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]
Odd you cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in your closing and then complain about me not taking the time to discuss with you. I thought the closing was poor enough that it indicated that it was more result driven then anything else. Therefore, I didn't see a reason to wait. Move Review takes long enough anyway.Casprings (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Overturn and relist. I think the closure was improper on two counts. 1) Lack of participation, probably due to the time of year and the lack of notification of relevant wikiprojects, and 2) there was no consensus in the discussion at the time of closure. DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and relist there is already another title discussion (though not formatted as a RM or a relist) with more involvement going on at the talk page, Talk:British Admiralty#Article Name. No need to split the discussion or add an extra layer of bureaucracy. PaleAqua (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close and Relist. There seems to be consensus on the talk page for a new RM, and I don't believe there would be any benefit in formally declaring the contested RM as invalid, as it is likely to be superseded by the result of a new RM shortly. Tevildo (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per User:DuncanHill, Overturn and relist for the following reasons:
A very poor proposal which seems to have been driven by xenophobia.[[1]]
Closed as consensus despite only receiving a single support !vote.
The claim made by the single supporter that Admiralty is international is dubious.
No evidence was offered by any participant (Ghits, pageviews, internal links etc).
Should have been relisted because of the lack of discussion.
Overturnthenrelist the RM was closed prematurely with almost no participation (the proposer and one other), relevant Wikiprojects were not notified and the request was made during the new year period when many Wikipedians were otherwise occupied. If I had wanted to game the system this is how I would have done it, we need to undo the damage before reconsidering the request, to do anything less simply endorses the fait accompli. - Nick Thornetalk00:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or just Close so that things can happen with the page. Effectively a second discussion on the appropriate name has taken place over a lengthy period of time since the move and reached a conclusion. Relisting would be pointless and delay moving on with the project. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
