Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 September

England men's national football team (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I do not think this close is reflective of the consensus, the!votes, the arguments, or the realities. The England men's team is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC, and I have concerns this was a SUPERVOTE.

Men's and women's football are simply not comparable. For example, the women's sport recently had it's first £1 million transfer, see this. The same benchmark in men's football was 46 years ago, and the transfer spending in the Premier League alone this summer was over £3 billion. That shows the stark disparity in the sports.

As for the national teams in question, the 'England' page at BBC is the men's team - the women's team is 'england-women' URL. It's similar at Sky Sports and Telegraph etc. etc. where 'England football team' means 'England men's football team], showing it is PRIMARYTOPIC. The coverage of the men's team far outweighs the women's. It's the clear PRIMARYTOPIC.

We also have 'England' (i.e. men) on Instagram and Twitter etc. etc. The England women's team are different and they have 1.5 million IG followers to the men's 12.5 million.

Even just Googling 'England football team' will bring up hits - almost exclusively - for the men's team. GiantSnowman 10:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment the claim that the men's team isn't the primary topic by the closer and then invoking WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to keep England national football team as a target to the article seems like a contradiction to me. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, makes absolutely zero sense. GiantSnowman 08:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. I'll repeat more or less what I said at the closer's talk page. Firstly, on the numbers alone, I'm still counting 11 in support (including the nominator), plus one oppose vote that said "unless a disambiguation page is formed"... I wouldn't read that as a "support" myself, particularly given that a disambiguation page hasn't been formed thus far. And there were 14 opposers (not counting the caveated one mentioned above), so that's definitely a majority against moving. And that being the case, any close concluding that there's a consensus to move needs to have pretty strong arguments as to why many oppose !votes should be downplayed or discounted per the WP:NOTAVOTE principle. But despite a lengthy summary in the close, I see no policy or guideline based reasons in the close as to why the numbers should be cast aside in this case. At its heart, this is a simple WP:PTOPIC question. Editors assess the article, and those competing for the title, against common usage and long-term significance and decide it this does or doesn't meet the threshold. And the oppose !votes cite clear evidence in terms of page views and WP:COMMONNAME in sources that the men's team does indeed remain primary for this title. Importantly, if there's no consensus, we stay with the status quo, which is having the men's team be primary topic. There is no provision in policy for having a disambiguation page as the "default", so the article should be moved back to its long-term title. Consensus may develop for this move at some point, and I don't feel strongly about it personally – I had the RM on my radar as something I might read and close myself – but it's very clear to me that consensus to move hasn't developed yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I've really struggled with this one because of the vote count, but I completely agree with the closer's argument. My issue is I don't think this is a primary topic/common name issue - over 90% of national sports teams on this site use the naming convention {country} {gender} national {sports} team, and a quick check shows the official name of the team is now the England men's senior national football team. The closer is correct that there needs to be a showing that the phrase "England national football team" is a "strong" primary topic, and since that wasn't really argued in the discussion, I'd actually support starting an additional move request back to "England national football team" pointing to this move review, and specifically requesting comment on whether that is a strong enough primary topic that it can override our site-wide title consistency for sports teams. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  (Also note the 90% is an estimate. All basketball teams, field hockey teams, handball teams, ice hockey teams, volleyball teams, gymnastics teams, softball teams, la crosse teams, American football/Aussie rules football teams, and water polo teams use this naming convention, while rugby, cricket, baseball, and football don't.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  @SportingFlyer: respectfully, your argument here seems to be effectively relitigating the arguments of the RM, giving reasons why you might have supported the move. But this is not the forum for that, the RM itself and the discussion that went on there is the place to have grappled with such arguments. The close of the RM, and indeed our job as analysers of that close, is simply to summarise and assess the arguments made by those who participated, not to insert our own views on the matter, because ultimately your view and the closer's view are not more "valid" than those in the discussion. Now of course there may be times when the arguments made in the RM are unambiguously and clearly not grounded in policy or guideline, such that they're downweighted, but that is far from the case here. The opposition argument that the men's team remains the primary topic by usage and significance was strongly made with evidence – page view and sourcing evidence – and those giving that version outnumbered those who supported the move, with reasons similar to those you outline above. Consistency might be a valid argument, as is the fact that there's a trend towards inserting "men's", but that view didn't carry the floor on the discussion and there is simply no way that an impartial closer could have come to the conclusion that there was a consensus to move. If the numbers had been more clearly in favour of the move then I would be taking a different view on this, and you should like me be respecting the discussion that took place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: Respectfully, I'm not trying to re-litigate the RM at all, but instead am trying to look at the policies involved, as you have. The problem with move reviews is unlike DRV, the criteria are more of a sliding scale which allows for more opinion to take place and lends this more to straight vote counting because it's harder to discard votes, even in situations such as this where primary topic and common name arguments seem a bit confused. You have counted votes when reviewing the close, I have looked to what the rule is. Based on the closer, I agree the rule that should be applied for national sports teams should be to follow convention unless there is a strong reason to do so otherwise. Since that wasn't explicitly in the discussion, it needs further discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but you clearly are relitigating it. You're inserting your own view on the matter in lieu of a close and I'm not going to let that slide. Your argument appeals to WP:CONSISTENCY, which is only one of the myriad article titling criteria, and not even especially compelling in this case given that (as stated in the RM) almost all other teams in Europe are similarly named. And anyway, consistency is not the only game in town. The opposition commenters appealed to the primary topic criteria and the common name which is also clearly valid and demonstrated through page views and sourcing. Your insistence that only your view (and that of the closer) is a valid one is frankly rather insulting to those who participated in the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  You're also re-litigating it, though! You're defining it as a simple PTOPIC issue. The closer found this was factually undermined. I agree with that, in part because of consistency reasons, and would have closed in the same way. SportingFlyer T·C 14:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• (Involved) Not a comment one way or the other on consensus, but the examples of primary topic-ness raised by the opener here are not strong. Amount of transfer money and URL slugs (!) are tangential to whether the men are much more likely than any other single topic ... to be the topic sought [by] a reader (WP:PT1). BBC, Telegraph, etc. commonly refer to both teams as "England". And @England is not for just the men – its last six Instagram posts are centered on women – but one shouldn't make the similarly weak argument that this means they are primary as the more successful team. Might be worth keeping the men at the new title to assess pageviews over some months. (Also, I imagine move supporters mean the ungendered title to be a disambiguation page, as the closer correctly notes.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to Not Moved, although I disagree with the community and would have voted to Move if I had voted:
  • The closer didn't make a closing statement assessing consensus. The closer made a voting statement, which was a supervote.
  • My count is 9 Support votes and 16 Oppose votes. I think that my count is off, but I see that the community opposed the move. The closer doesn't address the issue that their close is contrary to a vote count, because their close doesn't address the opinions of the community so much as their own opinions.
  • Like SportingFlyer, I agree with the closer's arguments, but they aren't the community's arguments.
  • In my country, the women's national team gets more coverage than the men's national team. That is because the women's team really is a better team than the men's team. That is because the best male athletes don't play association football. We aren't talking about my country.
  • The community opposed the move, and the close should recognize that the community opposed the move. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus I saw this RM but didn't participate as I was on the fence. However, it was fairly clearly a no consensus outcome and the close was not reflective of the discussion and should be overturned. Number 57 20:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Overturn (involved) The closure is very clearly not reflective of the discussion and consensus. MB2437 16:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to Not Moved – The closing statement doesn't read as an analysis of the discussion in its entirety, but rather seems to give undue weight to arguments which could easily be refuted. For example:
  1. ...the men's and women's teams do now change places as to which is of primary interest to readers depending on current events – This should absolutely indicate that WP:RECENTISM comes in to play, so a deeper analysis is required to determine if one is the PRIMARYTOPIC; multiple oppose !votes pointed out that the men's team article receives several times more page views than the women's team article, and the initial support vote even admitted that the women's team page views had recently spiked most likely due to the UEFA Women's Euro 2025.
  2. Opinion was almost evenly divided... completely ignores the 16–10 count in Oppose–Support !votes. The second support was indented and not bolded. I missed it in my initial count, so I can see how Robert McClenon did not include it above. I know these discussions are NOTAVOTE, but that is 61.5%–38.5%; one would be very hard-pressed to agree that was "evenly divided."
  3. ...given that most of the arguments against were based on the men's team being the primary topic, and that this was factually undermined... How was this undermined? If anything, this was supported! Spike 'em presented evidence that the men's team article is viewed far more often than the women's team article. There are five spikes in that chart – three for the men (including the first data point) and two for the women. The men's spikes directly correlate to the UEFA Euro 2020, 2022 FIFA World Cup, and UEFA Euro 2024, and the women's spikes directly correlate to the UEFA Women's Euro 2022 and the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. Disregarding the spikes in views to avoid RECENTISM still leads to the obvious conclusion that the men's team is the PRIMARYTOPIC.

I also feel that the closer was injecting their own biases rather than merely assessing the discussion, thus turning the close into a WP:SUPERVOTE. It should have been clear that the majority of the community opposed the move, and there was also empirical evidence that supported the oppose !votes.

It is unfortunate that WP:NCST only addresses professional teams and not national representative teams. Perhaps there should be a discussion at WT:NCST to update that guideline or at WT:FOOTY to create a guideline specific to association football, though that decision is outside the scope of this move review. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn I believe both of the clauses in this statement are wrong Opinion was almost evenly divided, but given that most of the arguments against were based on the men's team being the primary topic, and that this was factually undermined. The rest of the close seems to be a SUPERVOTE. Spike 'em (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  As per the figures linked above by Jkudlick, over a 4 year cycle (I'd exclude the first month as it is including a delayed men's Euro 2020) the men's article has almost 4 times the total views and is only exceeded by the women's article in 2 months out of 47. Spike 'em (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hakereteke stream (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I don't believe a no consensus close is a correct reading of the discussion here. In discussion with Tenshi he said 'I find that they have valid arguments about Hakereteke Stream being the WP:COMMONNAME' but neither of the two opposers mentioned common name in their rationale with one even stating that 'We should not be concerned by the common name as of today' implying he agreed that the common name of the stream is Kerosene creek. The opposers arguments were mainly around recentism or the idea that the name Kerosene creek has not had long-term usage, but this was shown to be false. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. This article was created as a stub on 30 May titled Kerosene Creek, with 5 refs all using "Kerosene Creek". Within 24 hours it was substantially expanded and then moved without discussion by another editor who added some refs that use "Hakereteke Stream" (note capital S) or both names. If there really is no consensus -- not an unreasonable reading of the discussion -- then the article probably should have been moved back to the title it originally had prior to the undiscussed move. For the article to remain at Hakereteke stream, there should be consensus for that title. So either way, to close the discussion as simply "no consensus" without a move or further explanation, was not a good way to leave things. Station1 (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse partially. No consensus is not an unreasonable outcome in this case. Our closing instructions guide us: if no consensus has been reached, (and the current title is not the stable title,) the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. It would appear that the undiscussed move must be reverted, and the title should once again be "Kerosene Creek", unless I've missed something. I personally see consensus to move in this request. So if I had closed it, I would have renamed the article. And I think this closure was in line with our closing instructions, so changing to full endorsement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC); edited 04:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse This is a really difficult one, because there is no stable title - the name was changed one day after the article was created and so the new name was stable. The move request is also slightly confused, as the ngrams name used in the move request was slightly misspelled, so it's difficult to know what was searched for, but both Hakareteke and Hakereteke bring up a number of results, with Hakereteke being the name of the stream as used on topographic maps (not bringing any opinion into the discussion here, was just trying to confirm the correct spelling.) All in all, I do not see a consensus to revert the move based on that discussion, and since the current name is the more stable version, it doesn't make sense to revert. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse the closure in accordance with RMCI, however, I do think that given the "mess of an RM" (as already documented above by Sporting & Station) that a better explanation on the closure was warranted. While uninvolved in the RM discussion, I became aware of this when Traumnovelle brought the discussion to the closers talk page (TPS): Tenshi twice refused to change their closure (but did redirect to move review), I also suggested that he bring the discussion here. Honestly if instead of a requested move, the nom (Piperium) went for a RMTR to revert an undiscussed move it probably would have been performed. But as it stands now, I think technically that would no longer work, so a full discussion again should probably be re-opened. I will reserve my position on such a !vote as it is not relevant to this discussion. TiggerJay (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - Sometimes there really is no consensus, which is unsatisfying, but the closer is simply recognizing the absence of consensus. No Consensus closes are likely to end up at MR or DRV, but this is a case of no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Overturn (revert the close) for someone experienced to redo. It was an incompetent close, and inadequate explanation the closer did not improve their explanation on being asked. NAC-ers who can’t explain should revert their close, not send people to MRV.

If the close is “no consensus”, the bold page move of 31 May should be reverted, status quo ante applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Non-admins close move reviews all the time. Considering the page was created on 30 May and moved one day after, it's difficult to argue the status quo is the title the article was created at. SportingFlyer T·C 21:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

No respected closer would make that close, let alone then rebuff the request for an explanation. “I don’t see a consensus” is not an explanation.

The frequency of non-admin closes is irrelevant to the fact that this one is bad. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). I see a lot of assertions about what the common name is, but not a lot of evidence to back it up. Station's point here that the article had previously been moved was also not raised in the discussion below. Yes, the closer's explanation of their close on their talk page could've been better, but the no consensus call seems reasonable enough. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  The point that the article had been previously moved was first brought up by Traumnovelle in the RM discussion. Station1 (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)