262:
379:. The first, third, and fourth criteria there were certainly met. Whether "consensus or lack of consensus clear" is up for debate (specifically, here). And discussion was open a bit longer than a week. It's not a situation where I would've performed an NAC (assuming I hadn't participated in discussion), but that doesn't mean it was wrong. --
194:; MOS-TM should be applied in this case, but not in the way that the non-admin close went, as evidence was provided that "Cute" fails the primary criterion that "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)" such that it is not used by reliable sources to refer to the subject of the page. β
323:
shouldn't have closed the discussion himself, should have left it for an admin to decide. Also, there were some very strong opinions in favor of the move, and a closing person should have been more considerate of them, not just said that
284:. The purpose of this review is to assess the closure of the RM and not rehash the merits or details of the RM discussion. Please restrict your comments to addressing this question: Did the RM closer follow the spirit and intent of
302:
a forum to re-argue a closed discussion," so we say, the closure adequately gauged consensus (although to be fair, oppose votes were only a slight majority) and adhered to MOS guidelines. --
235:
says that a name should follow "the standard rules of punctuation", which "Β°C-ute" and "C-ute" don't. I've already shown that "γγ₯γΌγ" has also been used in
Japanese. The
376:
37:
153:
242:. The first time the article mentions the group, it says γβοΌο½ο½ο½
οΌγγ₯γΌγοΌγ (like this, in brackets). Then it starts referring to it as simply "γγ₯γΌγ".) --
51:
46:
393:
Seriously there aren't enough admins to close these discussions. We need non-admin closures to get this stuff done in a sensible timeframe. --
213:(Comment by closer) When reading through the points, I felt that consensus was in this, and other cases, for keeping the title how it is.
191:
187:
159:
42:
350:
362:
337:
247:
171:
123:
21:
423:
281:
438:
398:
358:
333:
273:
243:
103:
17:
427:
402:
388:
366:
341:
311:
251:
222:
207:
92:
236:
119:
76:
419:
240:
261:
218:
201:
394:
325:
232:
183:
82:
The NAC was procedurally inappropriate, but reached the appropriate substantive decision.
415:
285:
384:
307:
179:
354:
329:
320:
214:
195:
86:
380:
303:
186:
based on one editor's argument and upholding a 2 year old consensus from
239:
of "γγ₯γΌγ" is "Cute". (Here's one more example of "γγ₯γΌγ" being used:
377:
Knowledge:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure
256:
166:
146:
138:
130:
8:
192:another NAC (done by an IP in that instance)
102:The following is an archived debate of the
332:'s closing statement itself is correct. --
69:
357:shouldn't have closed the discussion. --
414:. Well within the spirit and intent of
328:says so. But I personally think that
7:
441:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
260:
437:The above is an archive of the
375:n.b. The more relevant page is
298:Recalling that Move Review "is
342:05:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
312:14:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
252:13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
223:10:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
208:00:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
30:
428:18:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
403:19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
93:15:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
389:21:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
367:20:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
351:Knowledge:Non-admin closure
269:Please Do Not Rehash The RM
464:
282:Requested Move Discussion
444:Please do not modify it.
109:Please do not modify it.
182:who mistakenly applied
84:β Decision endorsed β
18:Knowledge:Move review
237:Hepburn romanization
120:Cute (Japanese band)
77:Cute (Japanese band)
43:Move review archives
288:in closing the RM?.
106:of the page above.
451:
450:
292:
291:
272:This is a formal
188:very little input
65:2012 September 27
60:
59:
38:2012 September 13
455:
446:
359:Moscowconnection
334:Moscowconnection
264:
257:
244:Moscowconnection
204:
198:
169:
149:
141:
133:
111:
89:
70:
56:
36:
31:
463:
462:
458:
457:
456:
454:
453:
452:
442:
271:
202:
196:
165:
164:
158:
152:
145:
144:
137:
136:
129:
128:
107:
87:
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
461:
459:
449:
448:
433:
432:
431:
430:
420:Nathan Johnson
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
370:
369:
344:
314:
290:
289:
267:
265:
255:
254:
226:
225:
176:
175:
162:
156:
150:
142:
134:
126:
114:
113:
98:
97:
96:
95:
67:
62:
58:
57:
52:2012 October 8
49:
47:2012 September
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
460:
447:
445:
440:
435:
434:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
410:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
372:
371:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
349:According to
348:
345:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
322:
319:I think that
318:
315:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
293:
287:
283:
279:
275:
270:
266:
263:
259:
258:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:
231:
228:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
199:
193:
189:
185:
181:
173:
168:
161:
155:
148:
140:
132:
125:
121:
118:
117:
116:
115:
112:
110:
105:
100:
99:
94:
91:
90:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
50:
48:
44:
41:
39:
33:
32:
23:
19:
443:
436:
411:
346:
316:
299:
295:
277:
268:
229:
178:Appeal of a
177:
108:
101:
85:
81:
75:
64:
439:move review
395:Eraserhead1
274:Move Review
104:move review
326:WP:MOS-TM
233:WP:MOS-TM
190:and then
184:WP:MOS-TM
20: |
416:WP:RMCI
412:Endorse
355:Mdann52
347:Comment
330:Mdann52
321:Mdann52
317:Comment
296:Endorse
286:WP:RMCI
230:Comment
215:Mdann52
197:Ryulong
160:archive
139:history
88:MBisanz
180:WP:NAC
401:: -->
167:watch
154:links
55:: -->
16:<
424:talk
399:talk
397:<
385:talk
363:talk
338:talk
308:talk
276:and
248:talk
219:talk
147:logs
131:edit
124:talk
35:<
418:. -
381:BDD
304:BDD
300:not
278:NOT
174:)}}
170:) (
22:Log
426:)
387:)
365:)
353:,
340:)
310:)
280:a
250:)
221:)
206:)
203:ηη«
172:RM
80:β
45::
422:(
383:(
361:(
336:(
306:(
246:(
217:(
200:(
163:|
157:|
151:|
143:|
135:|
127:|
122:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.