Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 October: Difference between revisions

 

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:mrv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|rm_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|rm_section=<SECTION>|reason=<REASON>}}~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~ -->

 

:{{MRV links|Norleucine|rm_page={{#if:|{{{rm_page}}}|{{TALKPAGENAME:Norleucine}}}}|rm_section=Requested move}}

I think there are a number of problems with this decision not to move Norleucine, boiling down mainly to a Wikipedia policy that is either being misapplied here, or perhaps, doesn't apply. Scientists have gotten together to decide how to systematically name compounds. Having done so, they have specifically recognized that commonly used names should be retained where appropriate. Thus, the 20 common amino acids as one example, retain their naming in practice. Scientists have, in the case of amino acids, defined the term nor as a prefix for a common amino acid name indicating that the nor version is one methylene group shorter than the normal version of the amino acid. Unfortunately, norleucine and norvaline, two previously used terms, now become misnomers. The scientists were certainly aware of this at the time. If they had wanted to make an exception for these compounds, they would have. They didn't. I was the only argument for moving the article, a number of others weighed in to the contrary. As best as I can tell, most of their arguments against were "just because". The only argument that seemed to hold any sway with the editor who rejected the move request was the idea that one can search google scholar, count the scientific articles that still use norleucine, and use this as a proxy for how "common" that term is. Unfortunately, this argument, made by someone claming to teach chemistry, I believe, is entirely specious. This contributor no doubt took as motivation, recent efforts to roughly quantify the "consensus" around global warming by counting articles published confirming the phenomena, and those contesting it. Of course, in that case, one is counting articles that even by their titles, can instantly be seen to be landing on one side of an argument or the other. In addition, these articles are each directly addressing the argument being measured by this proxy. None of the articles using norleucine is discussing the topic norleucine. None of them are addressing the naming convention. They are merely articles about experiments where the compound was used for some purpose. Counting these articles as though they are in support of or against using the term, would be the equivalent of counting all articles using the term climate change and deciding that since they outnumber those using the term global warming that climate change is the more appropriate term. This of course is pseudo-scientific reasoning, as there is no reason to believe any of these articles are intending to address the issue of what to name climate disruption. Ooops...I created another. See how easy that is? As I pointed out repeatedly, apparently to deaf ears, norleucine as a term can only find its way into peer reviewed articles solely by mistake. If the issue is noticed and addressed in review, the term would have to be changed to the systematic name. Thus, the use of norleucine is not, in any way, an effort to maintain the use of a preferred common name. It is not in any way a conscious choice by anyone to use that name in preference to the systematic name. Nobody searching norleucine will be in any way disrupted. They will land on the same page and see "redirected from norleucine". Why the histrionics then? Go read some of what stands for argument on the talk page. Either the substance of the argument matters, or sheer numbers do. When I addressed this with the editor who closed it, they all but admitted that a weight of numbers puts a higher burden on me. In other words, the argument doesn't matter. As long as you are well outnumbered, and nobody else cares enough to weigh in on your side, you will almost always lose. Good luck improving wikipedia with that attitude. If you question my arguments, by all means, email the editors of a few prominent biochemistry journals and ask them if an author would be allowed to keep using norleucine if the appropriate naming convention was pointed out during the review process (I provided the appropriate reference source to the rule in the original debate). If they say yes, then wiki can keep to its rigid, immovable bureaucracy, I will go away and weep for science. I certainly won't waste any more of my time trying to improve this site knowing that the substance of an argument will almost always take a back seat to a community of like minded nitpickers and contrarians with transparent feelings of ownership over this site guiding their behavior. Life is too short to spend hour upon hour arguing minutae with people who have no intention of ever being swayed by any argument.

*'''Endorse'''. I opposed at the RM. The IP may be right, but arguments cross the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] line. This amino acid is called by this name, and if it was called wrong, [[secondary sources]] supporting that need to be provided. This is not a website for correcting the real world. Wikipedia reproduces what is reported in the real world. Someone in the real world publishing a criticism of of a misnaming would be very interesting. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 04:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

*'''Let Norleucine stand'''. The term norleucine appears in the titles or abstracts of about 100 publication since 2013, per a search of Chemical Abstracts today. It is mentioned in 194 publications in this time frame. End of story. The second sentence of [[norleucine]] gives a completely normal (unused though) name. If this editor is so wound up by this pin prick, then it is just as well that they are not contributing content. --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 14:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

:{{MRV links|Sex Tape (film)|rm_page={{#if:Talk:Sex Tape (film)|Talk:Sex Tape (film)|{{TALKPAGENAME:Sex Tape (film)}}}}|rm_section=Requested move}}

*'''Comment from closer'''. First, I wouldn't mind at all if this were overturned, but you could have asked me about this beforehand. Anyway, there were several reasons I closed this request the way I did. First, as I noted, I did not read clear consensus in the discussion. I do not think this was a "4-1" !vote as you suggest. Three editors total mentioned [[WP:DIFFCAPS]] as a reason to support, one of whom did so despite explicitly not being happy with DIFFCAPS. One editor outright opposed the move on similar grounds, although this was not a strong argument in light of the divergence from [[WP:DIFFCAPS]]. Another editor effectively opposed the move by opposing the removal of "(film)." And as far as I could tell, the IP editor's comment did not directly have any relevance to the discussion. Finally, the move request was open for over a month and was the oldest one on the [[WP:RM]] page. If it was a cut-and-dried case of consensus, it would have been closed a long time ago. This was another indication to me that there was "no clear consensus," which is how I closed the request. It's not a way I normally write closes; I normally choose among "consensus to move," "no consensus to move," and "consensus not to move." But I felt it was appropriate in this case, and I'm not sure move review is a better option than simply waiting for consensus to change. I'm certainly open to advice on how I could have done better here, for future reference. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

::(I'm fine with [[WP:DIFFCAPS]], and I'm scared of closing quite a few discussions in the RM backlog for fear that they will all end up on move review no matter how they are closed. I have a feeling that's why there are still discussions from early September there. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 02:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC) )

* '''Endorse''' – there was no consensus to move and there's no consensus to interpret [[WP:DIFFCAPS]] as saying that differentiating titles by caps alone is a good idea; that section specifically says that doing so is "heavily debated". The current disambiguated title is not violating policy as some would have us believe. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 

:{{MRV links|Chitram Bhalare Vichitram|rm_page={{#if:|{{{rm_page}}}|{{TALKPAGENAME:Chitram Bhalare Vichitram}}}}|rm_section=Requested move}}

I contacted the consensus administrator; he did not quickly respond. To make matters difficult, he is semi-active. Therefore, I've decided to have this discussion reviewed. I voted "oppose" assuming the topic is a person. However, I realize that it is a film, so I want to change my vote to "support" adding exclamation points (!) into the title. I am favoring a relist as soon as possible by someone else more active (not semi-active).[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 16:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

*'''Endorse'''. Nothing wrong with the close. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

*'''Endorse'''. Close was fine. [[User:Calidum|<span style="color:#002244; font-family:serif">'''-- ''Calidum'''''</span>]] 02:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)