User talk:Estar8806

It is 4:55 PM where this user lives. ⁽⁾

Big Ben

I'd appreciate it if you could re-open the discusion at Talk:Big Ben, as a WP:SNOW seems premature for a discussion which has only been open for twelve hours. It is possible that other editors may support the move – there hasn't been a recent move request from which to judge general the baseline support or opposition. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope - There was unanimous opposition to your proposal, arguing that WP:COMMONNAME favored the current title, as do 4/5 of the WP:CRITERIA. There was also already a significant presence in the discussion, even if it was only open for 12 hours, all of whom opposed your proposal on the grounds I've already mentioned. Even if a handful of editors came in later on, a closer would have to judge the policies behind the !support side and the !oppose side, and there's simply not a snowball's chance in hell that a consensus could or would form to ignore 4/5 of the criteria and the common name. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the proposals explain how WP:COMMONNAME was not met by the proposed title. You have also misunderstood the proposal, as it does not call on editors to ignore four of the five WP:CRITERIA; I believe the proposed name meets all five, which is why I opened the move request.

Again, I think your closure is premature and ask that you re-open the discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope The very first sentence of your nomination statement was The current title is recognisable, natural, concise, and arguably consistent, but not precise- you openly acknowledged that the current title satisfies 4/5 of the criteria, and then made no further reference to anything other than precision in your nomination. As for those who opposed on the grounds of commonname, it's incredibly obvious that they grounds to stand on. [1] estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, because I think that the lack of precision in the current title causes considerable problems in the article and that the move would solve this. My argument is based on the precision of the title.

COMMONNAME does not state that the most popular name must be used in all cases. It states that 'ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.' I believe that the current name of the article is ambiguous. None of the opposing arguments based on COMMONNAME addressed this point. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope You are free to believe that the current name is ambiguous, but there was clear consensus in disagreement with that.

I think you may also be misunderstanding what "ambiguous" means for this purpose: the note attached to that word reads as follows: Ambiguity as used here is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, "heart attack" is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction. In a nutshell Big Ben, would have to be ambiguous with something listed at Big Ben (disambiguation), not something within the article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're misunderstanding what 'ambiguous' means in this context. It isn't related to disambiguation, but to whether the term is ambiguous at all. In this case, 'Big Ben' is ambiguous because it is the nickname of the Elizabeth Tower, the Great Clock within it, and the Great Bell which is part of the striking mechanism of the Great Clock, all of which are covered by the article in question.

I also think you're treating the discussion as a vote. While there were seven 'oppose' votes, six gave 'COMMONNAME' as a reason with no further explanation. That is a weak argument. The seventh vote seems to have misunderstood the point I was making. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope - I'm quite frankly treating this as the farthest thing from a vote. COMMONNAME is a fundamental part of our article titling policy and quite the opposite of a "weak argument". COMMONNAME is also quite simple to understand as an argument (something either is or isn't the commonname), and therefore requires little to no further explanation. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that COMMONNAME 'requires little to no further explanation'. When making a policy-based argument for or against a move editors should explain how a policy relates specifically to the move, unless they agree with another editor and are happy to endorse their position.

In this case, you've closed the move because six editors cited 'COMMONNAME' without explaining why the policy supported retaining the current title of the article. I don't think that's a good enough reason, and I'm minded to request a move review. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope All participants contributed policy-based comments in opposition to your proposal. I closed this discussion because there was a clear consensus that your proposed name would be less common, concise, recognizable, and natural than the current title. With that in mind, there was no chance that an argument solely based on precision could overcome that, and so there was no need to run it through the entire process. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. I'm going to request a move review. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think it's important to say that, although we disagree about how this move was closed, I do not see this as personal. I know Wikipedia stuff can feel personal, which is why I'm saying this, but it's just a policy disagreement. I think we've worked together in the past, in fact? Anyway, it seemed worth mentioning. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @A.D.Hope Of course it’s not personal! Like you said just a policy disagreement. Absolutely no hard feelings whatsoever!! estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh I'm glad about that. Maybe it's over the top, but as it can be difficult to gauge someone's tone through text I think it's worth saying! A.D.Hope (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:GAMENAME

I would like to request that you strike the following language from your comment of the RM that you closed, "Clearly a WP:GAMENAME effort.", there was no intention on my part to "game" the "name" and all three aspect of GAMENAME do not apply. If I am wrong about the WP:COMMONNAME aspect, so be it, but no WP:GAMENAME took place and to accuse of such a practice seems to give the appearance of bad faith. I appreciate you looking at this. Talk:Gun_show_loophole#Requested_move_2_November_2024 Iljhgtn (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if "General practice is to give about 3 months or so between RMs" is the "general practice", I felt there was clear reason for immediately submitting a new RM with an entirely new name. I do not need to belabor those points here again, but the "WP:GAMENAME" accusation still oozes of a bad faith accusation that I would like to account for. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn - I've reworded but I won't completely remove the mention as it was raised in the discussion. Accusations that aren't necessarily true aren't always bad faith. And while I understand that GAMENAME may not have been your intent, I have to agree that the second discussion looked like a clear game name effort. As we discussed previously, the new name wasn't entirely new: it was quite literally a textbook example of GAMENAME, again if even that wasn't your intent. estar8806 (talk) ★ 05:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(Allegations of )United States support for the Khmer Rouge

Hello,

You closed this requested-move discussion Requested move 7 August 2023.

You said "there is no apparent consensus here" and "Both sides presented strong cases" but I see a consensus here to which little but one editor disagreed.

He accuses the rest of the editors of POV pushing while saying "The article does recite allegations, that are disputed as seen in the article-content.". However multiple statements in the article are factual and undisputed and correspond to US support of the Khmer Rouge, quoted here:

1) U.S. voted for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer Rouge-dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) to retain Cambodia's United Nations (UN) seat until as late as 1993, long after the Khmer Rouge had been mostly deposed by Vietnam. = diplomatic US support

2) I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot, said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could. = diplomatic US support has admitted by a member of the then US government (quoted from the NYTimes source of ref 20)

I will not even go on investigate the claims of political scholars quoted in the wiki article since this much is already tantamount to US support.

Point is: his argument is by every mean a fallacy, not a strong case.

I fail to see in his "Oppose" statement anything akin to a strong case.

Since "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity" and that editors have overwhelming voiced in favor of the requested move for many years (see section Move 2015, I'd say the page move should be done. Thanks. NokGradten (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@NokGradten - I see you’ve already opened a new move request. That would be the appropriate course of action to allow it to be rediscussed. In the future, I would strongly suggest you give editors at least a few hours to respond before taking action. Cheers! estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Move review for Big Ben

An editor has asked for a Move review of Big Ben. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)