Knowledge:Move review/Log/2023 July

1102:(uninvolved). This is an obvious supervote. For those !voting endorse, if you find B2C's rationale on the merits compelling, then it should have been as a compelling regular !vote. It's absolutely not compelling as a summary of the consensus of the discussion, however. Closers are expected to evaluate consensus, not decide on the merits, and that can sometimes involve invoking wider consensuses than what was expressed locally due to overriding policies, but somebody needs to bring this up in the discussion. More generally, the claim in the close that worries about ambiguity "have no basis in policy" is simply flatly wrong, which could have been brought up had the statement been made as a regular !vote, but instead has to go to MR when done as a close. Maybe there are reasons to close as move anyway, but "Knowledge article titles do not care about ambiguity" is not true. (Edit: And just to be extra-clear, as a !voter, I too disdain pre-emptive disambiguation, e.g. for distinguishing against topics that don't have encyclopedia articles. But this has to be hashed out on a case-by-case basis for when it applies and when it doesn't. I can have my own stance and still acknowledge that it doesn't always win and the consensus of the community is sometimes different, and it's the 2016:

knowledge of policy to participate in discussions”. But the PT exception to disambiguating ambiguous titles is fundamental to title decision-making on WP, and doesn’t require extensive knowledge of policy at all. So I hope we also agree we do not want to risk creating an environment where people feel merely pointing out ambiguity is a good enough reason to disambiguate (or retain disambiguation) even when the topic of the article in question is considered to be the PT for the title. Ultimately, that’s what this MR is about. If my close is overturned or relisted, that’s exactly the message we’re sending. An overturn or relist also declares the close was “inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Knowledge common practice, policies, or guidelines”, which implies unnecessary disambiguation of titles of primary topic articles is consistent “with the spirit and intent of Knowledge common practice, policies, or guidelines”. Which is absurd.

1673:(uninvolved). The key dispute is about the degree of likelihood that leader means governor; that's a question of fact, not a question of policy. Some editors thought that leader of Georgia is highly likely to mean a president of Georgia or first secretary of the communist party, as opposed to governor of Georgia. Other editors thought that it's likely enough to mean governor of Georgia. Both views had common-sense plausible reasons. Both views had little supporting evidence in the way of sources or stats. (We now have a bit more of that, in this post-close discussion.) I don't think the strength of evidence justified a closure in favor of the minority. I also agree with ModernDayTrilobite. Since many reasonable new arguments have been made post-close, the discussion should be reopened so that editors have the opportunity to respond in the appropriate forum. 843:, the policy explicitly cited by the nom in the proposal and re-emphasized in follow-up discussion. None of the opposers addressed it. They didn’t even address the PRIMARYREDIRECT. To this day we have no idea if they don’t agree this topic is primary, or they wanted to IAR PRIMARYTOPIC (which is only acceptable for clearly stated good arguments on how ignoring the rule in question improves WP). And Support reiterated the argument that the PT exception applied in this case. That’s not my opinion. That’s all fact. What is my opinion is that in order to have and encourage policy-based decisions we need to close per policy, and that means evaluating arguments by assigning due weight by basis in policy. Otherwise it’s a JDLI free-for-all determined by counting votes. And that’s exactly what policy says not to do. 589:(emphasis mine) I think illustrate the issue the closer was trying to get at: as nom I acknowledged the ambiguity and proposed a way to address it that was consistent with policy, but none of the participants addressed at all why the proposal was a poor or unacceptable way to address the ambiguity. Opposing the move with a justification that more or less just says "it's ambiguous" is just restating the problem without critiquing the proposed solution or suggesting an alternative (i.e., that the base name should become a disambiguation page instead). I believe this was what the closer was getting at by claiming the oppose votes lacked basis in policy. Ambiguity does not always mean there must be parenthetical disambiguation, as there are other forms of disambiguation and possible primary topics. 639:, much less likely enough to be doing so to warrant this article not being primary. No one mentioned anything about how historical significance might be a factor to be considered. Their opposition relied entirely and solely on the title being ambiguous, as if that alone was enough. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the community is quite clear about ambiguity alone simply not being enough. Because if I'm wrong, that means we can't have any articles at ambiguous titles, even if they have a primary topic. That is clearly contrary to community consensus. Now, above, 647:, but it wasn't. Not by him. Not by anyone. Even after the nom noted that the PRIMARYREDIRECT established the PRIMARYTOPIC. No one challenged that. The opposers simply ignored it, and support reiterated it. In no rational world can such empty opposition be given the weight necessary for this proposal to fail. Had they claimed and argued the topic was not primary, then there could have been a debate about it. Therefore, all yours truly the closer had to go on was not merely a preponderance of the evidence indicating the article's title was primary, but 1924:(uninvolved). The fact that the closer is arguing why the page should be moved, instead of why the discussion should be read as having a consensus to move, shows this as a pretty clear supervote—an argument that would have been a reasonable !vote is still not an argument for discounting every opposing argument. Note that the proposer also supports the move (so it's 2 vs 4, not 1 vs 4), and one of the opposes !votes is "weak", so it's not clear to me this should have been closed in either direction, hence favoring relisting. 268:. Thus, if there is an article of "List of X in Georgia (country)" and there is at least somewhere to redirect "List of X in Georgia (U.S. state)", then parenthetical disambiguation is appropriate (though the question of whether the country or state is a primary topic is still valid). But when a "List of X in Georgia" could conceivably refer to either the country or the U.S. state, and enwiki only has content about one of them, there is no policy basis to use the parenthethical qualifier. For example, see 2290:). (1) As Crouch, Swale noted at the pre-MR discussion, Born2cycle clearly expresses his opinion on the "Georgia" issue at his user page, so this should have been a !vote, not a close. (2) Consensus-building should first seek a local consensus that is in line with community consensus. This sort of "CONSENSUS-not-consensus" close should wait until discussion has reached an impasse where further comments are unlikely to be helpful. (3) Twenty-two comments here by one participant is not helpful. 319:). Firstly, the new name already redirected to the old one, so this was simply correcting a case of unnecessary disambiguation. Secondly, the governor of Georgia (the US state) is never referred to as the "leader of Georgia" so the closing assertion that there is nothing ambiguous to disambiguate against is valid. Finally there's a hatnote for the rare and unlikely case that someone actually does end up here looking for governors, and really this MRV is splitting hairs for no reason. — 369:

quo conflicts with policy: if one opposes removal of the qualifier, and says nothing else, it implies they support the status quo, but in this case, the status quo is untenable. If it's ambiguous, what should happen with the page at the base name? I'm tired of seeing "ambiguous" as a supposedly sufficient reason to oppose a move away from a page with a parenthetical qualifier, because parenthetical disambiguation is not the only form of disambiguation (see

1553:. We all agree. And that’s the argument opposers made, and the only one. In stark contrast, PRECISE, the policy, makes explicit allowances for ambiguity, and primarily for PRIMARY TOPICs, which, again, was central in this case due to the PRIMARYREDIRECT, as noted by the nom in the proposal and in followup discussion, and reiterated by Support. Opposition totally ignored this because their position was that the proposed title was not 428:. Supervote, and WP:Involved due to the closer being singularly obsessed with shortening article titles. There was a clear curt consensus that the rename increases ambiguity. The result is ambiguous. A pre-existing redirect is created and allowed to exist with quite low scrutiny making the PRIMARYREDIRECT argument inherently weak, insufficient to overrule the consensus that the proposed is ambiguous. 409:, where the closer analyzed the policy at stake similar to the closer here, but did take into account the number of users on each side of the argument. All that said, the discussion should be relisted so that the closer and other users may be given the opportunity to directly address the policy-based proposal of the nom and another closer can then weigh the entire discussion in that light. 1048:

consensus on that question, which was central and decisive to the proposal. I mean, let’s be frank. If anyone seriously questioned whether it was primary, why didn’t they say so? I think they were IARing PT per JDLI, rather than providing the necessary basis. Because it doesn’t exist. Nobody benefits when closers give undo weight to positions so poorly based in policy. —

1137:, I weighed these arguments accordingly, without regard to my personal opinion. By simply pointing out the title is ambiguous, without addressing or challenging the primary topic situation, they’re stating the obvious without countering or even addressing the policy-based argument in the proposal, regardless of one’s perspective. So how do you give that any weight? 616:

established the PRIMARYTOPIC of that article for that title by default. Anyone opposing a move to that base name title, to be taken seriously, needed to address nom's claim and argue that it was not the PRIMARYTOPIC (or somehow argue that despite being PRIMARYTOPIC it still needed to be disambiguated). Please note that in the discussion about this on my talk page,

1341:, you as a closer would be stuck implementing the move, no matter how dumb you thought it was. If you would hate that, then you should !vote to keep it at Paris rather than close it. Which would be fine! But that's something to do as a voter, not a closer. (Usual disclaimers that such a move would probably mean that the community guidelines on 1455:. In that case, obviously those !votes can be ignored, since they do not follow policy. However, it is much more likely that editors opposing the move think the base name should be a dab page. At least, that's the implicit consensus that I see in the discussion. In any case, the only way to be certain of which option editors support is to relist. 1179:

reference PT explicitly) but are ambiguous, doesn’t mean PT does not apply. SHORTFORM titles which best meet CRITERIA should be used. And if they’re ambiguous but other uses are each much less likely to be sought, and together less likely to be sought, they should still be used. There’s no policy that says PT doesn’t apply to such titles.

928:– I would have relisted, and I don't have a strong objection to overturning and relisting, but I don't see an actual reason that this close was wrong. PTOPIC was not addressed by the opposers, nor was the primary redirect – the majority of the opposes just stated it was too ambiguous, which by itself doesn't carry much weight. 2004:

ideal case is that this kind of policy discussion happens in the RM itself; then the oppose votes can reply and say "I still think it covers policy because of X" or "hmm, you seem to be right, changing my !vote" (rarer, but it does happen) and the closer has more to work with when saying "policy clearly supports the move".

1236:!moved, because that's clearly where the discussion leaned, no matter how wrong you or I think the !voters were being. Being a closer means disconnecting from your preferences. If you asked 10 Knowledge editors to guess and bet on how that discussion would close assuming no more !votes, all 10 would have bet "not moved." 984:(by PRIMARYREDIRECT), and especially in a case like this where this is all explicitly laid out by the nom in the proposal. In such cases opposition based in policy must address the PRIMARYTOPIC situation. Opposing merely with ambiguity is entirely missing the point and has no basis in policy, given the context. 2075:

disambiguation, then, by definition, is therefore disambiguation of a title when disambiguation is not necessary for this technical reason: no other article is at that title. We agree that both in a close and in an MR we should not be arguing why the page should or should not be moved. Explaining how

1405:

The PRIMARYREDIRECT the nom referenced establishes primary topic. Of course it’s questionable. Anything can be questioned. But none of the opposers questioned it. Not in the discussion. Not even after the discussion. The primary topic status stands to this moment. It’s resolved with the move. It will

1153:

which doesn't support moving as the descriptive title is ambiguous and local consensus was quite clear. You are not applying either community or local consensus and instead seem to be applying you're own views. Could you please make sure you only close discussions you're like to be seen as impartial,

820:

I know you have strong opinions regarding disambiguation which you've brought to many title and policy debates over the years, and it sounds like you feel strongly about the Georgia RM. That's fine, but as such the right move in this case would have been to participate in the debate and seek to build

2183:

Meant Cliburn not Clifton but notice for Clifton currently the only one wee have a list for is the one in Cumbria though others can and likely will have lists. In England we only use comma disambiguation for settlements and municipalities for disambiguation rather than common name in the same way we

1469:

Are you serious? The notion that “List of leaders of Georgia” is about as likely to used by users seeking leaders of the U.S. state rather than by users seeking leaders of the country is silly. “Leader of” (a country) is common English usage; “leader of“ (a U.S. state) is unusual, at best. Of course

700:

The outcome of this MR is very important because at the root of this case is a question fundamental to many RM proposals: does the community prohibit ambiguous titles altogether (and therefore any ambiguous title needs to be disambiguated), or is there a threshold manifested in ambiguous titles that

442:

Looks like I participated in this one so won't !vote, but I would sit this out entirely but for the fact I have no idea why my !vote wasn't considered policy-compliant. "It needs to be disambiguated in some way to avoid confusion with an existing, similarly named topic" is one of the primary reasons

1850:

I understand the argument that other US states don't have a "List of leaders of X" article or redirect, an argument which you first made at your talk page and have made again here. In a relisted RM, other editors will consider how significant this particular fact is, relative to all other arguments

1243:

going on to show that this is not a supervote - say 7 oppose votes vs. nominator & 3 support votes to make some numbers up. With the turnout that existed, if you truly believed this was a LOCALCONSENSUS, you should have !voted and explained why you found the proposer's rationale so convincing,

858:

Here, as before, you're approaching titling as something that can and should be handled mechanically through the rigid application of policy — or more accurately, the rigid application of your own preferred weighting of it. While that might guide us to a sensible and community-supported solution in

396:

when it is not). It's a tall order to discount the views of 4 participants because they lack a policy-based rationale and determine there is consensus in support of the proposal based on 1 participant who simply reiterated one point made by the nom. And in fact, other closers have reached different

382:

All that said, I would have liked to have seen the excellent points made by the closer added to the discussion rather than comprise a summary of the consensus reached in the discussion, i.e. the close did in my view err on the side of an improper supervote. Moreover, Born2cycle obviously knew this

368:

and that a hatnote and natural disambiguation are sufficient. No participant directly addressed that issue, except for perhaps the lone supporter alluding to it. The irony of all the "ambiguous" oppose votes is the ambiguity of their position, as none of them addressed the fact that the the status

1622:

redirected to the article under discussion. It would be completely circular to treat this as meaningful evidence; if that were the case, no topic could ever be moved from a primary title to its disambiguated form. Instead, a PRIMARYTOPIC is determined by examining the relative amount of usage and

1284:

because it’s ambiguous? Closing this any other way would mean giving weight to weightless arguments. Just because other closers would not weigh arguments by how well they’re based on policy and just count !votes doesn’t mean a closer who does follow guidance RMCI and CONSENSUS should be reverted.

1235:

with their interpretation of policy, there was no cause for a closer to discard their !votes any more than a reverse close that discarded the support votes as invalid. This is doubly true for a NAC. You say "without regard to my personal opinion" - well then you should have closed the result as

996:

Ambiguity is an entirely legitimate basis for opposition, even when something is primary (or primary by redirect), because sometimes things are made primary in error, or their status as primary no longer makes sense. We consider the suitability of such titles all the time, and doing so is part of

793:

The primary topic point was made in the proposal and subsequently reiterated by the nom in the discussion, before three of the opposers weighed in, and again by Support, four days prior to my close. Despite more than ample opportunity, opposition chose to ignore primary topic altogether. As if it

2003:

that comments that aren't grounded in policy (brigading, low quality "this is what I like" or "as per X" votes, etc). Otherwise we risk creating an environment where people feel the need to have comprehensive legal arguments and an extensive knowledge of policy to participate in discussions. The

1047:

I agree. And, in this case, the only opinion offered on primary topic was from nom and Support: that the topic was primary and that’s why the ambiguity didn’t matter. Since that was the only opinion regarding PT in this case, I had no alternative but to find that that opinion reflected community

746:

The nom made the argument about PRIMARYTOPIC, and Support reiterated. You and the others in Opposition failed to address it at all, much less refute it. I had no reason to believe that yet another Support reiterating it would cause the opposers to start discussing it. Heck, you’re still not even

721:

There should probably be a maxim that the longer it takes to explain a close, the weaker the close is. If you had made that argument as a !vote instead of closing the discussion, we'd be discussing PRIMARYTOPIC in the move discussion. I'm really not invested in this one, but I didn't make a long

2170:

I’m not saying there aren’t cases where the community disambiguates by comma when disambiguation is unnecessary. Besides, precisely to get around the unnecessary disambiguation conundrum, comma disambiguation for geographical topics is argued to not be disambiguation at all, but rather the more

1066:

Not a !supervote by any stretch. This is a rare case that fully illustrates how consensus is not necessarily won by numbers of votes in a local discussion – it is usually won by taking into consideration the opinions of the community as set forth in policies and guidelines. For what it's worth,

2015:

Except TITLEDAB refers specifically to PT as an exception to the policy of disambiguating ambiguous tities, and the nom made that argument in the proposal. We agree we do not want to “risk creating an environment where people feel the need to have comprehensive legal arguments and an extensive

606:

If ambiguity alone is reason enough to change a title, then I've been reading community consensus wrong for almost twenty years, and I'm open to being corrected. But I simply see no way to reasonably reconcile that with the existence of PRIMARYTOPIC. Consider that the title of any PRIMARYTOPIC

1178:

to every ambiguous reference in WP policy/guidelines. There has to be. Including it explicitly in every context would be too cumbersome. Just because SHORTFORM doesn’t explicitly mention PRIMARYTOPIC as an exception to options that meet CRITERIA best (including CONCISE, and PRECISE which does

615:

whether PRIMARYTOPIC applies in the given situation, or their !vote needs to be weighted accordingly (very little, if any). In this case especially, because, as noted by the nom and participating supporter, the existence of a PRIMARYREDIRECT from the basename title to the article in question

1645:

Nonsense. A long-standing PRIMARYREDIRECT is direct evidence that the community considers the topic of the target to be primary. That doesn’t mean the target’s title can’t be disambiguated. That means to present policy-based reasons to move it to (or keep it at) the disambiguated title, the

775:

And now it seems you're concerned that the PRIMARYTOPIC argument wasn't considered. If you were so concerned about that, you should've relisted (leaving a comment regarding your PTOPIC concerns) and given the opposers the opportunity to address that argument if they chose to do so.

1446:

It is true that reverting to the status quo won't resolve the primary topic question. However, it will allow editors who already participated and those who haven't yet to decide it. Maybe some editors will claim that no change is required and the base name should be a

722:

argument since it seemed so obvious to me that removing the disambiguation in the title would possibly lead to confusion, which is indeed a policy based argument. As to the outcome of your MR, it doesn't matter at all - everything is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

855:

B2C: Your response illustrates the underlying problem, and I'm sorry to say it's the same one that has gotten you into hot water so many times over the years: that the only valid understanding or interpretation of policy is your own, and anything else is

1979:

It's fair point that the argument for a "support" vote and the argument for discarding all oppose votes are similar things. I agree with your argument; in an RM discussion I'd be in support of the move. On the other hand, I don't see the policy as being

1354:. You should not close a discussion unless you could imagine yourself closing it either way. If you plan on closing a discussion one specific way no matter what the conversation said and the reason isn't WP:SNOW, you should not close that discussion. 862:

In this case, participants overwhelmingly recognized that "leaders of Georgia" is ambiguous, and said so. Such opposition implicitly appeals to our WP:CRITERIA (and more accurately the precision criterion), regardless of whether anyone explicitly linked

1226:

This is move review, not RM part 2. I probably would have supported the move myself, had this argument been raised as a !vote, but it's still a bad close. There were 4 oppose votes from regular, good faith editors with no indication of canvassing who

889:

Put simply, I see no reason why a single implicit appeal to our section on precision exceptions should be considered a slam-dunk that overrides all opposition, particularly when the lone supporter offered no more elaboration than the many who opposed.

1258:

This is so frustrating! LOCALCONSENSUS was to oppose the move because the proposed title (of an undisputed primary topic article) was ambiguous. But LOCALCONSENSUS does not trump community CONSENSUS, and the closer’s job is to determine the latter. I

631:, even addressed the question of PRIMARYTOPIC, much less argued that this article was not primary and the redirect needed to be a dab page. The only one who even mentioned that possible remedy was the nom! No one argued that anyone searching with 187:.Most of the opposition was based on worries of ambiguity. In my experience it's been generally accepted that assertions of ambiguity are generally valid arguments even without a policy being explicitly cited (though I imagine that it's a case of 1873:

the page should be moved, not how the discussion showed a consensus to move. And even if we don't have redirects (yet), Huwmanbeing demonstrated above that there are in fact sources which refer to the state's governor as the "leader of Georgia".

1557:; their position was not that the proposed title failed to comply with PRECISE (which it clearly does unless primary topic is rejected—but no opposer argued that). Had anyone actually argued the proposed title was not in compliance with PRECISE 959:. And when a RM nomination looks like it is doomed to fail because it has multiple opposers and no supporters (until one shows up at the very end with a 3-word support), most people don't bother to give a vigorous defense of their opposition. 1267:

raised—by the nom in the proposal itself. And all of the opposers simply ignored it, instead pointing out the obvious: the title is ambiguous. Well, duh. It’s a primary topic. Since when does that mean the title can’t be ambiguous? Since

695:. And that's the whole point of the community recognizing PRIMARYTOPICs: these are cases where, despite technical ambiguity, confusion is sufficiently unlikely to warrant leaving the article at the basename title despite the ambiguity. 997:

addressing potentially inappropriate PRIMARYTOPIC situations. This case is no different: editors rejected the term "leaders of Georgia" as ambiguous, suggesting that the base name redirect may instead need to become a DAB, just like

1345:

were being updated, or there was some major argument unique to Paris afoot like an incredibly important entity known only as "Paris" arising and contesting the claim of primary topic, but that's... fine. Those guidelines are a

391:

close would be controversial would in my view weigh against making it, and I have seen before non-admins intentionally inviting controversy, which they should not be doing, even if their interpretation of policy is correct (and

517:

and is a relevant and legitimate point to raise — and the discussion's participants clearly did. For a closer to throw out such concerns on the grounds that he personally believes they carry no weight amounts to a supervote.

1027:

does the community prohibit ambiguous titles altogether (and therefore any ambiguous title needs to be disambiguated), or is there a threshold manifested in ambiguous titles that are supported because they meet PRIMARYTOPIC

1120:

You refer to both “consensus of the discussion” and “consensus of the community”, seemingly conflating the two, as if they are the same. I mean, often they are the same. But in a case like this, where they are in conflict,

2255:(uninvolved) When this discussion has become 5 times longer than the RM itself and a lot of the comments here are about the merits of the RM rather than its close then you know that the discussion clearly isn't over. 1627:, the claim was provided without evidence – which means that the opposers' rejection of that claim does not in fact need to be unweighted. It was simply an unverified claim facing an equally unverified repudiation. 1532:

I do not mean to blungeon, but either people are not reading the explanations, or are not understanding why this close was proper. Let me try it this way. No, opposers did not feel the title to be insufficiently

553:

and relist - the discussion doesn't support the close. The moving target from the closer of which argument wasn't sufficiently rebutted by the (more numerous) oppose voters makes clear this was a supervote.

2088:

The idea that disambiguation is only ever necessary for technical reasons is one you've pushed many times, but it's opinion, not policy. If you don't see that then I'm not sure you should be closing RMs.

882:

notwithstanding. Editors' rejection in this case of the "List of leaders of Georgia" title as ambiguous suggests that the base name should probably change from a redirect to a disambiguation page...

356:

from 2009 until 2022 when it was boldly moved to the page with the "(Georgia)" qualifier but with the base name (improperly) left to redirect there until now, and that nobody has made a redirect at

1129:

We agree a closer is to determine what the consensus of the community is regarding the question at hand, and that includes evaluating arguments and assigning due weight per basis in policy.

818:

When there's disagreement (or reasonable potential for disagreement) over how to apply this to an article's title, it's right to discuss it and seek consensus, which was the point of the RM.

513:. I don't see how/why the closer asserted that opposing !votes had "no basis in policy". Determining through discussion if there's ambiguity and deciding if/how to address it is one of WP's 1646:

established primary topic has to be addressed. Any argument favoring the disambiguated title based entirely on the given ambiguity of the title should be given very little, if any, weight.

1133:—PRIMARYTOPIC has no meaning or purpose regarding non-ambiguous titles—so pointing out its ambiguous is stating the obvious. It’s not an argument at all, much less one based in policy. So, 1687:

Seriously? Again, nobody can seriously argue “leaders of X” is common usage for any U.S. state X. More to the point, “List of leaders of X” is not even a redirect for a single U.S. state:

747:

discussing it post-move on my talk page or here. If the closer also ignored it, they’d be shirking their responsibility to evaluate the arguments and assign due weight accordingly, IMHO. —

1510:. Further, the lack of explicit rebuttal to an argument does not indicate that that argument is widely accepted; if the opposers in this RM had believed that the article subject was the 1470:

it’s the primary topic. Hence the longstanding PRIMARYREDIRECT. Put another way, “Leaders of Georgia” is obviously not “Governors of Georgia”. Otherwise we’d have redirects from

1239:

Now, if the discussion had been wider: maybe, maybe there's more room to maneuver for a "controversial" close by claiming a LOCALCONSENSUS. But the "other" side needs at least

831:

My dear friend, while I certainly have my opinions, I did not close per my own views. I closed per policy. That overview of the PRECISION criterion which you quoted refers to

1323:

And yet the community consensus is to not do that. Go ahead, propose it. See how it goes. This comment exemplifies how out of touch your views are with community consensus.

1606:

who characterized opposition’s “concern over ambiguity” as implying non-compliance with PRECISE. It all leads up to the last sentence, in bold, which is most pertinent. —

1506:

Even if they don't cite a policy by name, an RM participant who expresses concern over ambiguity is nevertheless indicating that they feel a title to be insufficiently

536: 701:

are supported because they meet PRIMARYTOPIC criteria? If it's the former then I was wrong and the opposers at the RM and the "overturners" here are right. Otherwise,

398: 150: 1231:

identify a point of ambiguity very directly in the first !vote, directly contradicting your original close that claimed the oppose votes were meritless. Even if you

1038:

in a given instance, and how the PRIMARYTOPIC criteria exactly apply is subject to editorial judgement that a consensus needs to form around on a case-by-case basis.—

685:, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Knowledge community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." 2334: 2196:

even when no other articles currently exist. This is along the same lines as the examples I have given apart from the fact the base name exists as a redirect while

1892: 794:

didn’t matter. Well, the community disagrees, primary topic matters whenever ambiguity is a factor, and the closing decision needs to reflect community consensus.

2125:

I'm with you when we're talking about topic articles rather than descriptive titles but the community doesn't seem to hold this view with descriptive titles. See

2185: 344:

I completely agree with the closer on the merits. While in my opinion "list of leaders of Georgia" could refer to another topic covered in Knowledge, i.e.

286:

Yes but does the normal rules of not redirecting a base name to a qualified title apply to descriptive titles? That was a point hinted at by the opposers.

1514:, they wouldn't have opposed the move in the first place. This close's rationale was built upon a strength-in-argument gap that doesn't actually exist. 477:

If anyone feels strongly that the article should be at the parenthetically disambiguated title, I suggest they make a policy-based proposal accordingly.

2076:

and why the arguments made in the discussion were evaluated and weighed is not re-arguing. And that’s all I did in the close and have done in this MR.

260:

policy. The question of whether or not subtopic articles of topics with ambiguous names (e.g. Georgia) should have parenthetical disambiguation does

1636: 1523: 866:

The lone supporter of the move likewise implicitly appealed to an exception to the criterion, specifically the one for primary topics. Yet the very

859:

many cases, it doesn't always lead to what editors would agree is a sensible result, or a result that consensus supports as optimal, desirable, etc.

677:"Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, 406: 2143: 643:

would have a point worth considering in claiming PRIMARYTOPIC due to PRIMARYREDIRECT is "inherently weak" because redirects get little scrutiny

2192:

for the municipalities you can see this pattern. A similar logic applies here in that the community may think we should match the main article

387:

in that non-administrators should be cautious in closing controversial requests. It's not that a nac was inappropriate here, but knowing that

156: 1995:

My personal feeling is in this situation the "right" thing is to comment in support of the move, not to close in support of the move. In the

47: 264:

depend on whether the subtopic specifically is ambiguous or unambiguous, it depends on whether the subtopic is ambiguous with another topic

2147: 2139: 2135: 1452: 1380: 1563:

Any argument opposing a title due solely to ambiguity when PT is claimed (much less established by PRIMARYREDIRECT) has no basis in policy

528: 1436: 1387:. On the other hand, the nom said the article is the primary topic, but didn't give any further reason or argument, simply stating that 765:. But claiming that I blatantly ignored that by addressing the fact that you're close is clearly a supervote because you did not assign 736: 493: 461: 37: 2189: 402: 1851:

introduced. I trust that they, and the closer, will take it seriously. In the RM that actually took place, it was not the consensus.

1478:, etc. Come on. “List of leaders of (any U.S. state)” is not even a thing. More to the point, nobody argued the article was not PT. 998: 883: 269: 2035:. Contributors to the original RM clearly did not view the disambiguation as unnecessary. Just as in your close, you're arguing 2102:

to survive. The fact that it’s possible to have an article at its undisambiguated title demonstrates the disambiguation is not

2068:

on WP due to technical limitations preventing two articles from having the same title. This is indisputable fact, not opinion.

2056: 1947:

I demonstrated by listing the red links just above was done specifically to counter the claim that the participants could have

1883: 1866: 1350:

of the community, not holy scripture, and if the community changed their mind and decided to enforce "City, Country" strictly,

785: 204: 168: 120: 878:

Knowledge considers such an arrangement to be acceptable: because it's right to seek a "more natural and recognizable title",

940: 357: 1561:, they would have argued the topic was not primary and the PRIMARYREDIRECT had to be removed or replaced with a dab page. 191:

more often than not). Also for the record, there was only one "support" !vote, compared compared to four "oppose" !votes.

42: 2171:

COMMONNAME for the topic in question. But that wasn’t raised in the discussion nor was it even applicable in this case. —

1632: 1519: 1475: 1127:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

345: 85: 1805: 1784: 1999:

spirit, I think entirely discounting someone's comment in a conversation should be reserved for situations where it's

1829: 1772: 1748: 1808: 1802: 1799: 1787: 707:"the new name already redirected to the old one, so this was simply correcting a case of unnecessary disambiguation." 2209: 1757: 1706: 1826: 1778: 1775: 1715: 1700: 1619: 1337:

If a large community consensus was to move Paris to Paris, France and you decided to close the discussion... then

116: 72: 1832: 1811: 1754: 1739: 2205: 2201: 2197: 1992:

to determine that "List of leaders of Georgia" was ambiguous, disambiguating in the title would be within policy.

1823: 1793: 1781: 1766: 1760: 1751: 1745: 1736: 1724: 1709: 1703: 1697: 1086: 21: 1835: 1820: 1763: 1727: 1712: 1694: 1688: 1471: 1964: 1796: 1769: 1733: 1718: 1691: 1122: 832: 532: 1814: 1742: 1721: 2150:

where the base name is about an area of London which isn't particularly likely to have a corresponding list.

2098:

If something is necessary that means there’s no reasonable alternative. Sleep, food, air, shelter… these are

1817: 1790: 1730: 1589:

You contend that the crucial distinction fundamental to this case is what people mean by the dictionary word

2221: 2159: 1904: 1628: 1618:

The only evidence provided for the proposed title's PRIMARYTOPIC status was the fact that, prior to the RM,

1603: 1515: 1428: 1211: 1163: 728: 611:. Therefore, it seems to me, anyone supporting or opposing a move based on ambiguity needs to also consider 485: 453: 444: 295: 237: 81: 1067:

hereby call upon all non-endorsers to please reassess. Excellent closure that should definitely be endorsed

2296: 1856: 1678: 1511: 1306: 840: 365: 2310: 1865:

I tried to avoid commenting in this discussion, but I simply can't ignore the fact that this is a clear

100: 17: 911:(involved). Consensus was clearly against this move and the closer misstated the facts in his closing. 769:

weight to the oppose votes. As a matter of fact, you explicitly claimed they were not based in policy.

2273: 2175: 2114: 2080: 2020: 1971: 1939:

to move, not why the page should be moved. For example, the dearth of entries at “List of leaders of

1842: 1650: 1610: 1573: 1486: 1410: 1383:

is not the primary topic for the base name. However they clearly expressed their opposition based on

1327: 1289: 1183: 1141: 1073: 1052: 988: 964: 916: 847: 798: 751: 713: 559: 361: 172: 661:"assertions of ambiguity are generally valid arguments even without a policy being explicitly cited" 2052: 1984:

cut-and-dry here that there's an obvious rationale for completely discounting the people opposing.

1936: 1879: 1448: 1314: 1150: 1039: 879: 867: 781: 433: 353: 349: 341: 257: 253: 225: 200: 188: 180: 2214: 2152: 1985: 1897: 1423: 1419: 1359: 1249: 1204: 1191: 1156: 1111: 935: 810: 723: 688: 664: 617: 594: 514: 480: 448: 414: 383:

close would be controversial, and while I may be in the minority on this point, I take seriously

288: 277: 230: 1623:

significance for each topic; no one in the discussion analyzed either topic. Thus, while PT was

835:

for details and clarification, which in turn references “Exceptions to the precision criterion”

2291: 2193: 1996: 1852: 1674: 1534: 1507: 1384: 1342: 956: 370: 324: 2146:

where the only other use which may have listed buildings is a hamlet with no article here or

2299: 2276: 2264: 2259: 2227: 2178: 2165: 2117: 2093: 2090: 2083: 2059: 2023: 2010: 1974: 1930: 1910: 1886: 1860: 1845: 1682: 1653: 1640: 1613: 1597: 1594: 1576: 1527: 1489: 1464: 1460: 1441: 1413: 1400: 1396: 1363: 1330: 1318: 1292: 1253: 1217: 1186: 1169: 1144: 1115: 1089: 1055: 1042: 1035: 1005: 1002: 991: 968: 946: 920: 894: 891: 850: 825: 822: 801: 788: 762: 754: 741: 716: 598: 563: 543: 540: 522: 519: 498: 466: 437: 418: 328: 301: 281: 243: 207: 89: 2270: 2172: 2133:

move to match the title even though there aren't listed buildings elsewhere. Or similarly

2122: 2111: 2077: 2017: 1968: 1839: 1647: 1607: 1570: 1483: 1407: 1324: 1286: 1180: 1138: 1049: 985: 960: 912: 844: 795: 748: 710: 555: 384: 374: 653:

So, how is this close a misreading of (community) consensus worthy of overturn or relist?

808:

B2C, no one is suggesting that we must "prohibit ambiguous titles altogether". However,

2048: 1875: 1310: 777: 672: 656: 640: 527:

Also, re the claim above that the state's governor is never referred to as the leader:

429: 196: 1951:

meant “leaders of X” is comparably likely to refer to governors of a U.S. state named

2328: 1355: 1305:

would be a small improvement to some, and harm to none, as long as nothing else, not

1302: 1245: 1107: 930: 590: 410: 273: 2029:...which implies unnecessary disambiguation of titles of primary topic articles ... 2005: 1925: 1031: 816:"Good article titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article." 702: 320: 814:

it is appropriate to consider precision when determining how to title an article:

2040: 2028: 872:

an article that has a more precise title than the base name which redirects to it

184: 2256: 1456: 1392: 821:

consensus for your favored solution — not close it according to your own views.

447:, so avoiding confusion is a perfectly acceptable reason to oppose a page move. 1202:

so the subtopic should follow the main article no primary topic determination.

669:"there was only one "support" !vote, compared compared to four "oppose" !votes" 224:

is ambiguous and the closest community consensus (not mentioned in the RM) is

1893:

Knowledge:Redirect, DAB entry or hatnote needed#Redirect generally not needed

575:) I've already discussed above my issues with the close, but statements like 955:

Ambiguity in a proposed article title is a strong basis for opposition. See

2269:

Or… the discussion here is about broader issues than that particular RM. —-

663:, again ignoring primary topic considerations, and then blatantly ignoring 624:

the PRIMARYREDIRECT at the base name should have been changed to a DAB page

1541:. The crucial distinction is fundamental to this case and others like it. 1034:. Where the threshold exactly lies, is it controlled by the PRIMARYTOPIC 2129:

move that I made back in 2010 for a similar reason that was reverted or

1199: 1195: 221: 709:

I hope the admin closer of the MR gives all this due consideration. --

1081: 1935:

I have only argued why the discussion should be read as reflecting

1391:, which is obviously questionable. There was no consensus to move. 1298: 1281: 479:

Way to double down on not understanding what the policy is there!

2039:

the page should be moved, which is not the purpose of MR, as MR

1963:

consensus is reflected in the discussion, as opposed to reading

1106:

that the closer needs to act on, not their own preferences.)

403:

Talk:Ferries_in_Washington_(state)#Requested_move_4_July_2023

659:

claims my close was a SUPERVOTE because in their experience

2184:

generally only use brackets when necessary. If you look at

2064:

No. I’m using the term objectively. Disambiguation is made

1869:

argument. And further, as Dylnuge said this is you arguing

1418:

Born2cycle, with all due respect, you are getting close to

982:

when the article in question is an established PRIMARYTOPIC

270:

Talk:List_of_fauna_of_Washington#Requested move 4 July 2023

1545:, the dictionary word, makes no allowance for ambiguity: 1263:

disconnect from my preferences. The argument based on PT

1131:

Ambiguity of a title is a given when the topic is primary

2130: 2126: 1032:

Knowledge generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules

884:

which is exactly what we've successfully done elsewhere

625: 220:) the closer hasn't taken into account enough the fact 163: 143: 135: 127: 397:

conclusions in similar RMs with similar opposes, e.g.

340:). Obviously as the nominator of the RM and author of 1149:

But the best community consensus we have AFAIK is at

833:

Knowledge:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation

584:

Determining through discussion if there's ambiguity

693:when there is a high likelihood for such confusion 691:, "avoiding confusion" is a valid reason to move, 185:Opposition has the numbers, but no basis in policy 2106:in that case. You’re conflating “necessary” with 620:argues that the move proposal should have failed 537:"…'proxy war' between Trump and Georgia's leader" 1379:(uninvolved). The opposers failed to argue that 1244:and hoped the eventual closer agreed with you. 399:Talk:List_of_football_clubs_in_Georgia_(country) 1988:is policy; if a local consensus at the article 1569:weighted accordingly, per CONSENSUS and RMCI. — 364:, strongly suggests the country article is the 1967:, which cannot override community consensus. — 1593:, even though that word is nowhere in the RM? 1025:). In response to the RM closer's question of 2186:Category:Lists of listed buildings in Cumbria 870:explicitly offers as a valid counter-example 8: 868:passage of policy that they (and you) invoke 1135:to determine the consensus of the community 99:The following is an archived debate of the 1194:deals with primary topics of which unlike 65: 2188:which contains lists by municipality and 1389:the country seems the clear primary topic 407:Talk:List_of_federal_lands_in_Washington 352:), the fact that the article was at the 2144:Listed buildings in Killington, Cumbria 2045:a forum to re-argue a closed discussion 1547:an ambiguous title is not sufficiently 1406:be unresolved with an overturn/revert. 1272:. Titles of primary topic articles are 533:"…what's next as the leader of Georgia" 358:List of leaders of Georgia (U.S. state) 228:which does support the previous title. 2335:Knowledge move review monthly listings 1388: 1026: 815: 583: 576: 476: 2142:where there aren't any other places, 874:. Further, the policy makes it clear 651:of the evidence was indicating that. 645:had it been made in the RM discussion 629:not even a single one of the opposers 7: 2148:Listed buildings in Dalston, Cumbria 2140:Listed buildings in Cliburn, Cumbria 2136:Listed buildings in Clifton, Cumbria 1959:. My point is all about reading how 1453:List of leaders of Georgia (country) 1381:List of leaders of Georgia (country) 475:And I just noticed the closer wrote 2313:of the page listed in the heading. 2190:Category:Civil parishes in Cumbria 1537:. They felt it was insufficiently 256:(part of an essay) conflicts with 28: 1955:as to leaders of a country named 1806:List of leaders of South Carolina 1785:List of leaders of North Carolina 999:List of football clubs in Georgia 586:and deciding if/how to address it 1830:List of leaders of West Virginia 1773:List of leaders of New Hampshire 1749:List of leaders of Massachusetts 635:was even possibly searching for 2309:The above is an archive of the 1809:List of leaders of South Dakota 1803:List of leaders of Rhode Island 1800:List of leaders of Pennsylvania 1788:List of leaders of North Dakota 529:"…sworn in as Georgia's leader" 2210:Listed buildings in Killington 1758:List of leaders of Mississippi 1707:List of leaders of Connecticut 1198:there is no primary topic for 1176:unless it is the primary topic 1: 1827:List of leaders of Washington 1779:List of leaders of New Mexico 1776:List of leaders of New Jersey 1701:List of leaders of California 1174:Come on. There is an implied 761:You're absolutely right that 673:WP:RMCI#Determining consensus 577:It needs to be disambiguated 30: 1833:List of leaders of Wisconsin 1812:List of leaders of Tennessee 1755:List of leaders of Minnesota 1740:List of leaders of Louisiana 1476:List of governors of Alabama 1280:What’s next? Propose moving 763:Knowledge is not a democracy 637:List of governors of Georgia 515:fundamental titling criteria 362:as pointed out by the closer 346:List of governors of Georgia 2206:Listed buildings in Dalston 2202:Listed buildings in Clifton 2198:Listed buildings in Cliburn 1824:List of leaders of Virginia 1794:List of leaders of Oklahoma 1782:List of leaders of New York 1767:List of leaders of Nebraska 1761:List of leaders of Missouri 1752:List of leaders of Michigan 1746:List of leaders of Maryland 1737:List of leaders of Kentucky 1725:List of leaders of Illinois 1710:List of leaders of Delaware 1704:List of leaders of Colorado 1698:List of leaders of Arkansas 90:17:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC) 2351: 2300:12:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC) 2277:21:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC) 2265:17:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC) 2228:16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC) 2179:22:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 2166:20:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 2118:04:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 2094:11:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC) 2084:16:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 2060:03:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 2024:05:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC) 1911:18:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC) 1887:17:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) 1836:List of leaders of Wyoming 1821:List of leaders of Vermont 1764:List of leaders of Montana 1728:List of leaders of Indiana 1716:List of leaders of Georgia 1713:List of leaders of Florida 1695:List of leaders of Arizona 1689:List of leaders of Alabama 1620:List of leaders of Georgia 1472:List of leaders of Alabama 633:List of leaders of Georgia 117:List of leaders of Georgia 73:List of leaders of Georgia 2011:15:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) 1975:11:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC) 1931:06:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC) 1861:19:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC) 1846:14:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC) 1797:List of leaders of Oregon 1770:List of leaders of Nevada 1734:List of leaders of Kansas 1719:List of leaders of Hawaii 1692:List of leaders of Alaska 1683:00:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC) 1654:10:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) 1641:22:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC) 1614:21:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC) 1598:19:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC) 1577:07:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC) 1528:18:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1490:07:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) 1465:16:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1442:15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1414:14:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1401:10:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1364:21:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) 1331:14:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1319:07:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1293:06:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1254:23:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 1218:17:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1187:04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 1170:21:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 1145:20:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 1116:16:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 1090:07:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 1056:06:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 1043:16:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 1006:09:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 992:06:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 969:03:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC) 947:02:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) 921:19:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 895:15:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 851:06:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 826:17:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) 802:17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 789:16:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 755:14:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 742:12:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 717:07:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 599:23:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 564:22:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 544:18:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 523:17:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 499:10:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 467:10:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 438:22:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 419:22:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 360:, or for any other state 329:21:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 302:09:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) 282:22:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 244:20:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 208:20:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 2316:Please do not modify it. 1867:WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST 1815:List of leaders of Texas 1743:List of leaders of Maine 1722:List of leaders of Idaho 1309:, went to the basename. 106:Please do not modify it. 1818:List of leaders of Utah 1791:List of leaders of Ohio 1731:List of leaders of Iowa 977:a basis for opposition 604:Statement by RM closer. 445:Knowledge:Moving a page 183:. Closer asserted that 1307:Paris (disambiguation) 671:, as well as ignoring 173:Discussion with closer 1891:This is discussed at 1065:< uninvolved : --> 607:article is ambiguous 18:Knowledge:Move review 1602:No. I’m replying to 811:per Knowledge policy 266:covered in Knowledge 43:Move review archives 1937:community consensus 1671:Overturn and relist 1377:Overturn and relist 405:. Compare those to 103:of the page above. 1629:ModernDayTrilobite 1604:ModernDayTrilobite 1516:ModernDayTrilobite 683:weight accordingly 573:involved as RM nom 443:to move a page on 338:involved as RM nom 179:Close was a clear 82:Extraordinary Writ 2323: 2322: 2294: 2289: 2194:Georgia (country) 1965:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 1505: 1352:that could happen 1123:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 1092: 1024: 705:nailed it above: 574: 512: 339: 318: 219: 194: 193:<involved: --> 56: 55: 2342: 2318: 2292: 2287: 2224: 2217: 2162: 2155: 2046: 2031:- this is still 2030: 2008: 1943:” for any state 1928: 1907: 1900: 1503: 1439: 1431: 1214: 1207: 1166: 1159: 1088: 1084: 1076: 1022: 945: 943: 938: 933: 739: 731: 684: 572: 510: 496: 488: 464: 456: 337: 316: 298: 291: 240: 233: 217: 192: 186: 166: 146: 138: 130: 108: 66: 52: 36: 31: 2350: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2325: 2324: 2314: 2284:Overturn/relist 2262: 2261:it has begun... 2222: 2215: 2212:are red links. 2160: 2153: 2006: 1926: 1922:Overturn/Relist 1905: 1898: 1512:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 1435: 1427: 1212: 1205: 1164: 1157: 1082: 1074: 941: 936: 931: 929: 841:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 735: 727: 678: 492: 484: 460: 452: 366:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 296: 289: 238: 231: 162: 161: 155: 149: 142: 141: 134: 133: 126: 125: 104: 64: 57: 50: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2348: 2346: 2338: 2337: 2327: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2260: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 1993: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1863: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1444: 1420:WP:BLUDGEONing 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1278:by definition. 1237: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1093: 1075:P.I. Ellsworth 1060: 1059: 1058: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 950: 949: 923: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 806: 805: 804: 773: 772: 770: 759: 758: 757: 697: 696: 627:. But no one, 601: 587: 580: 566: 548: 547: 546: 504: 503: 502: 501: 470: 469: 440: 422: 421: 379: 378: 331: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 247: 246: 177: 176: 159: 153: 147: 139: 131: 123: 111: 110: 95: 94: 93: 92: 63: 58: 54: 53: 45: 40: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2347: 2336: 2333: 2332: 2330: 2319: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2306: 2301: 2298: 2295: 2285: 2282: 2278: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2258: 2254: 2251: 2229: 2225: 2219: 2218: 2216:Crouch, Swale 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2157: 2156: 2154:Crouch, Swale 2149: 2145: 2141: 2138: 2137: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2092: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2082: 2079: 2074: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2044: 2038: 2034: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2022: 2019: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1929: 1923: 1920: 1912: 1908: 1902: 1901: 1899:Crouch, Swale 1894: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1844: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1795: 1792: 1789: 1786: 1783: 1780: 1777: 1774: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1762: 1759: 1756: 1753: 1750: 1747: 1744: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1669: 1668: 1655: 1652: 1649: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1612: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1578: 1575: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1551:by definition 1550: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1502: 1499: 1491: 1488: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1443: 1440: 1438: 1432: 1430: 1425: 1424:SportingFlyer 1421: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1412: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1375: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1303:Paris, France 1300: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1266: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1225: 1219: 1215: 1209: 1208: 1206:Crouch, Swale 1201: 1197: 1193: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1177: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1167: 1161: 1160: 1158:Crouch, Swale 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1085: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1070: 1064: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1051: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1007: 1004: 1000: 995: 994: 993: 990: 987: 983: 980: 976: 973:Ambiguity is 972: 971: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 953: 952: 951: 948: 944: 939: 934: 927: 924: 922: 918: 914: 910: 907: 906: 897: 896: 893: 887: 885: 881: 877: 873: 869: 864: 860: 854: 853: 852: 849: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 829: 828: 827: 824: 817: 813: 812: 807: 803: 800: 797: 792: 791: 790: 787: 783: 779: 774: 771: 768: 764: 760: 756: 753: 750: 745: 744: 743: 740: 738: 732: 730: 725: 724:SportingFlyer 720: 719: 718: 715: 712: 708: 704: 699: 698: 694: 690: 689:SportingFlyer 686: 682: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 623: 619: 618:Crouch, Swale 614: 610: 609:by definition 605: 602: 600: 596: 592: 588: 585: 581: 578: 570: 567: 565: 561: 557: 552: 549: 545: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 525: 524: 521: 516: 509: 506: 505: 500: 497: 495: 489: 487: 482: 481:SportingFlyer 478: 474: 473: 472: 471: 468: 465: 463: 457: 455: 450: 449:SportingFlyer 446: 441: 439: 435: 431: 427: 424: 423: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 395: 390: 386: 381: 380: 376: 372: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 335: 332: 330: 326: 322: 314: 311: 310: 303: 299: 293: 292: 290:Crouch, Swale 285: 284: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 250: 249: 248: 245: 241: 235: 234: 232:Crouch, Swale 227: 223: 215: 212: 211: 210: 209: 206: 202: 198: 190: 182: 174: 170: 165: 158: 152: 145: 137: 129: 122: 118: 115: 114: 113: 112: 109: 107: 102: 97: 96: 91: 87: 83: 79: 75: 74: 70: 69: 68: 67: 62: 59: 49: 46: 44: 41: 39: 33: 32: 23: 19: 2315: 2308: 2293:SilverLocust 2283: 2252: 2213: 2151: 2134: 2110:, perhaps? — 2107: 2103: 2099: 2072: 2069: 2065: 2042: 2036: 2033:your opinion 2032: 2000: 1989: 1981: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1921: 1896: 1870: 1853:Adumbrativus 1675:Adumbrativus 1670: 1624: 1590: 1566: 1565:and must be 1562: 1558: 1554: 1548: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1504:(uninvolved) 1500: 1479: 1451:redirect to 1449:WP:MALPLACED 1434: 1426: 1376: 1351: 1347: 1338: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1264: 1260: 1240: 1232: 1228: 1203: 1175: 1155: 1151:WP:SHORTFORM 1134: 1130: 1126: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1062: 1018: 1001:and others. 981: 978: 974: 925: 908: 888: 875: 871: 865: 861: 857: 836: 819: 809: 766: 734: 726: 706: 692: 680: 676: 668: 660: 652: 648: 644: 636: 632: 628: 621: 612: 608: 603: 568: 550: 511:(uninvolved) 507: 491: 483: 459: 451: 425: 393: 388: 350:WP:QUALIFIER 342:WP:MISPLACED 333: 312: 287: 265: 261: 258:WP:QUALIFIER 254:WP:SHORTFORM 252:In my view, 229: 226:WP:SHORTFORM 213: 189:WP:PRECISION 181:WP:SUPERVOTE 178: 105: 98: 77: 71: 60: 2311:move review 1986:WP:TITLEDAB 1276:ambiguous, 1192:WP:CONPRIME 665:WP:NOTAVOTE 613:and address 579:in some way 101:move review 48:2023 August 2288:uninvolved 2257:* Pppery * 2108:preferable 1997:WP:NOTBURO 1949:reasonably 1559:the policy 1535:WP:PRECISE 1508:WP:PRECISE 1385:WP:PRECISE 1348:reflection 1343:WP:NCPLACE 1125:is clear: 1023:uninvolved 961:Rreagan007 957:WP:PRECISE 913:Rreagan007 687:And, yes, 679:assigning 556:Walt Yoder 394:especially 371:WP:TWODABS 317:uninvolved 218:uninvolved 2104:necessary 2100:necessary 2073:necessary 2066:necessary 2049:estar8806 1961:community 1876:estar8806 1501:Overturn. 1480:Of course 1311:SmokeyJoe 1241:something 1104:community 1040:Alalch E. 1036:guideline 1028:criteria? 942:contribs) 880:base name 778:estar8806 657:Estar8806 641:SmokeyJoe 430:SmokeyJoe 354:base name 197:estar8806 61:2023 July 38:2023 June 2329:Category 1637:contribs 1524:contribs 1356:SnowFire 1246:SnowFire 1233:disagree 1154:thanks. 1108:SnowFire 1096:Overturn 1063:Endorse. 1019:Overturn 932:Skarmory 909:Overturn 837:starting 591:Mdewman6 551:Overturn 508:Overturn 426:Overturn 411:Mdewman6 385:WP:RMNAC 375:WP:NCDAB 274:Mdewman6 214:Overturn 78:Relisted 20:‎ | 2007:Dylnuge 2001:obvious 1927:Dylnuge 1625:claimed 1591:precise 1555:precise 1549:precise 1543:Precise 1539:precise 1297:Moving 1200:Georgia 1196:Florida 937:(talk • 926:Endorse 703:Amakuru 569:Comment 539:, etc. 321:Amakuru 313:Endorse 222:Georgia 157:archive 136:history 2253:Relist 1457:Vpab15 1393:Vpab15 1274:always 1100:Relist 979:at all 655:Well, 334:Relist 1299:Paris 1282:Paris 1270:never 856:JDLI. 839:with 348:(see 164:watch 151:links 51:: --> 16:< 2223:talk 2208:and 2161:talk 2131:this 2127:this 2091:╠╣uw 2053:talk 1990:were 1906:talk 1880:talk 1857:talk 1679:talk 1633:talk 1595:╠╣uw 1520:talk 1461:talk 1397:talk 1360:talk 1315:talk 1250:talk 1213:talk 1165:talk 1112:talk 1098:and 1003:╠╣uw 965:talk 917:talk 892:╠╣uw 823:╠╣uw 782:talk 595:talk 582:and 560:talk 541:╠╣uw 520:╠╣uw 434:talk 415:talk 401:and 389:this 373:and 325:talk 297:talk 278:talk 239:talk 201:talk 144:logs 128:edit 121:talk 86:talk 35:< 2271:В²C 2226:) 2173:В²C 2164:) 2123:В²C 2112:В²C 2078:В²C 2043:not 2041:is 2037:why 2018:В²C 1969:В²C 1909:) 1871:why 1840:В²C 1648:В²C 1608:В²C 1571:В²C 1484:В²C 1474:to 1408:В²C 1339:yes 1325:В²C 1301:to 1287:В²C 1265:was 1261:did 1229:did 1216:) 1181:В²C 1168:) 1139:В²C 1083:ed. 1050:В²C 986:В²C 975:not 876:why 863:it. 845:В²C 796:В²C 767:any 749:В²C 711:В²C 681:due 649:all 622:and 300:) 262:not 242:) 171:) ( 167:) ( 22:Log 2331:: 2297:💬 2204:, 2200:, 2070:Un 2055:) 2047:. 1982:so 1895:. 1882:) 1859:) 1838:. 1681:) 1639:) 1635:• 1567:un 1526:) 1522:• 1482:. 1463:) 1422:. 1399:) 1362:) 1317:) 1252:) 1114:) 1080:, 967:) 919:) 784:) 675:: 667:: 597:) 562:) 535:, 531:, 436:) 417:) 377:). 327:) 280:) 272:. 203:) 195:-- 169:RM 88:) 80:. 76:– 2286:( 2274:☎ 2220:( 2176:☎ 2158:( 2115:☎ 2081:☎ 2057:★ 2051:( 2021:☎ 1972:☎ 1957:X 1953:X 1945:X 1941:X 1903:( 1884:★ 1878:( 1855:( 1843:☎ 1677:( 1651:☎ 1631:( 1611:☎ 1574:☎ 1518:( 1487:☎ 1459:( 1437:C 1433:· 1429:T 1411:☎ 1395:( 1358:( 1328:☎ 1313:( 1290:☎ 1248:( 1210:( 1184:☎ 1162:( 1142:☎ 1110:( 1069:! 1053:☎ 1030:— 1021:( 989:☎ 963:( 915:( 886:. 848:☎ 799:☎ 786:★ 780:( 752:☎ 737:C 733:· 729:T 714:☎ 593:( 571:( 558:( 494:C 490:· 486:T 462:C 458:· 454:T 432:( 413:( 336:( 323:( 315:( 294:( 276:( 236:( 216:( 205:★ 199:( 175:) 160:| 154:| 148:| 140:| 132:| 124:| 119:( 84:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Move review/Log/2023 July - Knowledge

Index