280:(uninvolved, except that I relisted the RM earlier). No consensus is a reasonable reading of the RM. Regarding what else the nominator can try, I'd say that another possible option is to take up the idea of starting a more broadly scoped discussion about Belgian clubs (even if you don't necessarily agree with other editors' reasons for why they wanted that kind of a discussion). No guarantee whether it would ultimately reach a clearer consensus, of course, but might be worth a try.
301:
no consensus considering if you look at the two move discussions as a whole, it's clear there's consensus (and, in my opinion, clear evidence) the current title is incorrect. That doesn't mean there's consensus the new title is better. I'll start a more comprehensive move discussion when this move
329:(uninvolved). As Skarmory suggests above, I think a future RM with a stronger nomination statement has a strong chance of achieving consensus; however, I don't see any consensus as having emerged in the discussion that
200:
for "R. Charleroi S.C. → Royal
Charleroi S.C." Current move discussion does not have a clear consensus. I am not sure what exactly Dl.thinker is expecting as output from this move review. —usernamekiran
253:
only brings it up as a recommendation as most successful re-requests after a no consensus close take place after that length, but I think this could gain consensus with a stronger nomination statement.
249:, as there's no problems with closing the move as no consensus by policy, but with no prejudice against renomination with a stronger nomination statement. 2-3 months should not be a hard and fast rule;
196:
I had closed this move discussion. Dl.thinker are acting in good-faith here, but I still stand by my closure. When saying "... discussed previously", I think Dl.thinker are referring to
381:
229:. I note that the RM nomination was poor. Next time, make the nomination more comprehensive. Address the points that previously caused people to oppose. —
210:
A relisting would have surely been decisive. When we discuss, we are expected to get responses, and this is what those who opposed the move did not want.
342:
47:
152:
316:
86:
37:
174:
158:
266:
42:
338:
181:
The discussion did not lead to an acceptable outcome, and the current title is very bad and was discussed previously.
21:
334:
308:
202:
81:
285:
197:
170:
122:
357:
102:
17:
215:
211:
186:
182:
234:
303:
261:
346:
321:
289:
272:
238:
219:
205:
190:
91:
281:
118:
72:
250:
230:
375:
256:
165:
145:
137:
129:
198:
Talk:R. Charleroi S.C.#Requested move 20 January 2021
302:review is closed and suggest an alternative title.
8:
101:The following is an archived debate of the
65:
382:Knowledge move review monthly listings
297:as involved. It's frustrating that it
7:
360:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
356:The above is an archive of the
1:
30:
347:18:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
322:15:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
290:02:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
273:01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
239:21:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
220:17:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
206:17:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
191:14:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
92:11:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
398:
363:Please do not modify it.
108:Please do not modify it.
175:Discussion with closer
18:Knowledge:Move review
43:Move review archives
105:of the page above.
335:ModernDayTrilobite
370:
369:
248:
119:R. Charleroi S.C.
73:R. Charleroi S.C.
56:
55:
389:
365:
319:
311:
271:
269:
264:
259:
246:
168:
148:
140:
132:
110:
89:
84:
66:
52:
36:
31:
397:
396:
392:
391:
390:
388:
387:
386:
372:
371:
361:
315:
307:
267:
262:
257:
255:
164:
163:
157:
151:
144:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
106:
87:
82:
64:
57:
50:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
395:
393:
385:
384:
374:
373:
368:
367:
352:
351:
350:
349:
324:
292:
275:
244:Mostly endorse
241:
224:
223:
222:
179:
178:
161:
155:
149:
141:
133:
125:
113:
112:
97:
96:
95:
94:
63:
58:
54:
53:
48:2023 September
45:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
394:
383:
380:
379:
377:
366:
364:
359:
354:
353:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
323:
320:
318:
312:
310:
305:
304:SportingFlyer
300:
296:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
274:
270:
265:
260:
252:
245:
242:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
207:
204:
199:
195:
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
176:
172:
167:
160:
154:
147:
139:
131:
124:
120:
117:
116:
115:
114:
111:
109:
104:
99:
98:
93:
90:
85:
79:
75:
74:
70:
69:
68:
67:
62:
59:
49:
46:
44:
41:
39:
33:
32:
23:
19:
362:
355:
330:
326:
314:
306:
298:
294:
282:Adumbrativus
277:
247:(uninvolved)
243:
226:
180:
107:
100:
77:
71:
60:
358:move review
103:move review
61:2023 August
212:Dl.thinker
183:Dl.thinker
268:contribs)
231:SmokeyJoe
38:2023 July
376:Category
343:contribs
258:Skarmory
83:Material
78:Endorsed
20: |
333:occur.
327:Endorse
295:Endorse
278:Endorse
263:(talk •
251:WP:RMCI
227:Endorse
159:archive
138:history
203:(talk)
166:watch
153:links
88:Works
51:: -->
16:<
339:talk
286:talk
235:talk
216:talk
187:talk
146:logs
130:edit
123:talk
80:. –
35:<
331:did
299:was
173:) (
169:) (
22:Log
378::
345:)
341:•
288:)
237:)
218:)
189:)
171:RM
76:–
337:(
317:C
313:·
309:T
284:(
233:(
214:(
185:(
177:)
162:|
156:|
150:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
121:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.