Jump to content

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 January: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 8: Line 8:
:{{move review links|2021 storming of the United States Capitol|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:2021 storming of the United States Capitol}}|rm_section=Requested move 23 January 2021}} ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra#Closing|Discussion with closer]])
:{{move review links|2021 storming of the United States Capitol|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:2021 storming of the United States Capitol}}|rm_section=Requested move 23 January 2021}} ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra#Closing|Discussion with closer]])
1. This is no a SNOW close. 2. No policy analysis or weighing of the arguments. 3. Simply said they wanted to cut off discussion. 4. There is no consensus '''not''' to move. [[User:Casprings|Casprings]] ([[User talk:Casprings|talk]]) 13:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
1. This is no a SNOW close. 2. No policy analysis or weighing of the arguments. 3. Simply said they wanted to cut off discussion. 4. There is no consensus '''not''' to move. [[User:Casprings|Casprings]] ([[User talk:Casprings|talk]]) 13:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Closer's comment''': There has been no attempt by {{u|Casprings}} to discuss the matter with me prior to them starting this move review, except for [[Special:Diff/1003113639|leaving a note at my talk page stating that they intended to start a move review]] and not giving me a chance to explain my actions. As I explained in subsequent comments on the matter, I felt then (as I still do now) that I was torn on whether to close it on procedural grounds, as no consensus, or as not moved. In any case, the difference between any of those closes is immaterial. [[WP:RMCI#Determining consensus]] states that {{tq|[[Wikipedia:Consensus|Consensus]] is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.}} I simply don't see a consensus to move this article, and I didn't see anything to be gained from leaving the discussion open. The intent of [[WP:TITLECHANGES]] (imho) is for article titles to have some semblance of stability. With that said, I stand by how I closed this page move, although I'm not necessarily opposed to relisting it either. [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


====[[:British Admiralty]]====
====[[:British Admiralty]]====

Revision as of 13:57, 27 January 2021

2021 storming of the United States Capitol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

1. This is no a SNOW close. 2. No policy analysis or weighing of the arguments. 3. Simply said they wanted to cut off discussion. 4. There is no consensus not to move. Casprings (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's comment: There has been no attempt by Casprings to discuss the matter with me prior to them starting this move review, except for leaving a note at my talk page stating that they intended to start a move review and not giving me a chance to explain my actions. As I explained in subsequent comments on the matter, I felt then (as I still do now) that I was torn on whether to close it on procedural grounds, as no consensus, or as not moved. In any case, the difference between any of those closes is immaterial. WP:RMCI#Determining consensus states that Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. I simply don't see a consensus to move this article, and I didn't see anything to be gained from leaving the discussion open. The intent of WP:TITLECHANGES (imho) is for article titles to have some semblance of stability. With that said, I stand by how I closed this page move, although I'm not necessarily opposed to relisting it either. OhKayeSierra (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
British Admiralty (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closed with only two opinions, one supporting (but without any reason as to why this was not the primary topic) and one neutral but suggesting another name. It was nominated and closed over the holiday period when many editors would not have been checking Wikipedia and was clearly going to be controversial. It should have been left open longer for more discussion. More voluminous discussion following the close showed a clear opinion that the close was not a good one and wider discussion was necessary. Even if not considered to be primary topic, as many obviously consider it is, then the correct form in common with other government departments all over the world should be Admiralty (United Kingdom). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Necrothesp[reply]