I THINK SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE HIDDEN DISCUSSION TEMPLATE SHOULD APPLY IT TO THIS CLOSE DISCUSSION. It has been rendered moot and makes it very confusing as to where to enter the discussion. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 17:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Considering that the move discussion at Abortion rights is barely 1 week old this discussion is premature and should be closed pending the outcome there. Only until an admin closes that discussion will we know if there is a bona fide unresolved dispute. Should an amicable result be achieved there, this discussion will at best be redundant. At worst, should this result differ from an amicable result at abortion-rights, the entire situation would devolve into pandemonium and widespread anarchy. The participants at abortion-rights would claim their result is definitive, participants here would claim likewise.

We should wait and see if the pro-abortion people object to the result at abortion-rights and if they do they can always come here to try out a new venue. Are you with me? – Lionel ^{( talk)}05:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support Definitely support. Wish I'd have thought of this. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 05:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose "Only until an admin closes that discussion will we know if there is a bona fide unresolved dispute." Are you kidding? This solution is heading to a consensus, where no other is. DeCausa ( talk) 06:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
• 'Oppose because the current discussion is basically uncloseable, and because you are almost certainly going to have another move request regardless of how its closed. -- Eraserhead1 < talk>07:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Move Request closed

FYI the current move request has been closed as no consensus. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

(after ec, but details added) Would have Opposed, but it's kind of a no-op because an admin has closed the discussion on the abortion-rights page as no consensus already. His rationale is worth reading. It does make sense to involve fresh minds on the matter. PhGustaf ( talk) 07:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Yep, we definitely need to get this sorted out, since the (rather over-hasty, in my opinion) close of the move request means that we are now stuck with a non-parallel solution that no-one supports (or at least, no-one is capable of arguing for). Personally I think the problem might be with the scope of the articles rather than just their titles - there would be no problem with having an article called "pro-life movement" or "pro-choice movement" if it were limited to activities that were carried out under the pro-life or pro-choice "banner"; but to make these terms into synonyms of "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion-rights" is straying onto POV territory.-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

• Have we already got Andrew C in here? He's explained on other pages why the move discussion which supposedly implemented this rock-solid consensus to keep "pro-life" where it is was flawed in many ways, particularly compared to the "pro-choice" move. Mediation can't just start from the point of "well, moving 'pro-life movement' to 'anti-abortion movement' is out of the question." We've got to look at the discussions that got us here and address the long-standing problems with those -namely, as Andrew C has pointed out, the fact that the admin who closed one discussion was involved while the other was not, and that the different admins applied a different standard to the closes which, if the same standard had been applied to both, would have resulted in a status-quo other than the one we have now. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

hes been notified. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply