|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
10 to 4 is a pretty big ratio to NOTAVOTE override for nearly anything, but in this case the closer overrode discussion that largely focused on
WP:NOYEAR, which is noted in the guideline to actually be a judgement call (aka a vote). Closer also cited WP:TOOSOON (a notability essay unrelated to article titles) and a personal standard of
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Bit of a weird one, this, as the decision to move the page away from Impact Wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was undoubtedly correct – I don't see a single person in opposition to the move – but nearly everybody in the discussion preferred Total Nonstop Action Wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to TNA Wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The closer is strangely reticent to revisit the closure and has suggested another RM, but I think MRV is the better venue for this. Sceptre ( talk) 04:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
That in itself I found odd, since after a month such a finding should have resulted in closure. I was astounded when, 6 days after such a finding, Vanderwaalforces closed the move as "no consensus". The explanation left me even more perplexed: Vanderwaalforces now found that "the convention", which (as noted in the discussion) was rejected in an RfC two months ago, "countered" the WP:Article title policy and present naming convention. They also referred to the dissatisfaction of the opposers with the RfC result, among other dubious arguments. Moreover, the closer's talk page and archive appear to be littered with complaints about their closures, with four such sections there now, including a case of participating in a move request after relisting it ( WP:SUPERVOTE). Surtsicna ( talk) 21:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, the discussion was closed as "no consensus", when a "not moved" outcome seems correct, given that the proposed move saw no support from anyone other than the OP. User:Aviram7 was contacted on his/her talkpage, responded rather cryptically, and then deleted the thread. See discussion at Special:Permalink/1195854060#Talk:Nicholas Fisk (author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162 etc. ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Even more lopsided than above. Move was very heavily opposed (8 against move, 3 for it). Closer User:Bensci54 initially (and correctly IMO) closed it as "No consensus" to move diff. Then Surtscina went to closer's protest on his page citing that the newly-modified NCROY guidelines out-trumps all opposition expressed in the RM. After citing RCMI instructions, then Bensci54 reversed himself and moved page. I pointed out that there was strong opposition and WP:IAR is also policy. Moreover, the closer misread the RCMI instructions in overriding the opposition: "unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." Notice that it doesn't say it should be closed and moved. The closer agreed with me, but was reluctant to reverse himself again and change it for a second time, and asked that it brought here to move review. So I am here. There was clearly was no consensus to move this page, and ask that be overturned. Walrasiad ( talk) 23:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I move this page from Saint Francis University to current title but Naraht rejected the page move based on importance. His evidence is "Given the difference in the number of Links in mainspace to Saint Francis University and Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) (almost 500) vs. the number to Caritas Institute of Higher Education (about 110). The one in Pennsylvania *is* the Primary topic. As such it should remain at Saint Francis University and once the Caritas Institute gets renamed it should get a disambiguation term like Saint Francis University (Hong Kong)." (copied from User talk:Leeyc0). I have no rejection, but the page has extra edit histories (by another user) after the move (therefore cannot be undone). Therefore I request a review and ask for community consensus, and ask for administrator to revert the move if the consensus is keep this page at "Saint Francis University". -- Leeyc0 (Talk) 23:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was a multi-page move, proposing to remove the term "Grand Duke of Tuscany" and other peer titles from a series of articles (e.g. move "Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany" to simply "Cosimo III de' Medici", etc.) Five editors objected, some strongly (including myself). Four supported, one semi-supported. The closer nonetheless claimed he found "a consensus to move". Naturally, given the majority against it, this surprises me. I am perplexed how this "consensus to move" was discovered. I asked the closer
User:EggRoll97, for clarification and he specifically said he relied on two policies. He said the policy cited in against the move (
WP:NCPEER) only applied to British dukes, and not Italian dukes. But this is clearly contradicted in the policy page (" I presented this to the closer, but he insisted he somehow found a "consensus to move" regardless. Frankly this seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I would like the move reviewed. Given that the move has contested in majority, and vigorously so, it would have meant at the very least "no consensus", and by RM criteria would have left the pages where they are (i.e. where they have been stable for the past 15 years.) Walrasiad ( talk) 08:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
10 to 4 is a pretty big ratio to NOTAVOTE override for nearly anything, but in this case the closer overrode discussion that largely focused on
WP:NOYEAR, which is noted in the guideline to actually be a judgement call (aka a vote). Closer also cited WP:TOOSOON (a notability essay unrelated to article titles) and a personal standard of
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Bit of a weird one, this, as the decision to move the page away from Impact Wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was undoubtedly correct – I don't see a single person in opposition to the move – but nearly everybody in the discussion preferred Total Nonstop Action Wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to TNA Wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The closer is strangely reticent to revisit the closure and has suggested another RM, but I think MRV is the better venue for this. Sceptre ( talk) 04:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
That in itself I found odd, since after a month such a finding should have resulted in closure. I was astounded when, 6 days after such a finding, Vanderwaalforces closed the move as "no consensus". The explanation left me even more perplexed: Vanderwaalforces now found that "the convention", which (as noted in the discussion) was rejected in an RfC two months ago, "countered" the WP:Article title policy and present naming convention. They also referred to the dissatisfaction of the opposers with the RfC result, among other dubious arguments. Moreover, the closer's talk page and archive appear to be littered with complaints about their closures, with four such sections there now, including a case of participating in a move request after relisting it ( WP:SUPERVOTE). Surtsicna ( talk) 21:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, the discussion was closed as "no consensus", when a "not moved" outcome seems correct, given that the proposed move saw no support from anyone other than the OP. User:Aviram7 was contacted on his/her talkpage, responded rather cryptically, and then deleted the thread. See discussion at Special:Permalink/1195854060#Talk:Nicholas Fisk (author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162 etc. ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Even more lopsided than above. Move was very heavily opposed (8 against move, 3 for it). Closer User:Bensci54 initially (and correctly IMO) closed it as "No consensus" to move diff. Then Surtscina went to closer's protest on his page citing that the newly-modified NCROY guidelines out-trumps all opposition expressed in the RM. After citing RCMI instructions, then Bensci54 reversed himself and moved page. I pointed out that there was strong opposition and WP:IAR is also policy. Moreover, the closer misread the RCMI instructions in overriding the opposition: "unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." Notice that it doesn't say it should be closed and moved. The closer agreed with me, but was reluctant to reverse himself again and change it for a second time, and asked that it brought here to move review. So I am here. There was clearly was no consensus to move this page, and ask that be overturned. Walrasiad ( talk) 23:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I move this page from Saint Francis University to current title but Naraht rejected the page move based on importance. His evidence is "Given the difference in the number of Links in mainspace to Saint Francis University and Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) (almost 500) vs. the number to Caritas Institute of Higher Education (about 110). The one in Pennsylvania *is* the Primary topic. As such it should remain at Saint Francis University and once the Caritas Institute gets renamed it should get a disambiguation term like Saint Francis University (Hong Kong)." (copied from User talk:Leeyc0). I have no rejection, but the page has extra edit histories (by another user) after the move (therefore cannot be undone). Therefore I request a review and ask for community consensus, and ask for administrator to revert the move if the consensus is keep this page at "Saint Francis University". -- Leeyc0 (Talk) 23:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was a multi-page move, proposing to remove the term "Grand Duke of Tuscany" and other peer titles from a series of articles (e.g. move "Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany" to simply "Cosimo III de' Medici", etc.) Five editors objected, some strongly (including myself). Four supported, one semi-supported. The closer nonetheless claimed he found "a consensus to move". Naturally, given the majority against it, this surprises me. I am perplexed how this "consensus to move" was discovered. I asked the closer
User:EggRoll97, for clarification and he specifically said he relied on two policies. He said the policy cited in against the move (
WP:NCPEER) only applied to British dukes, and not Italian dukes. But this is clearly contradicted in the policy page (" I presented this to the closer, but he insisted he somehow found a "consensus to move" regardless. Frankly this seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I would like the move reviewed. Given that the move has contested in majority, and vigorously so, it would have meant at the very least "no consensus", and by RM criteria would have left the pages where they are (i.e. where they have been stable for the past 15 years.) Walrasiad ( talk) 08:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |