula with an especially prominent or emblematic connection to the constellation as a whole. (As a side note, I'd like to apologize if any of this is coming off like I'm moving the goalposts. A lot of this discussion has involved me trying to translate my intuitive gut understanding of the topics into words, and as the discussion travels down its various paths, I've been gradually becoming more able to identify and articulate the various features of my mental model. If I seem to be jumping to different argumentative tacks, it's just because the discussion has led me to discover a new salient analytical feature that I'd previously only understood at a subconscious level.)

As a quick tangent, could you clarify where you found the search result you quoted regarding whether the Orion Nebula is referred to as "the nebula"? I tried to look it up myself but wasn't able to track down the source. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the categories of name, it depends a lot what you are looking for. The (2) case is closer to (3) regarding it is not named after (spatial) traits of the nebula (which you emphasized to be of importance), but the (2) case is at the same time closer to (1) regarding the names are not from a hierarchical naming scheme as you write. I would argue in all of them the names are unique in a sense that there is no second nebula of the same name.

You will likely never reach a one-to-one correspondence as it is an analogy, but I am sure you are aware of it. "The Navy" case is more difficult so I will stick first to the "the Senate" case: To my best knowledge what you write is not true. If asking a search engine 'does every state have a senate' it tells me 'No, not every state has a senate, as Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral (one-chamber) legislature. All other 49 states have bicameral (two-chamber) legislatures that include a smaller upper house, known as the Senate, and a larger lower house, typically called the House of Representatives.' So there are at least 50 senates within the United States. In case you are not in Nebraska at the time, you could always mean the State Senate when saying "the Senate"! E.g. the "California State Senate" or the "Texas State Senate" (both currently changing their maps regarding seats, so not that farfetched), ... So the situation regarding "the Senate" or "the Nebula" is again very similar. Both "United States Senate" and "Orion Nebula" are the prominent ones likely meant, while there are dozens of Senates or Nebulae there. (Similar to the difference between the senate, the nebula and a senate, a nebula within their context).

I should have given you the questions, my bad. Please see if you can find what you are looking for: 'is orion nebula referred to as the nebula', 'naked eye nebula', 'nebulae named after people' (all google). Stevinger (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many senates within the United States, but there's only one senate of the United States, with authority pertaining to the whole country—which is what I was trying to get at re: the "one-to-one correspondence" and "hierarchical naming system vs. arbitrary name" points. The United States Senate is named as such because it is the senate whose domain is the United States, just as the Senate of Canada is the senate whose domain is Canada, etc. The name is standardized, such that you can work backwards from the name to understand the name and responsibilities of the entity it describes. Conversely, that can't be assumed precisely for any nebula. The name "Horsehead Nebula" only tells us how the nebula looks, "McNeil's Nebula" only tells us who discovered it, and so on; the naming system is arbitrary rather than systematic, with the result that the name of any given nebula can be read as a unique identifier in a way that doesn't apply to a body like a senate.

Regarding the search results, it would be more helpful to provide the underlying sources that you retrieved rather than just sharing the queries, since search engines often tailor their results based on the geolocation and browsing history of the user searching. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First I have to apologize if any of this is coming off like I'm trying to mock you or the previous comments, this is not how the following is meant. But I am unsure how to show you that I think you are mixing up things, so I will try to show you where the difficulties are by trying to show you the opposite side, by exchanging your sentences to the other side. This may intentionally include errors, but I hope you see where they are and what that means:

-------------

(Yours: 'The United States only has one senate (and only one navy, etc.), which I think is another part of why "the Senate" and "the Navy" can be assumed (in the context of a US-based conversation) to refer back to their equivalents. By contrast, Orion has many nebulae, only one of which is referred to as "the Orion Nebula."') Orion only has one nebula, which I think is another part of why "the Nebula" can be assumed (in the context of Orion oriented conversations) to refer back to its equivalent. By contrast, the United States have many senates, only one of which is referred to as "the United States Senate".

There are many nubulae within Orion, but there's only one nebula of Orion. The Orion Nebula is named as such because it is the nebula whose constellation is Orion, just as the Carina Nebula is the nebula whose constellation is Carina, etc. The name is standardized, such that you can work backwards from the name to understand the name and responsibilities of the entity it describes. Conversely, that can't be assumed precisely for any senate. The name "Florida Senate" only tells us it is the senate of a flowery region, maybe connected to Easter, "Maryland Senate" only tells us it is named after a Mary (After Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of King Charles I of England), and so on; the naming system is arbitrary rather than systematic, with the result that the name of any given senate can be read as a unique identifier in a way that doesn't apply to a space body like a nebula.

--------------

So, the problem is that Senates aren't systematically named either. There are senates, State senates, senates of territories, unicameral legislatures, bicameral senates, a council that has similar duties, so you cannot easily work backwards or know exactly what the responsibilities are. Then there is the naming problem. You are just very well aware which region is a state in the USA and what area is meant. You can be equally aware what region in Orion is named in which way and then the names are not arbitrary, but are natural. Regarding the naming:

A) There are senates that are named after local traits. E.g. mountains (Montana), snow (Nevada), rivers (Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, ...), ...

B) There are senates that are named after people. E.g. Georgia (King George II), Louisiana (King Louis XIV), North Carolina (King Charles I and II), ...

C) There are senates that are named after local traits and people. Pennsylvania ('Penn's woods', after Admiral William Penn)

D) There are senates named after the United States of America (other countries): The United States Senate (e.g. Senate of Canada)

(List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States, List of United States state legislatures)

And the funny thing is, it seems not to matter. Because we were discussing whether the United States Senate can be counted in opposition of the United States as analogy of the Orion Nebula counted in opposition of Orion (constellation). You cannot conclude from other nebulae or other senates, how these two should be counted.

Regarding the search results. I checked out several pages the queries gave me. I could not find contrary material. If you tell me, what you are looking for I might be able to find it again. In the meantime I suggest e.g. the Wikipedia page of Orion Nebula that has 41 times "the nebula" and gives 'Older texts frequently refer to the Orion Nebula as the Great Nebula in Orion'. Also interesting is the result of asking a search engine the question " 'The Nebula' in Orion", which has the answer: ' "The Nebula" in Orion refers to the Orion Nebula (M42), one of the brightest and most studied deep-sky objects, visible as a fuzzy patch in Orion's "sword" below Orion's Belt. It is a stellar nursery located about 1,344 light-years away, where new stars are forming within a complex of gas and dust, illuminated by hot stars at its core known as the Trapezium Cluster. You can spot it with the naked eye under a dark sky, but binoculars or a telescope reveal more detail.'

So Orion Nebula is meeting your three criteria: 1) It's "a nebula belonging to Orion" rather than "a nebula called Orion", 2) It is referred to simply as "the Nebula", and 3) Orion has many nebulae, only one of which is referred to as "the Orion Nebula", as is the case for the senates in the United States. I hope these are the three strikes (please excuse the sports metaphor) that are needed to count Orion Nebula out (of the opposition to Orion (constellation)). Stevinger (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point by having your counterexample dig so heavily into the etymology of geographic names. Yes, all that "Maryland" literally means is that it's a land named after someone called Mary, but we both know—and almost anyone speaking about the Maryland Senate is going to know—that Maryland is the name of a US state, and the reason the Maryland Senate is called the Maryland Senate is because it's the senate whose area of authority is Maryland. This isn't the case for nebulae! The Orion Nebula is not any more a nebula of Orion than, say, the Horsehead Nebula is; it may be larger and more visible but, as you say yourself, it's just one of many nebulae that are equally part of the same constellation. Nor can you consistently work backwards, because the Horsehead Nebula isn't in a "Horsehead constellation". This lack of consistency in the naming structure is exactly the issue I've been highlighting.

As for being known as "the Nebula"—it's significant that I've been capitalizing the term in this usage, because I think it's crucial to distinguish "the Nebula" as a proper name from "the nebula" as a descriptor being used for elegant variation. (To illustrate this distinction by example, the article on the Beatles refers to them as "the band" 82 times, but that doesn't mean that "the band" is a term that refers specifically to the Beatles.) To make a case that the Orion Nebula is known as "the Nebula" as a proper name, I'd want to see not just a lack of explicit rebuttals but reliable sources (not Google overviews) employing that usage affirmatively.

In any case: this discussion could probably keep going indefinitely, but I still believe that—whether one agrees with it or not—it's at least within the range of reasonable interpretations that the Orion Nebula could be included among the topics that are in contention for the "Orion" primary topic. I haven't moved any closer to believing that argument would need to be thrown away wholesale. Accordingly, if what you're looking for is to have my read of the discussion's consensus reanalyzed, I think it would be more productive at this stage to take the question to WP:Move review than to continue debating here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took here and there few minutes to understand why I misunderstood you, and you misunderstood me. It took me quite a few moments to understand, hope you take the few minutes to read it. Indeed I focussed a lot on etymology, because I assumed you meant that, since all other aspects seemed clear, but contrary this was not the case. I spent the time, because I am not just convinced, but sure, that the Orion Nebula as entity is properly defined and there is no wiggle room to find different reasonable interpretations about what it is. I will try to keep it short and productive, but a lot of things were misunderstood.

Let's start with "the Nebula". I am well aware what a elegant variation is and my mistake was to mention the 41 times "the nebula" at all. They were meant as contrast to 'the Great Nebula in Orion', given this way in the Orion Nebula article. This 'the Great Nebula in Orion' means 'Orion Nebula' is called both 'the Great Nebula' and 'the Great Nebula in Orion' among interested persons. But you wanted proper sources, which is difficult. As for United States Senate people do not document that they call it 'The Senate', only for United States Navy at least the song 'in the Navy' exists. For Orion Nebula the first source is NASA, a funny coincidence, some are scientists from Maryland (The Great Nebula in Orion or Orion Nebula). A second source is a video from the Hubble Site. At about 1:24 min Massimo Robberto uses "the Nebula" first time mentioning it. Since you might see this differently, please also see about 4:46 min. The narrator says referring to the Orion Nebula as scientific target as "in the star factory of Orion's Nebula". This is more clear, it is the Nebula of Orion. He did not say 'in this Nebula of Orion' or in 'Orion's Orion Nebula'. These videos are scripted and read afterwards and of quality, so checked. As you see Great Nebula (in Orion), Orion Nebula, the Nebula, and Orion's Nebula are used interchangeably --- but in the end it does not matter in my point of view. Why: Because of your example History of the United States (1917–1945). This part of the History is clearly not a contender, still it is neither known as 'the History', nor as 'the United States', nor as 'the (1917-1945)'. So your criterion, that is met by the Orion Nebula is in my point of view demanding too much.

Regarding the inconsistency of Orion Nebula vs. US Senate. Indeed I missed your point. You are right, that the Orion Nebula is not any more a nebula of Orion than, say, the Horsehead Nebula is, but you are wrong about the inconsistent structure. Let me try to explain. The Orion Nebula is a part of a star-forming region, but it does not span the full Orion constellation region, so not like the United States Senate 'whose domain is the United States'. The corresponding feature of the Orion constellation is the Orion Molecular cloud complex or Orion complex. While the United States Senate is making laws for the domain United States, the Orion complex is forming stars for the domain Orion constellation. Like the United States has State Senates, the Orion constellation has star-forming regions or Nebulae for sub-regions. The sub-regions (I might get it a bit wrong) for the Orion complex towards the Orion Nebula are: Orion complex -- Orion A molecular cloud -- Orion Nebula -- Orion Nebula Cluster -- Huygens region -- Trapezium or Orion Trapezium Cluster (from larger to smaller). Non of these is primarily called 'Orion', you see it nicely at Trapezium also being called Orion Trapezium Cluster, it just tells you the context that it belongs to Orion, only the Orion molecular cloud complex is on the level of United States Senate, being responsible for star formation all across the constellation. The Orion Nebula is just a star-forming sub-region spanning the Orion Nebula, the Horsehead Nebula is a much smaller star-forming region spanning the Horsehead Nebula. You can try to ask a search engine for the coordinates of the Horsehead Nebula as a region, even my request to tell me the 'coordinates of the Horsehead' was enough to get the astronomical coordinates (as people are regularly interested in them). So there is roughly a direct analogy of the following:

A) War of 1812 -- History of the United States (1917–1945) -- History of the United States -- United States (documenting history of a country)

B) Horsehead Nebula -- Orion Nebula -- Orion molecular cloud complex -- Orion (constellation) (star formation in a constellation)

C) Chicago City Council -- California State Senate -- United States Senate -- United States (making laws for a country)

So star formation is the feature of the constellation and the sub-regions are pretty structured, maybe not regarding etymology, why I assumed origininally you meant that. So 'the Orion Nebula' implies people know it is about star formation in a sub-region of Orion. You might argue this is unique because the name Orion Nebula was kept and the star formation is not part of the name, but in this case I would like to refer you to e.g. United States Navy in World War II as article, especially the name. It implies we are talking about the history of the United States Navy, while not part of the name (people know that, like astronomy interested people know about the star formation aspect) and includes the United States Navy, it is further not 'the United States', nor 'the United States Navy', nor 'the World War II' and should in my and hopefully in your opinion not be a contender for any of these primary topics as it is part of its history. -- So yes there is structure, and yes, I do think you shifted in this case and the explanations in the previous paragraph the goalposts too far, which is totally fine, no need to apologize, however, it should only be further applied if correct, which it seems not to be, at least here. By the way, you were fully right about the fact, that Orion Nebula is not on a comparable level as the United States Senate with its full country domain, in this case the analogy does not work.

So, what remains of your criteria is the original one about the United States Senate: 'It's "a senate belonging to the United States" rather than "a senate called the United States," and I think that's a vital distinction in gauging whether a topic could be validly referred to by its descriptor.' I was wondering why you emphasized the 'called United States', but then I realized there are articles like the USS United States. These ships (not unique) belonged to the United States at one point and were called 'the United States'. For the Orion Nebula this is not true. It also belongs to the Orion constellation, but is not called Orion at all. If you have any contrary evidence, anything that supports a reasonable different interpretation of this star forming region within Orion, belonging to it, please bring it forward. Stevinger (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, it seems reasonable that Orion has more commonly 'Orion' in front of sub-regions, since such regions are named top-down as brighter regions are found first, while e.g. cities are named when still small, so bottom-up. Stevinger (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ModernDayTrilobite I would appreciate if you could tell me, whether you will take the 5 minutes to read the provided information. Of course you can do whatever you want. I am asking because the ' I'd want to see' part and the final paragraph made it unclear for me whether you would want to take a look at it or not and the guidelines told me to clarify it with you. Stevinger (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned in my previous comment in the thread, I think this conversation has passed the point where us directly discussing it with each other is likely to lead to useful results. We've both spent hours of our time reading and responding to each other's points, have collectively written over 118 kilobytes of text in this thread, and I don't believe we're any closer to convincing each other than we were two months ago when this conversation began. If you remain interested in contesting this closure, I stand by my recommendation to file a formal move review. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great close :) (and a cookie)

Raladic has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Just saw your close of the discussion at the Dictator RM discussion and just wanted to give you some kudos for your diligent closure of the discussion. And Kudos are always better with cookies :)

While I did the work to collect all the other missing pieces from the DAB page, I do agree that the move was the right outcome and would have done so myself if I hadn't chosen to go digging myself and thus make myself WP:INVOLVED and instead just my comment, which is why I didn't lodge it as an oppose as I still knew that the move was the appropriate outcome at this point in time. I just sometimes love doing a deep source search (and sometimes accidentally adopt some articles). Have a good day :)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Raladic (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Move Review

Thanks for closing the Mario move review. I think you made a typo in the second sentence when you wrote "Interestingly, several proponents of vacating the existing close argued that the result of the MRV..." because I think it's supposed to say RM not MRV. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yes, that is indeed a typo— thank you for catching it! ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 05:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Baumhammers RM closure

I believe there was no objection to Richard Baumhammers shooting spree. I thought we had settled on using that (or something similar). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parakanyaa continued to show opposition to an event-based title even after "Richard Baumhammers shooting spree" was proposed (diff); also, while Cutlass' latest comment didn't explicitly state whether "Richard Baumhammers shooting spree" addressed their concerns, their choice of phrasing—"the perpetrator is worthy of discussion in other ways besides the event"—suggested to me that they still found the biographical title preferable to any event-based title. Thus, even though the opponents of the original proposal seemed more amenable to "Richard Baumhammers shooting spree" than to "2000 Pittsburgh shooting", I didn't get the impression that either of them had swung as far as to be actively in favor of it. For that reason, I felt that the title "Richard Baumhammers shooting spree" hadn't managed to make it across the line of consensus. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate MRV

On Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 July#Gamergate: I think you're right that there isn't a consensus, but maybe a more interesting question is whether this is a situation where it'd be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist", as Wikipedia:Move review#Closing reviews allows. I don't have a firm opinion either way (and ultimately it's left to the closer's discretion), but I was just curious whether you'd considered that option and, if so, how you went about deciding. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did briefly consider relisting, but I ultimately leaned against it for a couple of reasons. I think the core philosophical point that underlay my decision is that, past a certain point, I believe extending an already lengthy and complex discussion begins to have diminishing returns; an already long, vigorous debate is harder to get involved in as either a participant or a closer, creating a risk that—if there's no influx of new editors to enter or close the RM—relisting the discussion would only get us farther away from a resolution of the titling question. Paradoxically, I think letting a discussion remain closed can actually lead to better discussion of the topic in the long term, as—if the same debate reemerges—both sides will have refined their arguments through the previous discussion's back-and-forth and will be able to subsequently present their strongest arguments with minimal "required reading" baggage.

With these ideas in mind, I was reluctant to reopen/relist the RM unless it was clearly one of the most preferred outcomes by the MRV participants—but it didn't seem to pick up significant support. Instead, my read was that even the majority of pro-overturn editors favored overturning directly to no consensus rather than relisting the original discussion. The age of the MRV also caught my eye, as reopening a discussion two months after its closure is undoubtedly a more drastic step than reopening that same discussion when only a week has passed. Reopening a discussion that has been closed for months can be a destabilizing or disruptive event for an article, and it was a solution that attracted only modest traction in the MRV, so ultimately I felt that "no consensus at MRV → the RM closure is allowed to stand" was the route that felt most in keeping with the will of the discussion and the longer-term pursuit of consensus. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's definitely fair. I've always thought it's an interesting rule (one that explicitly gives the closer total leeway and zero guidance), so I enjoy getting a sense of how others think about it. A while back I jotted down a few notes on some of the basic considerations, but a bullet-point list can only capture so much, of course. I tend to use my discretion similarly to what you're describing, but more creative/unintuitive approaches (like this one) can be tempting sometimes too.

Anyways, thanks for indulging me. Your closures are consistently excellent—I'm always glad when I see one pop up on my watchlist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying so! It can definitely feel at times like people only comment on discussion closures when they want to contest them, so it makes me happy to know when they've left a positive impression. :)

I enjoyed the chance to read the essay you linked, as well—it's a good breakdown of the types of considerations that tend to come into play. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think

		The Detective Barnstar
		Thank you for your thorough research and insightful analysis on the Wahhabi war's talkpage.👍🏼TheEagle107 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the "List of animated television series by episode count" page.

Hello, I hope your day is going great so far.

I have a question, do you mind if you move "Earth to Luna!" up behind Winx Club, since Earth to Luna! has 8 seasons and 26 episode? I'm contacting you about this because you were the last person to edit it. I don't know If you mind doing this, you can decline if you want. This page is also semi-protected and I don't have an account with 10 edits. If you accept to do this, thanks! 74.78.27.64 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I took a look at the Earth to Luna article and your suggestion seems correct to me, so I went ahead and implemented it on List of animated television series by episode count.

For future reference, if there's an edit you want to make but you aren't able to take care of it directly, making an edit request on the article's talk page is probably the most reliable way to get the request quickly noticed by other users. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate it, I will do that next time. 74.78.27.64 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. FYI I found your participation via XTools.Czarking0 (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out! My participation in AfD is pretty rare, though, so unfortunately I'm not sure I have enough experience in the area to be able to respond helpfully to the survey. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for D'Angelo

On 16 October 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article D'Angelo, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for closing some of the RM discussions that I had recently opened. I appreciate that you tend to append detailed closing statements. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 18:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]