Knowledge:Move review/Log/2022 March

4519:

neutrals, still a consensus of one to move away from the current title. While they were neutral, there was still talk of recency bias and no primary topic, which did not change even after a fair rebuttal. At that point the consensus that existed to move the film to the base name was whittled down a bit. After the neutrals and rebuttals came a comment that questioned the film's notability and for the second time whether or not the film was the primary topic. Comes an editor who at first agreed with neutrality, then struck that to give a "leaning support", thus again strengthening your consensus. The next editor opposed the film as primary topic, thereby weakening your consensus as well as suggesting a different disambiguation for the film. As if their opinion meant nothing, another editor chimes in first with daggers to the heart of that editor's rationale, and then with more support for your proposal. It's at this point where we must stop, smell the roses , and make an objective closer's choice. Looking back we see a clear consensus to move away from the then current title. Yet with strong words about recentism and much argument for and against the film as primary topic, we do not see any but (perhaps) the roughest consensus at best, no consensus more likely, to move the film to primary status as you initially proposed. That is what I see, and I think that is pretty much what the closer saw where the film's title was concerned. I can lead you to the close, but I can't make you agree.

2778:

entirely of "Support, looks alright": if all comments are like that, then the case is obvious enough for discussion to be unnecessary. But once some more substantial argument has been made to the contrary, then votes that don't address the issues raised there should be irrelevant to the close. Two of the supporters engaged with those issues, one eventually decided to rescind their support as a result, while the other made a counterargument about words in Britain vs. elsewhere, which was essentially an inference about usage, but that is irrelevant because the actual usage data was already presented and it did not lend support to the proposal. The one remaining participant counted in the support column was the nominator, and their argument was of a type that's deprecated by the guidelines (historic age and etymology), and that was largely irrelevant in the context (the main other competing topic had comparable antiquity). I don't know, maybe I am hopelessly biased here and I can't see the deep wisdom hidden in "Support per nom"? I don't even know why I'm writing this now. No-one is going to read it – the MRV is obviously going to get closed with something like "6:1 in favour of endorsing", and hardly anyone can be expected to either have a think about the soul-crushing complacency of the RM venue's culture, or else to take the time to point out what misapprehensions I might be labouring under. –

3574:(uninvolved). There's clear support for moving the album away from the primary title. As for whether the newly released film is the primary topic, I see no consensus. There wasn't much in the discussion to suggest greater long-term significance (or relative "notability", as one participant put it). The argument for promoting to a primary topic rests entirely on usage, but this is severely undermined by the fact that the film has just been released. Usage matters (and I would say, it matters a lot), but only if it has been observed (rather than conjectured) to have remained stable over a long period (at least several years) after the inevitable initial spike in popularity. SMALLDETAILS was invoked a few times: the point of this guideline is to allow us to exploit small differences in titles so that we can avoid disambiguators, I don't think it can be used to completely disregard minor spelling variants when deciding on primary topics. The closer is correct about the core question (primary topic or not), but exact disambiguators to use for the album and film articles weren't discussed at any great length, and it's easy to imagine that they could have picked another option. The close shouldn't be taken as precluding an informal discussion of that, or even bold actions. – 2017:. On the face of it, this looks like a good outcome. There was a primary topic based on usage, but not on long-term significance; against the backdrop of this discrepancy, both the general preference for disambiguation as the default, and the status quo happily converge on a "no consensus". But if you look more closely into the arguments, the case for the "long-term significance" side gets a lot shakier. Maybe only the meaning in music could legitimately enter into the equation, though it was only highlighted by a few participants. Most gave prominence either to something that doesn't exist (an article about the everyday meaning of the word), or to an obscure figure in Romany mythology that's only rarely known as "Discord" (its claimed etymological primacy, had it been true, would have been irrelevant). – 3466:

distinguisher” in this case. Imagine a case in which a number of topics share an ambiguous name, all have comparable page views, but one is centuries old and the others are relatively new. In that case page views would be N/A, and long term significance would indicate the primary topic. Clearly. That would be the opposite of this case. All topics here are indistinguishable by long-term significance, but one is clear stand out by page views. The recentism point might have some applicability if the other uses had ever experienced comparable page views to this new film, but that’s not the case either. There is simply no indication other than this topic is much more likely to be sought than all the others combined, at least for the foreseeable future. —-

1485:. There's not really a consensus in this discussion, among uninvolved editors, as to whether the close is proper. Those feeling it is say opposers had stronger arguments (w.r.t long-term significance?), and those saying overturn say it's not the place of closers to play around with the weight of comments if both sides have legitimate policy-based arguments. Move-review instructions give the closer discretion to relist the discussion in cases where the move review results in no consensus. Since the discussion was promptly closed after 7 days, I'm going to opt for that option, with the hope that discussion participants will clarify which PTOPIC argument is more valid. I suggest someone else have a shot at closing it after the relisting period elapses. 4643:

application of SMALLDETAILS, but it's still a reasonable argument for the original title being valid, so it doesn't meet the OTHEROPTIONS threshold and can't trigger it. OTHEROPTIONS certainly doesn't come into play for the first proposed move (of the album), where the argument was that the Booker Ervin album did not need to be disambiguated from a soundtrack of an unreleased musical described in a section of an article for which there were no redirects, an argument strengthened by the fact that the musical article was subsequently deleted due to the closer's own nomination, and the album article should have been moved to the title as proposed, for which there was strong support with only 1 participant opposed.

4745:. There was no consensus for getting "In Between" (dab) involved in this. Only one person seemed to support that and the basis for that !vote (that none of this is hugely important) isn't based in policy and it just makes things more confusing. If someone types "The In Between" into the search box, they really are likely to want the "the". I thought about closing this, but the result would have to be "no consensus to overturn" given the !votes. And that's just the wrong outcome. Further, the arguments for doing the move, while based in recentism, seem to be holding up months later. Doesn't mean they will forever, but it seems to be the right outcome (and the closest thing to consensus the RM had). 4198:

on a new title, which is far from the case here. It is not a license for a closer to do whatever they think best with the expectation that the nominator will simply try again with another RM and avoid a move review. If that were true, the RM process would simply implode. If NOGOODOPTIONS were validly invoked, a second RM would be appropriate. But that was not the case here, and that is why we are at MR. All that more baffling is your implication of MR being the logical next step when you first reviewed this RM. One can change their opinion after further scrutiny, sure, but don't come back around and question the nom's intentions when they were in agreement with your views at the time.

4029:, but I'm baffled by your response here. Since the nom and now you have placed so much weight on IIO's viewpoint, I think it warrants a close analysis. Shall we? First, he says: "Nothing notable anywhere." I address this directly in the RM. What the heck does that even mean? If it's not notable, it doesn't deserve an article. Each topic has an article, therefore they are notable, by definition. Okay, next: "Minor entertainment articles." Okay, but so what? Nothing in primary topic says it doesn't apply when all candidate topics are "minor" (whatever that means). What matters is likelihood of being sought relative to each other, does it not? And that's it. From this he concludes: " 1694:. There are a couple others that I find to be kind of out of line with policy, but I'm not going to get into the weeds, especially since I was involved.)The closer mentioned in their talk discussion that the "strong oppose"s and "weak support"s (of which there were 2 each) pushed the call over the line. I do think it's appropriate to give less weight to a "weak" !vote (or one which otherwise indicates some ambivalence), but I think it's a bad idea to consider a "strong" one as more significant. Call me cynical, but I think if this became the precedent, there are some editors who would submit nothing but "strong" votes for their preferred option. (I think the brief essay at 3996:, this happens sometimes, where I'll take a preliminary look, come to one conclusion, then do a more in-depth analysis only to find myself in a different camp. Much of this has to do with my knowledge of the closer's experience and his usual careful effort to determine consensus. This was a tough call, so it makes sense to me to give the closure the benefit of any doubt that may remain after scrutiny of its details. Without going into rearguing the RM and repeating the points made by the closer here and on his talk page, my conclusion is that his closure of this move request was reasonable. Truth be told, I've often found myself siding with consensus against 3489:(uninvolved). As I said earlier on the closer's user talk page, I agree with B2C and Mdewman6's arguments that the close doesn't seem to reflect the discussion. Between the three who explicitly favoured the original proposal and the other two who were neutral on the primary-topic status of the film, that's a fairly clear cut consensus to make the 2022 film the primary topic. And there is no policy or evidence argument saying it should not be so, given the very heavy lead it enjoys in page views. Indeed, with a page-view ratio that strong, it would be very rare for any topic not to be deemed the primary, all other things being equal. So the closer's citing of 4455:. There is no such consensus. The title chosen wasn't even strongly supported by the user who offered it as a possibility, prefacing it with "maybe". That user's position was only to oppose the film being the primary topic, not opposition to its current title. The two users who were neutral on it becoming the primary topic also clearly had no problem with the original title. Thus, rather than seeing the consensus for the film being the primary topic, or not seeing that and having a simple "no consensus" close that would lead to a second RM, the end result is a blatant supervote by the closer that must be rectified at move review. 3897:, sure, the RM was a bit messy (I’ve seen much worse), but that’s no excuse to be sloppy. With a bit of effort the bottom line can be gleaned from the mess: three favored the move of the film to the base name, based on primary topic, one opposed, based on JDLI, and two were neutral. That’s clear consensus by any reasonable measure, no? The reason for the MR is to get consensus that this was an unreasonable SUPERVOTE close. However, given others including you are misreading that consensus too, I’m thinking it was a simple misread of a messy discussion. An innocent mistake, but a mistake nevertheless. Let’s correct it, shall we? — 474:. The decision was based on the observation that Poland ceased to exist in 1569 when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was created. This is a false statement, as the Commonwealth was a unionist state between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. So both states existed until the end of the 18th century. Besides, it is based on a narrow understanding of the concept of "nationality" as being inextricably linked with an existing state. In this understanding, in the 19th there was no people of Polish nationality, because Poland did not exist as a sovereign state. Moreover, the user 4231:. The closer AND the closure were explicit just like NOGOODOPTIONS is explicit! All you had to do was open a new RM. As long as your new RM does not propose moving back to the old titles, as long as your new RM proposes different titles (or even just one different title), then that's all you had to do! That's why bringing this here is such a waste of good time. You can see by the results so far that editors disagree with you. I think I've seen your better half, В²C, present this same argument to other editors under similar circumstances, which is why I'm baffled. I can't understand what the diff is. В²C 4172:

closing statement, "Should anyone disagree, feel free to open a RM." Instead of wasting time with this review, all that had to be done was to open a fresh RM. That is what the closer of this review will also take under consideration. Whether or not you or the nom or anyone else disagrees with the RM closer's choice of NOGOODOPTIONS, the fact remains that is how the RM was closed. Technically, a move review such as this should be procedurally closed, and it is subject to such closure immediately after it is opened. Since I no longer want to waste your time, I'm done here.

856:

simply easier with countries such as France that have existed for a long time in an essentially unchanging form. Or with countries that emerged in the modern era, like the USA or Belgium. For such countries ethnicity and nationality overlap almost 100%. Poland and many other countries in the region have their own characteristics. Otherwise we will have a multiplicity of categories, and they will lose their usefulness.For example, someone who wants to look up biographies of all Polish painters will not be able to do so, because they will not find them all in the category

1432:

sentiment instead recently. While "Japan bashing" is indeed an anti-japanese sentiment in the US but many agreed this topic is important enough to have its own page. Moverover, when the page got redirected, there were little new content added in the page of "Anti-Japanese sentiment". Also, I didnt found any discussion about redirecting the post, at least not the talk page of "Japan bashing". User Chipmunkdavis also reverted those changes who disagreed with his action without any explaination. You can see that in the history page of the topic. (Page history︰

3155:. The close is too much of the closer's opinion and too little citation of the points made in the discussion, for an obviously edge-close. The tendency for supervote closes needs to be nipped on every occasion, or the entire RM process loses its respect. Any closer who feels the need to include "Should anyone disagree, feel free to open a RM" (RM(sic) for MR) should not be closing, that is absolutely the wrong approach. The closer should be confident that their close if of such quality that it will be broadly supported if challenged. -- 4103:, now I’m flabbergasted. The closer’s decision to invoke NOGOODOPTIONS was based on putting undue weight on one participant’s input. I say the weight on this opinion was undue because not only did it not reflect the opinions of any other participants, but, more importantly, it does not reflect community consensus as reflected in policy and guidelines. It’s pure pap. Therefore, not only would you have closed differently, but you would have closed differently because this close was based on a total misread. How can you endorse that? — 4074:

this point it would not be a good thing for us to be drawn into reargument. Please suffice to say that I don't mean to be baffling, and I have found myself in agreement with the closer on some small level, which leads me to find his closure reasonable. Even if I'm not in complete agreement with the close, I have to conclude that the closer's decision to invoke NOGOODOPTIONS was within the bounds of good and sound reasonableness. Again, I am so sorry if this appears confounding, because that is certainly not what I mean to be.

548:

especially in this region, language. We have been through a similar process in respect of Belgium, which is not so complicated, and it has taken months. This process is by no means finished, and I hope people who know more than I do about the history and geography of the period in Eastern Europe will get involved. As you note, this was only about the 18th century. We need to go back a few centuries yet. I have actually just bought a book on the history of Poland to improve my understanding of all this.

3651:, favored by only 1 of the 6 participants (with no participants explicitly having voted "disambiguate"). I strongly agree there was "strong support for moving the album away from the primary title", so why didn't the closer just do that as proposed, rather than move to an alternative favored by a single participant? This was a supervote; if the closer so strongly favored the viewpoint of the user they name in their close, they should have joined the discussion rather than have closed it. 4274:, MR is the main opportunity the community has to rebuke closers for inappropriate closes. This is how we notify closers who are out of line that they need to reign it in. That’s what needs to happen here. So that’s why it’s not a waste of time. This closer needs to know that it’s unacceptable to close per a minority argument when it does not reflect community consensus. Otherwise closers would be able to close per minority JDLI arguments left and right. You don’t want that, do you? — 3607:, which is a guideline. Second, the relevant bits of that guideline are well known, and its considerations are implicit in much of the discussion; explicitly linking to a guideline doesn't make a statement count for more. Third, discussions aren't votes, but if the distribution of opinions is to be taken into account, then it's worth pointing out that the one editor to explicitly oppose wasn't the only one to doubt the long-term significance. – 3814:

lack thereof, not to "try again" after a bad close. If I had just boldly moved the album away from the base name, which had been the primary topic by default for years, and moved the film to the base name, I doubt anyone would have objected. But I erred on the side of an RM, and here we are. The process failed in this case, so let's at least get it right in the end, even if it takes far longer than should be logically necessary.

3617:

weighted accordingly when consensus is determined. Yes, more than one mentioned the recentism concern, but, again, in the end only one opposed moving the film to the base name; three supported and two were neutral. Are you ignoring their explicit neutral !votes and counting them as opposed in determining there was no consensus? That would be misreading consensus. And of course a reference to a policy

2833:

people lined up to support each argument (whether with a naked vote, or by restating or paraphrasing the arguments). Right? In practice, the issue I have is more with support-per-noms where the nom's argument has been countered and a stronger argument presented against the proposal. If I were the closer of such a discussion, then I'd ignore any support-per-noms that don't address those arguments. –

4036:" because "disambiguation is required as a better sourced album is all that has existed since 2012 on the never performed Broadway musical (see dab page)." The album has been the primary topic for "The In Between" for years and now it can't even be primary for a partial disambiguation? Perhaps, but don't we need a stronger argument than this? Regarding the film all he says is, " 3338:: I apologize for belated responding; it was due to unforeseen real-life circumstances. The next time I got to my talk page, this MR got already opened, so at this point it's best to let it run its course. While I acknowledge criticism, and appreciate different opinions about a tricky RM, I still do not think there was a solid enough consensus to move the film to the base title 4336:"Perhaps there is no consensus, but there is consensus?" I suppose that's the only solution when we waste time running around in circles. Repetition, circular reasonings and more repeats, the very bane of agreement. This is a prime example of how consensus is evaded. If there can be no agreement, then there can be no positive action, no advancement, only quicksand. 1242:: The main issue is not that your concerns are invalid; it's that move review is primarily for evaluating whether the discussion's consensus was properly assessed. But since you're bringing a new argument about the way things should be categorized, it would be better for you to first withdraw this nomination and then start a new CFD instead. You can consult 2847:"oppose, this isn't consistent with our normal naming practices", to me "support per the nom's arguments" is tantamount to saying "I believe that the arguments proposed by the nominator are more relevant than the arguments proposed by the opposers". I don't want to play a game where if you don't say those magic words, your opinion is discounted. 3416:, advising following current known usage. One of the opposers opposed based on page view numbers which were shown to be way off. Again, nobody countered. The final oppose was shown to be based on pure JDLI, and this too was not countered. It is the job of the closer to discount the weight of such weak arguments accordingly, not endorse them. — 4478:, immediately if you like. That means that we shouldn't even be here. It should be noted that whenever NOGOODOPTIONS is invoked, the closing statement automatically becomes a "blatant supervote". There is no way around that. It is certainly no good reason to open a move review against the specific instructions at NOGOODOPTIONS. 530:. Hence the move needs to be partially reverted (old categories need to be restored, with no prejdudice to retaining the newer one as well - although overcategorization is an issue - we don't need someone to be both in the Polish and Polish-Lithuanian categories, IMHO, the Polish ones, a child to P-L one, should suffice). 2585:; instead, they either regarded the maritime topic as the PTOPIC on the basis that a reader is more likely to seek the maritime topic than all other topics combined, or regarded this as a situation where usage alone does not indicate a PTOPIC. As far as I can see, there is no single way to determine whether something is 3590:, and myself, all noting the other uses have never had the hits this one is getting. This point was not even addressed much less refuted. A single oppose based solely on a blatant JDLI opinion (“such a banal and common title”) arguably should be given no weight at all. How is this anything but clear consensus to move? — 3840:, it was something else entirely. As I noted above, if the finding of the closer was "no consensus" we wouldn't be here. To say the close correctly found no consensus is a misreading of the closing summary. As for using RMNAC, the closer made clear this was an intentional omission in discussion on their talk page. 482:, not understanding its content, as this identity refers to the Lithuanians, citizens of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who adopted the Polish language and culture, and not to all inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I would ask the administrators to react and withdraw the changes made. I also ping 3314:'s point: any closer needs to clearly explain why they are going against the clear consensus or plurality of opinion, but especially a non-admin closer. Simply declaring "no consensus" without basis and invoking NOGOODOPTIONS to justify a SUPERVOTE is not that. Closers need to know this is not acceptable. 2898:, with the same reasoning as presented in the Discord discussion - neither "long term significance" or "usage" should be given additional weight, meaning that this consensus is clear as the arguments are equally strong but the level of support - the number of editors convinced by each argument - is not. 4582:

Thank you for reading what I wrote. Really, I do appreciate it. I think you understood it, or most of it at least. There was as said pretty likely no consensus; however, because of the other side of the coin, because of the fact that there was agreement/consensus that the old title should be changed,

3602:

I don't know what sort of answer you expect here, I believe I've already tried to explain the reasons why I don't see consensus. But maybe I need to clarify a few probably obvious points. First, no-one gave any policy-based rationales, because no relevant policies exist: primary topics are covered in

3450:

is what people referred to as "recentism", and this is the crux here. In this particular case, we don't have crystal ball indeed to know whether the film will have enduring notability over other topics, but I gave more weight to the conservative views advocating "let's wait and see" approach. I don't

3395:

At your page you responded to requests from two of us to reconsider before this MR was started. You could have easily have chosen to revert/relist. Despite being informed you’d be forcing the community to go the MR route, you refused. Real-life circumstances notwithstanding, we are here due solely to

2777:

too seriously and expecting discussion outcomes to at least partially be based solely on an evaluation of the arguments made? And what does "5:2" mean when 3 of the 5 are the sort of vote that wouldn't normally be taken into account. I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with statements consisting

1827:

usually is correct, but I urge consideration as to whether his proclivity to close contentious discussions is less helpful to the project than if he were to !vote in these discussions. This is the WP:Supervote principle. However, I have not looked to find out what proportion of Spectre's closes are

1770:

I have noted Calidum is not an enthusiastic thread-discussionist in !vote sections, but on the other hand, you did make a number of replies to others that were "points" and not questions or invitations to discuss. I suggest that where you have a counter-point to someone else's !vote, you should make

889:

The categories for Belgium, France, and Spain before unification have been separated out, but as you say, each case is different, but the whole point of categorisation by nationality is that it is reasonably objective. Ethnic/cultural categories are generally deprecated. And not all Polish painters

4936:

as participant. The closing seems fair, each side has its point of view acknowledged, however quietly and concisely. The closer has almost 500 edits, a pretty good number on average, and has been around long enough to recognize and put an obvious and lingering no consensus discussion out to pasture.

3728:

as uninvolved. It's an accurate reading of consensus to move the album and a lack of consensus to move the movie. I would've relisted, personally, but the close was reasonable. I wish the person who listed this for MRV would've just followed the advice of the closer to file a new request. I will say

3696:

Well that's more or less it, setting aside for the moment whether the 2022 film is the primary topic or not, if the finding is that it is not, then instead of a simple "no consensus" close for the second proposed move, the closer unnecessarily went beyond the scope of the RM proposal and, as stated,

2813:

I'll go to bat for the right of editors to write "support per nom". What do you expect editors to do if they agree with a well-reasoned nomination?... Is this a freshman English class, where we have to find passages and rewrite them in our own words? It seems a bit much to expect that of editors. If

2577:

both because of its age and because it has remained significant throughout its existence. It is acceptable to justify that the maritime topic is the PTOPIC for "dock" on the basis that it has remained significant on a long-term basis; in contrast, if the reasoning were "it existed thousands of years

1689:

I agree with Adumbrativus's analysis. With a 20:9 ratio supporting (including nominator), if you're going to close the discussion as anything but "consensus to move", it should be because the opposing arguments had a significantly stronger basis in policy, but the closer has not indicate any finding

1156:

without also nominating the categories for 16th and 17th century. It was my mistake that I did not examine this prior to closing. With the category tree now splintered, I recommend that this MR request be withdrawn, and a CFD be opened instead that would include all categories that might be affected

707:

I am not imposing my views on anyone. Changes to categorisation are subject to public debate. If you have views about them then please contribute. And yes Ukraine, Hungary and Bulgaria will need careful thought as they did exist in some form when they were not independent. You are entirely free to

4629:

valid. I believe I actually invoked it in one of my closes too (though I have far less closing experience that you, and I generally close only clear-cut discussions). So I understand what you're saying and your point of view, but as you say, I guess we just disagree. The only way I see for there to

4503:

The only users who held positions against the original title were those in favor of moving to the base name as the primary topic, so if that was sufficient for there to be consensus against the original title, then there was consensus for the move as proposed! There was simply no basis for invoking

4197:

The idea that any move review regarding an RM that was closed involving NOGOODOPTIONS should be procedurally closed, implying it is procedurally incorrect, is ludicrous. NOGOODOPTIONS is intended to apply in rare instances where the participants are expressly against the status quo but cannot agree

4040:

minor streaming film ...", again with the (meaningless) "minor" and continues... "and with such a banal and common title." Banal and common? So what? If that's not JDLI, I don't know what is. And that's it! This is the compelling argument that has enough merit to "raise it above the other voices

2787:

Anybody who has been on this site long enough has been through this in one form or another, Uanfala. It's like being a single voice in a dark forest. The other involved editors, like you, were pretty experienced here, so we see the gathering storm engulfing us at times. Try not to be too staggered,

1937:

and move as proposed. The opposers seem to be arguing more against the encyclopedicness of the software (An argument better made in AFD than RM) rather than its long term significance or the arguments made by the supporters. Those opposes should have been weighed accordingly and the close therefore

832:

I am not being rude, I am simply making a clear assessment of your actions. They are contradictory, because even if we restrict the understanding of nationhood to the state, the Polish state did not cease to exist in the 18th century, for it existed if only in the form of the kingdom of Poland. But

4642:

at its original title: there is a good argument for it to stay at its current title, that being if there is no primary topic, "(film)" is concise and sufficient to disambiguate it from the album, and similarly spelled films are already disambiguated via SMALLDETAILS. Now, one can disagree with the

4518:

I don't think that's the whole story. I think you're right about the consensus to move away from the then current title, but let's see what happens next. You opened your request and, at that time, there was consensus to rename the film to the base name – a consensus of one. After the two film-name

3621:

doesn’t have to explicitly tag it to “count”, but language has to at least implicitly refer to it, and the single oppose didn’t even do that. It was pure JDLI. Are you giving it weight against consensus to move nevertheless? That too would be misreading consensus. I appreciate your two attempts to

3552:

mean that terms differing by only a hyphen or a "the" are different enough that they cannot be confused with each other. Absolutely there should be hatnotes on all of these articles pointing to topics with nearly identical spelling and/or a disambiguation page, which is what SMALLDETAILS says. The

3297:

Refusal by the closer to relist after three users (including an uninvolved admin) pointed all this out and requested they relist on their talk page is not collegial. An NAC controversial close is already pushing the limits, but the community tolerates and even appreciates such closes when they are

2058:

I think this was the correct close based on the reading of the discussion. While more users voted to support, the views of those opposing were a bit stronger and noted short term significance cannot determine a primary topic. While this could have been closed as a move, the close is acceptable and

855:

To put it more simply, you have to accept that the categories relating to nationality in relation to certain national groups (such as those whose states at some point disappeared or changed form), cover what we understand in the broader definition of nationality (so nationality + ethnicity). It is

729:

You are imposing your narrow view about what defines nationality on others. Can you link me to a discussion when it was decided that Polish nationality didn't exist in the 18-th century? Also once again you are showing an ignorance, because it kingdom of Hungary existed all the time in one form or

505:

It is my fault that I missed the initial move discussion, sigh. The new category is likely valid BUT it should not replace the old one. There were both distinct Poles and Lithuanians throughout the history (although it is common to describe many as Poles, due to the strenght of the Polish culture

4171:

Here is what I think the closer of this review should and will weigh: the fact that this review should never have been opened in the first place. It is a waste of time to open a move review when a move request has been closed under NOGOODOPTIONS and the RM closer has explicitly mentioned in their

4073:

reasonable closure. After digging deeper, though, I found myself better understanding Iio's words and better seeing what the closer saw in them. Not for anything but you are still writing and reading Iio's words from the viewpoint of a supporter in the RM, so you don't see what the closer saw. At

3813:

The closer did move the part that everyone agreed on, but moved it to the place favored by only 1 participant. For at least this reason, the close was wrong and that's why we're here. We shouldn't need an RM do-over because of an overreaching close. Subsequent RMs should be to refine consensus or

2846:

I hear what you're saying. I understand! I suppose my disposition is more "let's look at what the consensus is", not "are there any outstanding arguments that have not been refuted." If the nom says "look, this is obviously primary topic, look at these sources, look at this data" and someone says

2832:

I'm pleasantly surprised by the responses above, thank you both! I would like to just respond to the "support per nom" question. Counting heads may be applicable sometimes, but if closing of a discussion is indeed meant to consist in an evaluation of the arguments, then it doesn't matter how many

1978:

It is not established whether long-term significance or usage has the most weight in move discussions. Given this, it is not permitted by policy to give greater weight to !votes based on the former than based on the latter, and given !votes of equal weight there is a clear consensus for the move.

1753:

I noticed that Calidum mentioned that there was some bludgeoning from those who supported. While I did do a little bit of bludgeoning myself, it was mainly to try and see a bit more of the reason behind some of the opposes, however I tried to avoid any heavy bludgeoning myself since I see that as

4115:

Probably just a difference of perspective. You see the closer's decision as putting undue weight on a single input. Objectively, others above to include myself see the decision as a "good close", "correct about the core question", "an accurate reading of consensus to move the album and a lack of

3977:

Going with the views of one lone participant, when the views of the majority are clearly defensible and in line with guidelines actually is unreasonable. There's simply no way to get around this. It's not enough to just say it's "rough around the edges" and move on, if you think it was the right

2772:

Obviously I'm not neutral here: I'm almost the only one who opposed the RM, and my complaint about the close was what nudged the closer into starting this move review. I'm finding it all very baffling. I know many RM regulars don't burden themselves with the onus of reading the discussion before

4286:

Agree with your base premise; disagree that it applies in this case. If it did actually apply here, then there would be consensus here, which there is not thus far. Hopefully that helps you see how this is thus far a huge waste of time, and that if a new RM had been started, as suggested by the

3616:

It’s common in RM discussions to refer to any guideline that is backed by community consensus as “policy”, and that’s what I meant by it. Just because D is a guideline doesn’t mean references to a section within it don’t have the weight of the community behind it. Such references deserve to be

3221:

A surprising amount of ink has been spilled on this since I posted this comment, but I still think it's correct. I don't agree this was a supervote but rather a nuanced reading of a difficult discussion that went beyond just the bolded quotes. I went back and re-read and still think it's a good

1999:

The vote majority was't so overwhelming as to require a move, so I could see a "no consensus" close, but I'd expect there to be some major policy concerns afoot. Per the MR nomination, I'm not convinced this was identified - even if we grant that "long term significance" is a major concern, it

620:

Maybe you should read more than one book on this topic before making such profound changes? I'm serious you don't really seem to understand the topic. There were plenty of people at that time who considered themselves "Polish" or "Lithuanian", or both at the same time. There were also Ruthenian

4158:

in the RM supports the closer’s reading of consensus? The apparent inability or unwillingness of endorsers here to provide these specifics, despite ample opportunities to do so, only serves to strengthen the assessment that it’s simply not there. I urge the closer of this review to weight the

3586:, same question as for Red Slash below… how do you see no consensus for the move to the base title with only one oppose which is not based in policy vs three supports based in policy (and two neutrals)? Regarding the recentism concern, that was directly addressed by at least nom (in comments), 3077:

For the second move regarding moving the film article to the base name (whether the film is now the primary topic), the nom and 2 participants supported the move, 2 participants were neutral, and one participant opposed the move. Again, as the closer states in the closing statement, the closer

1431:

So the thing is that there was a page called "Japan bashing" which existed for more than a decade at this point and pretty well sourced. There are at least 5 more different languages verson of this topic. However, a user called Chipmunkdavis redirect the whole page to the page of Anti-Japanese

1791:. While I am not sure I agree that supports have completely cancelled the long term significance concerns brought by the opposes, it is possible to have a primary topic without it. The page views data is extremely compelling and makes a strong argument that app is primary topic by usage. From 930:

as an ethnic category. The further back in time we go the harder it is to use nationality. And personally I think for many occupations nationality is less important than location and culture. But I think we need to be clear that nationality is not the same as ethnicity, culture, language or

3769:, my respected colleague, I think that messy requested moves are antithetical to good, clear decisions. This discussion, to me, was a messy one. I would have relisted, sure, but if I had a gun pointed to my head and were forced to close the discussion, I would've done the exact some thing as 3286:

As others have noted, the closer endorsed the opinion of exactly one participant and apparently ignored (made no mention of) any of the arguments of the other four participants (including nom), including the argument made by Yours Truly refuting the argument of the one participant the closer

3078:

followed the suggestion of the single participant who was opposed to the move as proposed. I suggest there was sufficient support for the move as originally proposed. Failing that, however, the close should have resulted in "no consensus" which would have resulted in the article remaining at

2865:

I completely agree. This argument that "support per nom" is invalid and should be discounted by the closer because every supporter should have to trot out the same arguments in slightly different words is regularly put forward by those on the "losing" side and remains ridiculous. It's simply

4212:

Moreover, NOGOODOPTIONS was only implicated in the second proposed move (the movie). The first move (the album) was simply a supervote to follow the suggestion of one participant instead of moving to the originally proposed title as supported by the nom and other 4 particpants. That is most

3665:

Sorry, I don't think I get the distinction here. If there is no consensus for promoting the film as a primary topic, then this means the primary title will be a disambiguation page. There is a distinction between "consensus against a PT" and "no consensus for a PT", but both would result in

547:

That isnt a problem. Its quite difficult to deal with shifting nationalities. What was agreed, I understand, is essentially that we cant call either Polish or Lithuanian a nationality during that period. The idea of nationality is complex, and mixed up with territory, culture and, I think

3465:

Agreed. Friendly exchange. The underlying principle cited in NAMECHANGES, recognizing CRYSTAL, is relevant here. Regarding long-term significance, it’s not applicable in this case, because, as I noted in the RM, which was not challenged and you ignored, “historical significance is not a

4442:

To reiterate the problem with "an accurate reading of consensus to move the album and a lack of consensus to move the movie": 1) the album was not moved to the title for which there was strong consensus and instead was moved to a title for which there was no consensus, and 2) the movie

4116:

consensus to move the movie", "reasonable" and so on. Maybe if you were to step back and reread the RM from an objective closer's perspective rather than from an involved supporter's one, then you would be able to understand. That's the hardest thing to do sometimes. Got the tee-shirt

799:

There have been lots of discussions over the years. Although only 4 people participated in that decision many more, I hope, noticed it. That is how categorisation is always discussed. Being rude to me is not going to advance your cause. We need to find a constructive way forward.

348:

here. Consensus here found that the main question underlying this move review is whether Commonwealth citizens can be considered Poles or Lithuanians. Debates like these are outside the scope of move reviews, which mainly deal with whether move discussions were closed appropriately.

1841:

are a problem for the software sitting at the basename. Much of Knowledge's audience will not be familiar with the software, and sending theme there would be astonishing. Separately, those looking for information on the software probably are the majority. The underlying fault is

2224:

I feel that the close of this RM amounted to a simple vote count without weighing the policy support for each side. I engaged the closer for a more detailed explanation for which policy won the day but he declined to elaborate. One of the primary editors in opposition to the move,

3678:

is correct). Similarly for the album: only one participant commented on the choice of disambiguator, so it's natural the closer went with that. If I'm not mistaken, the choice to disambiguate by artist was because of the musical (and its album) by the same name, but the article

3674:, that's not so much an outcome of the discussion as a (semi-)bold move by the closer, and they could have made that fact clearer. If there's anything stopping people from moving the film back, that's not the RM close, but the film naming conventions (at least if my reading of 961:

isn't? According to your logic, it should be otherwise, because the Polish state very much existed in the 18th century, while the whole Greek was occupied by Ottoman Empire. The Kingdom of Greece existed only since 1832, so there shouldn't be any Greek people before that date.

4153:

the recency concern which was addressed by proponents. More to the point, IIO’s pivotal contribution is completely devoid of reflecting any consensus-supported position, as far as I can tell. I’m open to the possibility that I’m missing something. That’s why I’m asking. What

566:

re: "we cant call either Polish or Lithuanian a nationality during that period". I think that's a pretty fringe POV. Poles and Lithuanians were living in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which is known in modern English simply as Poland (FYI, in Polish, it was also called

1771:

that point under your own !vote, and reserve replying to where you are asking a them a question or conducting genuine dialogue. This is a complicated and subtle thing, and I know of no written rules or guidance for it, but it is my idea that I think you might consider. --

3754:, can you explain how you see lack of consensus to move the movie to the base title? It’s a bit obscure but in the end only one opposed against three supports (including nom) and two neutrals. More importantly, the nom and supports were based in policy, the oppose, not. — 1188:

per SmokeyJoe and Bibliomaniac15. This review should be withdrawn by the nom, who should then take action recommended by the CfD closer. If that does not happen, then the suggestion would be to procedurally close this review so the correct pathway can be quickly followed.

3192:

the close reflects a correct reading of the discussion. In ictu oculi made the persuasive argument the first move from (album) to (Booker Ervin album) is correct in the discussion. There was also no consensus the film should have been the stand-alone article. Good close.

2040:

other item(s) from the dab page can plausibly compete with the software in terms of encyclopedic relevance and plausibility of search (the deity and musical dissonance are seldom referred to as "discord"), and their arguments come across as rather vague in my reading.

2633:

This is similar to the Howl move review last month except that this was to primary topic but there was a larger margin and while this could also have been "no consensus" based on views and the counter points of long-term significance I think the close was reasonable.

4323:

3773:. When a move request is messy, move the part everyone agrees on, and then ask people to just repropose it with the limited part that's more controversial. Clear, simple move requests are best. I dare to add this: if the person who posted this move review would've 2000:

simply isn't true that Eris is looked up by typing in "Discord" directly ("Goddess of Discord", maybe). The music theory subject has the same issue. I'd say that the discussion clearly came to the consensus that the move was good. (In the RM, I voted to move.)

3642:

If the close for the second move (the movie) was "no consensus" we wouldn't be here, I would have accepted there being no primary topic, which is an improvement over the album being the primary topic, the article about the film would by default have been left at

4319:. There may be no consensus because if you count the !votes, it's about even. But there is CONSENSUS because just like at the RM, one side has solid arguments, and the other doesn't. They don't count the same in determining CONSENSUS. Like I said above: "What 782:

I asked about the discussion in which it was decided how to define nationality in categories. How is that agreement of 3-4 people conclusive or binding for anyone? WikiProjects weren't informed, it wasn't based on anything but the whim of people engaged in it.

3493:

doesn't seem to be called for - there is a very good option, and that's to move the film to the base name as proposed, which also has the side bonus of making the 2019/2022 ambiguity moot. I also join Mdewman6 in questioning the decision to "I guess" redirect

3502:. Leaving the redirect that way means that in fact the 2022 film has been deemed primary over the others, and precedent suggests that such articles should reside at the partially-disambiguated name, not be redirected from it, similar to the decision made at 438: 3399:

At the RM, three of us including the nom clearly supported primary topic recognition. Yes, a recentism concern was mentioned, but the nom addressed it, and nobody countered. A closer should know recentism is not listed as a factor to consider at either

872:

is currently categorized as a Polish, Lithuanian and Belarusian painter. In my opinion, rightly so. According to your definition wrongly, he was only a Russian painter. Which would be insulting to him, as he fought in the uprising against the Russians.

2628:

I weakly opposed to the move based on page views and I agree the part of the close of "5-2 in support of the move" may appear like its vote counting but they clearly based this on the long-term significance which I think was valid though perhaps weak,

2607:

In other words, it is acceptable to regard a topic as PTOPIC even if it meets only one aspect of PTOPIC. In the RM discussion, no editor suggested that some other topic other than the maritime topic may be the PTOPIC for "dock". Hence, if there is

833:

this is entirely secondary, because a narrow understanding of nationality is wrong, and in Knowledge terms even harmful. In this understanding Poles in the 19th century did not exist at all. The only solution I can see is to restore the categories

4592:

That is what the closer followed. That is why even though there was no consensus, the title had to be moved. In these rare instances the closer must !supervote and choose a title, usually an interim title. It was much like I had to do recently

4000:'s viewpoint, especially when their's is the lone voice in the wilderness; however, the closer found enough merit in In ictu oculi's rationale to raise it above the other voices in the survey, and that's really why we're here, isn't it? 4384:) Was just noting a sense of irony there; call it "pseudo-irony". And now you appear to be questioning whether or not an editor who is qualified to close a move review is familiar with Knowledge's own style of consensus? <sigh: --> 4069:. To be clear, I may have very well closed this RM differently than it was done. It would have been more my style to disagree with the one lone voice in the wilderness and to go with the local consensus. That would have been imho the 2788:

and if I know anything about you it's that you're tenacious and a bounce-backer. Sincerely hope that doesn't sound patronizing, because I don't mean to be. You and I haven't always agreed about things, but I do revere your opinions.

2758:(involved). Consensus was pretty clear here. And I have no issues with a closer noting in the closing statement what the vote count is when it is also accompanied by the underlying policy justification that was used for the move. 3082:

until further discussion determines otherwise. Instead, the closer unnecessarily interjected their own judgment and made moves in an effort at more extensive disambiguation. The closer then decided to keep the resulting redirect

1854:. No user should be sent to a disambiguation page expecting unwantingly. Not titling all disambiguation pages with the suffix "(disambiguation)" is a PRECISE and CONSISTENCY failure and a disservice to readers, including me. 196:(uninvolved) Even if one treats this as a vote, 5 supports to 4 opposes is definitely not "clear that this is what people want". The closer provided no evidence that they examined the arguments presented by both sides at all. — 4661:, and that support bothered me. Maybe it bothered the closer, too? There are several albums on the dab page, and while you invoked SMALLDETAILS, in this case I would have been more likely to move to the better qualified title, 1797:

In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary

4597:. Note that my closure was also taken to Move review last month, so as much as I say that time is wasted, you are still in good company. Thanks again for your effort to understand this rare and very disturbing type of closure 4365:

means on WP. You seem to be conflating the two (correct me if I’m wrong). In any case, hopefully the closer here understands and appreciates how the distinction plays a crucial role in the original RM as well as in this MR.

4243: 1122:

New issues are for the complainant to articulate. “The move was improper”? Where in the CfD is the evidence for that? Coming here means that you allege fault with the closer or the process. You’ve come here prematurely.

4469:

We'll have to agree to disagree, because I see what the closer saw in that there was a fairly clear consensus against what was then the current title. That gives the closer the leeway under NOGOODOPTIONS to give the film

4587:

to leave the title at "The In Between (film)". The "no consensus" applies to both your proposed title and to any other title proposed, just as the closer indicated. From the guide, that I prefer to call OTHEROPTIONS:

3446:, emphasis mine. I don't see how is NAMECHANGES relevant for that. If we would only go after pageviews only (PTOPIC#1), then we'd have to reshuffle our titles every time a new hot song, videogame or film pops out. 3087:

targeting the 2022 film, again defeating the attempt at disambiguation. If there is to be no primary topic, either there is a single film with the base name and (in this case) the article for the film should be at

3553:

point, though, is that the article titles themselves are already spelled differently and do not need parenthetical disambiguation on top of that unless there are multiple films or albums with the exact spelling.

4881: 2550:

If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting

1629:

if the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting

1624:. Overall, I think the support side made a stronger case on the merits. (Indeed, several participants switched their position from oppose to support during the RM, which is a sign that a case was convincing.) 2556:

Based on my understanding of WP:PTOPIC, there is a difference between "historical age" and "long-term significance". The former refers merely to how old a topic is without regard for its significance, e.g.

1731:

the concept does not have an article about it. There is no comparison. This is not Wiktionary. The arguments against the move were repeatedly and logically refuted at every step. The close is indefensible.

709: 471: 404: 336: 837:. If you don't have enough knowledge about Poland or Lithuania, then don't comment on these topics and don't make disruptive changes in articles or their categorization before you have enough knowledge. 3978:

close you have to say why. There are borderline closes out there, and I try to give the benefit of the doubt where appropriate, but here there just isn't any doubt. The wrong conclusion was reached. —

3261:; NGO does not give a closer discretion to haphazardly pick from any option presented in the RM. No need to relist here given the length of time the RM was open and the support the proposal gathered. 649:

How do you define someone's nationality if not by his self-identification? If by state there were living it, they were still living in a Polish state. Also, are you planning to move people from the

444: 2814:

Bob writes a great move request and I assent with it, my saying "support per nom" is completely valid and a strong step towards establishing a consensus for Bob's view. It should be taken as such.

4665:, and then retarget (album) to the dab page section on albums. That part bothers me since, as you say, (album) still targets (Booker Ervin album), which I think is in error. Easily fixed, though. 1878:. When both sides of RM discussion make legitimate arguments, but one side is favored by an almost 2 to 1 majority in favor of the move, the discussion should be closed as consensus to move. 1148:. I should have been notified of this as a step prior to filing a move review. If that had been done, I would have recommended opening up a new CFD that extends to the entire category tree 4590:...there are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. 1636:). If some people gave more weight to some policies and one part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and other people gave more weight to another, then the 19 editors have the rough consensus over the 9. 4945:

merge discussion was up for 40 days (and 40 nights) and the last comment was almost four weeks in the past. In fact, we should thank the closer for stepping up and locking this one down.

1669:) not two different ones. I'd also note there was a fair amount of bludgeoning from those supporting the move, which tends to dissuade those with opposing view points from participating. 510:, it is customary to refer to the country as just Poland too (just like USSR was still called Russia, or England is used to refer to the entire UK, etc.). Inexplicably, we still have the 3680: 3071: 762: 463: 926:

Almost every time an ethic category is discussed there is general agreement that they are undesirable in most case. But context is everything. I dont think most people would regard

4287:

closer and by NOGOODOPTIONS, instead of a move review, as specifically denied by NOGOODOPTIONS, then this could very possibly have been resolved by now. Strange you don't see that.

2230: 2502:

An editor has disputed my closure on my user talk page. I have clarified the reasoning behind my closure in my talk page discussion, and I stand by it. Is my closure appropriate?

2311:

it probably should have been "no consensus" arguments in favour or moving may be marginally stronger as sources were presented but opposers did raise reasonable arguments as well.

2286:

a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a"/"an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Knowledge article only if at least one of the following conditions is met

4977:

would probably be the best choice procedurally, and it'll likely also get you quicker responses than this lower-profile forum. (Sorry to play pin-the-tail-on-the-noticeboard.)

2532:

Those supporting the move pointed out that the maritime dock has existed (i.e. began existing in the past and continues to exist) for thousands of years - an assertion that is

658: 650: 1424:

So I already posted something similar on Administrators' noticeboard but got closed because they said that is not a right place to discuss. (You can see the discussion here

1604:

The arguments were not just page views and clickstream versus long-term significance. Supporters also made several other relevant points, such as: that neither the goddess

4851: 262:. Clearly there was no clear consensus to move in the discussion and neither side advocated clear policy/guideline reasons for their position. I would have thought that 1153: 834: 511: 467: 3102:. The closer also decided against other options such as relisting the discussion, joining the discussion, or leaving the discussion open for another closer to evaluate. 4887: 3019: 868:(this category don't even exist, although according to you it should be, because there was no German painters before 1871), etc. Here really every case is different. 945:

Can you elaborate on why the Greek case is different than Polish? Why Polish categories cannot be regarded as "ethnic categories"? What's exactly the difference? If

5021: 2256:: As the closer, I did not believe there was clear consensus to move this title and arguments for moving were insufficient to counter those opposing the move. Thus- 1690:

of that sort. I think almost all participants grounded their arguments sensibly in policy. (The last two !votes - an oppose and a support - might be discounted as

4847: 4786: 3298:

done well. However, if any NAC close is challenged, especially by three users including an uninvolved admin, the closer should immediately revert and relist. --

221:

The closer wrote "if you want me to revert it, I can", so can you confirm if that's what you want? Or you're honestly not sure? Anyway, since I'm already here:

4149:. It’s a messy RM. But no matter how many times I read it I don’t see any opposition based on policy/guidelines (implicitly as well as explicitly), except for 3257:

in favor of a solution endorsed by exactly one participant in the requested move, despite the strong support for the proposal. The closer also misinterpreted

3363:; at no point I claimed that was the consensus title, and it only comes from the conclusion (that one may reasonably dispute) that there is no primary topic. 4634:. The two neutrals and the opposer were not explicitly against the original title, so there just wasn't consensus against it. I don't see how one concludes 4630:

have been consensus against the original title were there to have been consensus for making it the primary topic, meaning the close should have just been

814:

And I am quite aware that I dont know as much about Poland or Lithuania as I would like, so suggestions for reading - in English- would be most welcome.

3687:

is the preference of one editor (the closer) for not relying only on the term "the" for distinguishing this album from the albums titled "In Between". –

3923:

So sorry, more later, gotta go. Okay, we back. Perhaps rough around the edges and a bit unusual, this closure was not unreasonable. It was closed under

1224:

can explain to me exactly what the issues are and what to do step by step, without using wikipedia lingo? I don't really understand what you are saying

456: 408: 3096: 958: 1564: 954: 3351:

leaning support for the original proposal. ... But I do think it's a sort of borderline case, and would still support dabifying as a second choice.

3287:

endorsed, and especially all of the arguments pointing out why the topic was primary, and why SMALLDETAILS was irrelevant to a primary topic title.

2334:

as uninvolved. I think the decision was the wrong one as per our policies, but it accurately reflected the debate and discussion, so it's correct.

526:. Sigh. As I said, I think it's ok to have all three categories (for Poles and Lithuanians, and the parent Polish-Lithuanian), the problem is that 1007:

I think it's only semi-related, Polish-Lithuanian categories can exist alongside Polish and Lithuanian categories, they aren't mutually exclusive

523: 37: 519: 2773:

voting, and closers everywhere will almost always avoid outcomes that don't match the arithmetic average of the votes, but still... Am I taking

3025: 1426:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1077554035#The_redirection_of_Japan_bashing

3518:

as the only notable album with that title. "The" is certainly a good-enough disambiguator, contrary to the closing statement here, otherwise

3092:

as it was, or there is more than 1 film that needs to be disambiguated, and "The In Between (film)" should target the disambiguation page as

4899: 4594: 2553:- and the view that the maritime topic is the primary topic for "dock" has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. 1259: 1170: 950: 47: 4564:. But neither of those reasonable interpretations was the close! There were two good options, both of which are common results of RMs per 4474:

in the survey and discussion. The closer chose a title and then was explicit as to there being no prejudice and a new RM could be opened

4662: 4033: 3511: 3290:

This was a clear case of a SUPERVOTE. Invoking NOGOODOPTIONS was baseless. And even if, for the sake of argument, we agree there was no

3236: 3207: 3059: 2558: 2073: 1399: 708:

establish 18th century Polish occupational categories if you think they are warranted, but they would be under the superior category of

693:

So Ukrainian nationality showed up out of the thin air in 1991? You can think what you want, but don't impose your own views on others.

654: 515: 237:. (Indeed, the choice between "sunflower" and "common sunflower" at the earlier RM had unclear consensus, and I look at the result as a 2612:

in an RM discussion that a topic is primary with respect to long-term significance, the discussion can appropriately be closed as move.

1754:

rather dirty since it's basically trying to pressure someone to change their !vote by persistently countering what they are saying. ―

2284:. Oppose arguments focus on the first condition under the convention section, and the supports focus on the second condition. Given 2195: 1428:) Therefore here I am. Also, there were no discussion in the closer's talk page because I cant leave any comments on his talk page. 4410:

Okay, but I can only work with what you give me, and all your arguments (using the term loosely) ignore the crucial distinction. --

4065:, because I do feel like I misled you at first. You do seem to understand a lot about RMs and their closes; after all in many ways 2866:

shorthand for an editor completely agreeing with the proposer and not being persuaded by opposing arguments. Same with pointing to

1570: 1601:, I see a consensus to move. I count 19 editors supporting and 9 editors opposing. That is a clear majority, and not a close one. 4066: 528:

the move has incorrectly moved many Polish people FROM the Polish category into the P-L one, when it should have just copied them

4794:

This discussion was for a page merge, not for a page move. The correct closing templates are now in place, so please proceed in

597: 3503: 3037: 2989: 1490: 150: 4903: 3647:, and I would have started another RM in the future when more page view history became available. But instead, the close was 1902:

Gotta hand it to Sceptre, because that is one of the closest calls I've seen. The closure is reasonable because the opposers

1405: 589: 507: 373: 212: 3432:

This is not a court of law, is it? I'm not here to "win" or "lose", this is supposed to be a friendly exchange of arguments.

2280:

Close reflects the discussion, arguments opposing the move appear to be stronger. Both support and opposing arguments cite

2609: 2545: 2495: 2201: 1658: 1633: 229:

requested move 1 March 2022 should not be read as having settled whether the term "sunflower" corresponds more closely to

42: 4910:

Discussion without a clear outcome closed by inexperienced (<500 edits and 6 weeks of tenure) editor, in violation of

1958:

Entirely correct close. Long-term significance is extremely important and was the principal argument of the opposers. --

4982: 3294:

consensus, there is no denying which way it was leaning, and NOGOODOPTIONS is not a license to go directly against that.

241:

result.) In this RM, editors are free to continue debating that question, and those arguments should not be discounted.

156: 4045:

of substance in it at all! Frankly, raising such pap above any other voices is insulting to the entire community. And

2544:, there is no requirement that a topic be primary with respect to both usage and long-term significance. According to 2390: 2121: 1906:

had the stronger arguments. So "no consensus", while not extremely obvious, is valid in this case. Tough but Good call

946: 927: 909: 352: 1439:

Also, I cant notify user Chipmunkdavis about this review because his talk page does not allow me to leave comments.

4544:..."no consensus more likely, to move the film to primary status..." If that's the case, the close should have been 3697:

decided that more than just the album and film needed to be disambiguated. If the album article was simply moved to

675:

Nationality is defined by the existence of states. That is what the Ukrainian war, and many other wars, is about.

3671: 3499: 3360: 2985: 2939: 2473: 1486: 730:

another since the establishement. So you are lacking of the required knowledge to impose even your own narrow view

479: 4818: 4681: 4657:

The album decision was very tricky, yes, and I agree that there was stronger support for your proposed rename to

4616: 4535: 4494: 4401: 4352: 4303: 4262: 4188: 4136: 4090: 4016: 3960: 3943: 2804: 2479: 2410: 1925: 1838: 1336: 1205: 861: 21: 3733:

No Such User for not including the RMNAC tag. We all make mistakes, of course - which is why we have the trout.

1246:

for a step-by-step process on how to nominate a category for renaming. If you need help with that, let me know.

865: 4970: 3604: 1851: 1254: 1165: 891: 857: 3507: 3063: 2538:

substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term

4694:

while shuffling around all articles and redirects involved. I agree it should be retargeted to the dab page.

3357:. While pageviews do heavily favor the 2022 film, it's all too natural for a fresh streaming-service release. 3074:

which if it were to result in deletion (as the discussion is trending thus far) would render this issue moot.

1627:

Even if you disagree and you think that the arguments from both sides were roughly equal on the merits, then

1090:. Could not have been closed any other way. If new issues are discovered, either talk first to the closer, 4978: 4565: 4448: 3924: 3490: 3258: 3228: 3199: 2673: 2643: 2320: 2238: 2065: 1800:

When global consensus as represented through policies are indeterminant, local consensus can be considered.

1613: 1582: 1534: 1061: 1031: 992: 238: 4447:

moved! It was moved because the closer incorrectly invoked NOGOODOPTIONS. A prerequisite for invocation of

4699: 4691: 4658: 3698: 3684: 3545: 3515: 3456: 3382: 3366: 3067: 3055: 3041: 2903: 2046: 1984: 1644: 1444: 763:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_19#Category:18th-century_Polish_people_by_occupation

246: 85: 3927:, which is crystal clear what the next step should be. Procedurally close, because MRV is not an option. 2631:

note actually that its 6-2 in support as the nom counts unless they state otherwise as a "support" !vote.

2032:. It is alright to give weight to long-term significance concerns, but in this case they have been given 1979:

Note: I would have opposed the move, on grounds of long term significance, if I had remembered to reply.

1858:

is the underlying single cause of these endless intractable problems when neologisms usurp old words. --

592:

in modern English is called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It's an historical entity. Just as the

4997: 4831: 4765: 4561: 3702: 3675: 3667: 3644: 3495: 3409: 3089: 3084: 3079: 2969: 2918: 2423: 2358: 2145: 2089: 1657:(uninvolved). Discussions are not votes and the close was reasonable enough. What the above quote from 1505: 1458: 1349: 1281: 388: 315: 100: 17: 3070:

still targets the Booker Ervin page, defeating the attempt at disambiguation. Subsequently, the closer

2899: 1980: 1152:

filing a move review. Given his argument, it was procedurally improper for Rathfelder to only nominate

980: 179:

The closure seemed to be a vote count and no other rationale for the move was given by the closer. —

2870:

at AfD: simple shorthand for "I completely agree with the consensus established in previous AfDs". --

1719:. The support !voters rallied around PTOPIC and correctly and repeatedly proved how the two cases are 4950: 4805: 4668: 4603: 4522: 4481: 4414: 4388: 4370: 4339: 4328: 4312: 4290: 4278: 4271: 4249: 4175: 4163: 4146: 4123: 4107: 4100: 4077: 4053: 4026: 4003: 3930: 3901: 3758: 3626: 3594: 3470: 3440:

A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater

3420: 3325: 3302: 2875: 2791: 2763: 2717: 2397: 2265: 2217: 1963: 1912: 1883: 1760: 1323: 1217: 1192: 936: 899: 819: 805: 769: 716: 680: 640: 605: 553: 271: 635:

The question is not what people considered themselves. The question is what their nationality was.

4362: 4316: 3992:

Yes, very sorry, been a bit busy lately so please forgive me if my rationales are more abrupt. For

3881: 3789: 3739: 3254: 3178: 3160: 3152: 3054:

In the case of the first proposed move (the album), the nom and 4 participants supported a move to

2953: 2853: 2820: 2743: 2340: 1863: 1855: 1843: 1776: 1738: 1691: 1249: 1221: 1160: 1128: 1099: 1091: 869: 593: 297: 180: 172: 3544:

To elaborate on the issue of SMALLDETAILS relative to what what was said in the RM, invocation of

1661:

fails to account for is that the discord in this RM was based on differing interpretations of the

4648: 4573: 4509: 4460: 4218: 4203: 3997: 3968: 3845: 3819: 3710: 3656: 3558: 3223: 3194: 3138: 2867: 2774: 2734: 2666: 2655: 2636: 2518: 2503: 2313: 2296: 2234: 2060: 2005: 1808: 1609: 1594: 1530: 1417: 1369: 1229: 1113: 1054: 1024: 1012: 1004: 985: 967: 917: 908:

Who decided that they are deprecated? Was there any discussion about it? What is your opinion on

878: 842: 788: 735: 698: 666: 626: 495: 368: 345: 207: 4986: 4954: 4927: 4820: 4754: 4703: 4695: 4684: 4652: 4619: 4577: 4538: 4513: 4497: 4464: 4417: 4404: 4373: 4355: 4331: 4306: 4281: 4265: 4222: 4207: 4191: 4166: 4139: 4110: 4093: 4056: 4019: 3987: 3983: 3972: 3949: 3904: 3888: 3861: 3849: 3823: 3796: 3770: 3761: 3746: 3714: 3691: 3688: 3660: 3629: 3611: 3608: 3597: 3578: 3575: 3562: 3535: 3531: 3519: 3473: 3460: 3452: 3423: 3413: 3386: 3378: 3328: 3305: 3271: 3262: 3241: 3212: 3182: 3164: 3142: 2958: 2907: 2879: 2860: 2837: 2834: 2827: 2807: 2782: 2779: 2767: 2750: 2721: 2701: 2692: 2679: 2659: 2649: 2522: 2507: 2412: 2347: 2326: 2300: 2269: 2242: 2134: 2078: 2050: 2042: 2021: 2018: 2009: 1988: 1967: 1947: 1928: 1887: 1867: 1812: 1780: 1765: 1745: 1707: 1703: 1679: 1670: 1648: 1640: 1586: 1494: 1448: 1440: 1338: 1266: 1233: 1208: 1177: 1132: 1117: 1103: 1068: 1038: 1016: 999: 971: 940: 921: 903: 882: 846: 823: 809: 792: 773: 739: 720: 702: 684: 670: 644: 630: 609: 583: 577: 557: 542: 536: 499: 377: 304: 275: 250: 242: 216: 187: 89: 81: 3622:

show how you found no consensus for this move, but to me it looks like a simple misreading. —

4941:: "The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days)." - this 4919: 3062:

as favored by this other user, apparently due to the perceived need for disambiguation with

2541: 2533: 2226: 2213: 2165: 1792: 1695: 1666: 1605: 3683:

afterwards, so that consideration is gone. The only thing standing in the way of a move to

3359:

As for the choice of final title, I quoted NOGOODOPTIONS for my choice to move the film to

4962: 4946: 4938: 4911: 4799: 4750: 4411: 4367: 4325: 4275: 4160: 4104: 4062: 4050: 3898: 3766: 3755: 3623: 3591: 3467: 3417: 3322: 3299: 2871: 2759: 2713: 2281: 2261: 1959: 1879: 1755: 932: 895: 852: 829: 815: 801: 779: 765: 726: 712: 690: 676: 636: 621:

people. As I said earlier the term "Polish-Lithuanian" refers to another group of people.

617: 601: 563: 549: 506:

and ongoing voluntary Polonization in that timeframe). While we do have an article on the

475: 267: 263: 4556:

for the second proposed move would have been reasonable in my view (as would a close of

3058:

with one user opposed, but the closer determined there was consensus to move instead to

4549: 3894: 3876: 3784: 3751: 3734: 3370: 3339: 3311: 3278: 3174: 3156: 3126: 3119: 3109: 2950: 2848: 2815: 2738: 2335: 2130: 1943: 1859: 1772: 1733: 1214: 1145: 1124: 1108:

What new issues you have in mind? The move was improper from the factual point of view

1095: 568: 292: 286: 168: 120: 596:

is an historical entity, and the people who were there at the time are categorised as

5015: 4644: 4569: 4505: 4456: 4214: 4199: 3993: 3964: 3841: 3836:; it was moved to a title favored by only 1 of the 6 participants. The close was not 3815: 3706: 3652: 3554: 3523: 3134: 2565:

for "Anne Hathaway". The latter applies to topics which have existed for a long time

2562: 2536:- hence concluding that the topic is primary with respect to long-term significance ( 2289: 2001: 1801: 1365: 1302: 1243: 1239: 1225: 1109: 1048: 1008: 976: 963: 913: 874: 838: 784: 731: 694: 662: 622: 491: 363: 202: 4560:

as proposed). A close of no consensus would have resulted in the film being left at

3434:

Re: "A closer should know recentism is not listed as a factor to consider at either

4974: 4966: 4795: 3979: 3870: 3587: 3583: 3527: 3435: 3401: 1824: 1699: 573: 532: 485: 4915: 4625:

I understand how NOGOODOPTIONS aka OTHEROPTIONS works...I am not claiming it is

3405: 2161: 2110: 1621: 4227:

My friend, you drew me back in. NOGOODOPTIONS applies to the closure of the RM

3854:

That is ... alarming. It appears we have a fundamental disagreement on that. I

2581:

With regards to usage, no one supporting the move justified it on the basis of

4746: 3832:

In regards to "lack of consensus to move the movie", the problem is the movie

3374: 2574: 3705:, that would at least be a defensible close. But that is not what happened. 2491: 2443: 2126: 1939: 116: 72: 4965:, the discussion was clearly a merge discussion and it was never listed at 4961:

This wasn't actually a requested move: although the closer strangely used

3866:

wishes to disagree with our closing procedures, that No such user instead

1834: 1833:

On the underlying issues: The primary meaning of "discord" matters. Both

1312:

Article restored with directions to take it to AfD if deletion is wanted.

3701:

for which there was strong consensus, and if the 2022 film were left at

2578:

ago", then that would be a weak argument based merely on historical age.

979:- I have to think about.. it seems to be a related issue to this --: --> 2288:, the oppose arguments are stronger and not countered by the supports. 1847: 1728: 1598: 1434:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Japan_bashing&action=history

4813: 4676: 4611: 4530: 4489: 4396: 4347: 4298: 4257: 4183: 4131: 4085: 4011: 3938: 2799: 2405: 1920: 1715:

as uninvolved. The opposers rallied around PTOPIC and comparisons to

1331: 1200: 2654:

I treat this as 5-2 because I exclude Dohn joe's retracted support.

2036:

weight by the closer. The opponents failed to build the case as to

4049:

is why we're here. Am I missing something? Please, educate me. --

2570: 1724: 1716: 1617: 1727:

the fruit is an incredibly important topic in its own right, and

2733:

close. Consensus is not decided by numbers. Closer, please read

2439: 2379: 4361:

I’m distinguishing dictionary-definition “consensus” from what

3504:

Talk:Thriller_(album)/Archive_7#Requested_move_4_November_2019

3355:

Oppose new film becoming primary topic - minor streaming film,

2569:

have remained significant over its period of existence, e.g.

2591:

to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term,

1620:(which has an encyclopedia article) and the similarity with 710:

Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation

472:

Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation

405:

Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation

337:

Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation

266:

would be front and center in the discussion, but it was not.

2605:

in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant.

1639:

In my view, the no consensus closure should be overturned.

520:

Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people

2546:

Knowledge:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome

291:

would've explicitly asked me to do so, I gladly would've.

2664:

Oops, I missed that, struck my own comment here, thanks.

1612:

is mainly referred to or would be searched by "discord";

4798:

to challenge a merge proposal closure if necessary (per

3347:

neutral 2nd, redirect to In Between as no primary topic.

3342:. While not directly opposing, there were concerns that 4894: 4874: 4866: 4858: 4239:

that all that was needed was a new RM. It's an enigma!

3032: 3012: 3004: 2996: 2517:

Copying my reasoning as closer from my user talk page.

2486: 2466: 2458: 2450: 2208: 2188: 2180: 2172: 1577: 1557: 1549: 1541: 1521: 1433: 1425: 1412: 1392: 1384: 1376: 1316: 451: 431: 423: 415: 163: 143: 135: 127: 3779:, the RM would've closed by now and the article would 2599:

that there was no primary topic with respect to usage.

1157:

by the discussion about Polish vs. Polish-Lithuanian.

1043:

Actually, when I think about more, I believe it was a

894:

because some will be in categories linked to cities.

659:

Category:18th-century Hungarian people by occupation‎

651:

Category:18th-century Bulgarian people by occupation

3365:An element of supervote I did made is in rejecting 2712:. Consensus is clear on long-term significance. -- 4453:there is clear consensus against the current title 2691:(uninvolved). Consensus seems pretty clear to me. 655:Category:18th-century Ottoman people by occupation 478:who initiated the process referred to the article 225:(uninvolved). I see no consensus yet. The earlier 4690:The simple explanation is, I simply forgot about 2737:. ... ... However, the result itself is correct. 1154:Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation 949:is an ethnic category why is it a subcategory of 835:Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation 512:Category:17th-century Polish people by occupation 468:Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation 3048:This close reflects a misreading of consensus. 4315:, perhaps there is no consensus, but there is 3522:would be an ambiguous title too, with all the 3169:Convert the closer's supervote to a !vote and 4848:Knowledge Star Trek Into Darkness controversy 4787:Knowledge Star Trek Into Darkness controversy 8: 3377:to warrant a separate primary topic status. 4830:The following is an archived debate of the 3451:think there's anything JDLI in such views. 2968:The following is an archived debate of the 2422:The following is an archived debate of the 2144:The following is an archived debate of the 1504:The following is an archived debate of the 1348:The following is an archived debate of the 387:The following is an archived debate of the 99:The following is an archived debate of the 4779: 4240: 3444:and educational value than any other topic 3072:nominated the musical article for deletion 2932: 2512: 2387:. Closure was reasonable and appropriate. 2372: 2103: 1608:nor the music theory technical concept of 1472: 1295: 598:Category:People of the Spanish Netherlands 329: 65: 4379:) Friend В²C, consider yourself corrected 1021:Yes, they could exist alongside. True. - 959:Category:18th-century Polish philosophers 3869:start a discussion at the talk page for 3344:this move proposal reeks of recency bias 3105:The closer did not tag their close with 2583:no single topic having more significance 955:Category:18th-century Greek philosophers 3438:" – on the contrary, WP:AT states that 2515: 1846:. It needs repudiation. The basename 1762: 1420:) (No discussion on closer's talk page) 524:Category:18th-century Lithuanian people 459:) (No discussion on closer's talk page) 5022:Knowledge move review monthly listings 4635: 4589: 4548:! Any other conclusion is contrary to 4038:Oppose new film becoming primary topic 3776:just followed the advice of the closer 3439: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3343: 3064:The In-Between (musical)#Concept album 2604: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2549: 2537: 2285: 1796: 1628: 860:, some will only be in the categories 3666:disambiguating here. As for the move 574:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 533:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 7: 1823:The closing statement was correct. 1314:Restoration reverted and, it seems, 951:Category:Philosophers_by_nationality 5000:of the page listed in the heading. 4768:of the page listed in the heading. 4663:The In Between (Booker Ervin album) 4041:in the survey"? Come on! There is 4034:The In Between (Booker Ervin album) 3512:The In Between (Booker Ervin album) 3060:The In Between (Booker Ervin album) 2921:of the page listed in the heading. 2603:In any case, WP:PTOPIC states that 2559:Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) 2361:of the page listed in the heading. 2092:of the page listed in the heading. 1461:of the page listed in the heading. 1284:of the page listed in the heading. 516:Category:18th-century Polish people 514:. And of course there still is the 318:of the page listed in the heading. 4159:Endorsements here accordingly. -- 2593:so I hesitate to agree that it is 2561:has historical age but is not the 28: 4472:any title that has been suggested 3947:12:32, & 16:10, 23 March 2022 2229:, has since been identified as a 4552:. Like I said above, a close of 4241: 3097:R from incomplete disambiguation 1828:contentious and brought to MRV. 518:, but it now co-exists with the 4996:The above is an archive of the 4764:The above is an archive of the 3373:is sufficiently different from 2917:The above is an archive of the 2357:The above is an archive of the 2231:perennial abuser of sockpuppets 2088:The above is an archive of the 1616:; and the dissimilarities with 1457:The above is an archive of the 1280:The above is an archive of the 314:The above is an archive of the 80:after the closer's agreement. 4743:overturn to "move as proposed" 1310:. This is not a move request. 590:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 508:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 466:, a decision was made to move 1: 4640:good arguments for it to stay 4235:this is a waste of time; В²C 4213:definitely reviewable at MR. 4145:I’ve read it a dozen times, @ 3961:your past analysis of this RM 3875:(or WP:RMCI). Come on, bruh. 3487:Overturn to Moved as proposed 3396:your preferences and choices. 3253:(uninvolved). The close is a 1634:Knowledge:Closing discussions 30: 3858:and instead suggest that if 3251:Overturn to move as proposed 2059:possibly even commendable. 947:Category:Greek_philosophers 928:Category:Greek_philosophers 910:Category:Greek_philosophers 359:Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung 198:Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung 5038: 4685:00:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 4653:22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 4620:21:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 4578:19:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 4539:18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 4514:17:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 4498:15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 4465:21:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 4418:07:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 4405:16:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 4385:We are a pair, aren't we. 4374:14:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 4356:08:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 4332:06:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 4307:05:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 4282:04:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 4266:11:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 4223:17:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC) 4208:07:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC) 4192:07:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC) 4167:07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 4140:04:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 4111:01:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 4094:17:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 4057:05:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 4020:23:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC) 3988:21:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC) 3973:16:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC) 3950:07:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC) 3905:20:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC) 3889:19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC) 3850:22:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 3824:22:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC) 3797:19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC) 3762:15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 3747:17:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 3715:23:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 3692:23:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 3672:The In Between (2022 film) 3661:22:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 3630:08:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC) 3612:22:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 3598:18:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 3579:16:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 3563:23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 3536:21:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 3500:The In Between (2022 film) 3474:16:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 3461:09:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 3361:The In Between (2022 film) 3242:00:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC) 3183:23:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 2986:The In Between (2022 film) 2940:The In Between (2022 film) 2908:23:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 2880:00:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC) 2861:18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC) 2838:16:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 2828:05:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 2808:15:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 2783:04:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 2768:03:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 2751:17:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 2729:as uninvolved. That was a 2722:14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 2702:17:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 2680:17:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 2660:02:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 2650:22:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC) 2523:18:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC) 2508:18:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC) 2413:22:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2348:17:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 2327:21:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC) 2301:21:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC) 2270:21:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC) 2243:20:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC) 2135:14:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 1989:23:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 1968:00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC) 1948:14:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 1938:should have been to move. 1929:12:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC) 1888:03:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 1868:01:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC) 1813:21:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 1781:01:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC) 1766:18:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 1746:17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 1708:15:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 1698:has a good take on this.) 1680:14:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 1649:06:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 1519: 1495:00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC) 1449:11:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 1339:15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 1267:19:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1234:17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1209:15:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1178:04:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1133:07:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1118:07:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1104:03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1069:09:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1039:09:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1017:07:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1000:23:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 972:21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 941:19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 922:08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 904:08:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 883:22:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 866:Category:Prussian painters 847:22:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 824:22:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 810:22:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 793:22:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 774:21:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 740:21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 721:21:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 703:21:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 685:21:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 671:19:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 645:18:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 631:18:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 610:18:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 584:17:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 558:16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 543:13:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 500:13:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 480:Polish-Lithuanian identity 378:04:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 305:17:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 276:12:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 251:05:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 217:04:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 188:03:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 4987:04:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 4955:02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 4928:02:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 4821:05:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 4704:10:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC) 3783:at the desired location. 3424:21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC) 3387:12:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC) 3329:01:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC) 3306:01:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC) 3272:20:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC) 3213:10:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC) 3165:03:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC) 3143:23:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC) 2595:conclusively demonstrated 2534:unlikely to be challenged 2079:19:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC) 2051:09:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC) 2022:15:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 2010:17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 1839:Consonance and dissonance 1094:, or start a new CfD. -- 957:is allowed to exist, and 862:Category:Russian painters 470:and its subcategories to 90:12:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 5003:Please do not modify it. 4837:Please do not modify it. 4771:Please do not modify it. 3605:Knowledge:Disambiguation 3514:is free to move back to 3510:has now been deleted so 3508:The In-Between (musical) 3408:, and, to the contrary, 3066:. However, the redirect 2975:Please do not modify it. 2924:Please do not modify it. 2429:Please do not modify it. 2364:Please do not modify it. 2151:Please do not modify it. 2095:Please do not modify it. 1852:Discord (disambiguation) 1850:should be a redirect to 1511:Please do not modify it. 1464:Please do not modify it. 1355:Please do not modify it. 1287:Please do not modify it. 892:Category:Polish painters 858:Category:Polish painters 394:Please do not modify it. 321:Please do not modify it. 106:Please do not modify it. 4755:10:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC) 4067:you authored the "book" 2959:03:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 1144:: Thanks for the ping, 912:and its subcategories? 78:Overturned and relisted 4914:, without comment. -- 4904:Discussion with closer 4692:The In Between (album) 4659:The In Between (album) 3959:How does one get from 3699:The In Between (album) 3685:The In Between (album) 3516:The In Between (album) 3068:The In Between (album) 3056:The In Between (album) 3042:Discussion with closer 2496:Discussion with closer 2218:Discussion with closer 1818:Endorse (no consensus) 1659:WP:Closing discussions 1593:In this discussion of 1587:Discussion with closer 173:Discussion with closer 4562:The In Between (film) 3703:The In Between (film) 3668:The In Between (film) 3645:The In Between (film) 3496:The In Between (film) 3090:The In Between (film) 3085:The In Between (film) 3080:The In Between (film) 1487:ProcrastinatingReader 1142:Closer recommendation 18:Knowledge:Move review 4636:there are virtually 4595:in this move request 4583:that made it indeed 3353:as well as straight 2947:to move as proposed 890:may be directly in 43:Move review archives 4834:of the page above. 3921:<uninvolved: --> 3526:entries. Thanks — 3442:enduring notability 2972:of the page above. 2573:is the PTOPIC over 2426:of the page above. 2279:<uninvolved: --> 2148:of the page above. 1896:<uninvolved: --> 1821:<uninvolved: --> 1790:<uninvolved: --> 1508:of the page above. 1352:of the page above. 1186:<uninvolved: --> 1092:User:Bibliomaniac15 870:Alfred Izydor Romer 594:Spanish Netherlands 391:of the page above. 281:Overturn and relist 223:Overturn and relist 194:Overturn and relist 103:of the page above. 4979:Extraordinary Writ 4120:the baseball cap. 1595:Discord (software) 1531:Discord (software) 5010: 5009: 4971:WP:CLOSECHALLENGE 4792:Procedural close. 4778: 4777: 4687: 4622: 4541: 4500: 4407: 4358: 4309: 4268: 4194: 4142: 4096: 4022: 3952: 3922: 3520:The Batman (film) 3282:<involved: --> 3277:Overturn/Move to 2931: 2930: 2897: 2810: 2727:Endorse and trout 2711: 2627: 2618: 2617: 2394: 2391:non-admin closure 2371: 2370: 2310: 2255: 2125: 2122:non-admin closure 2102: 2101: 2031: 1998: 1977: 1957: 1931: 1897: 1877:<involved: --> 1822: 1752: 1688: 1524: 1523:Closure requested 1471: 1470: 1294: 1293: 1211: 1187: 1067: 1037: 998: 356: 353:non-admin closure 342:Procedural close. 328: 327: 261: 235:Helianthus annuus 227:Helianthus annuus 56: 55: 5029: 5005: 4924: 4897: 4877: 4869: 4861: 4839: 4816: 4808: 4780: 4773: 4683: 4679: 4671: 4618: 4614: 4606: 4566:WP:THREEOUTCOMES 4537: 4533: 4525: 4496: 4492: 4484: 4449:WP:NOGOODOPTIONS 4403: 4399: 4391: 4354: 4350: 4342: 4305: 4301: 4293: 4264: 4260: 4252: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4190: 4186: 4178: 4138: 4134: 4126: 4092: 4088: 4080: 4061:I'm sorry, too, 4018: 4014: 4006: 3945: 3941: 3933: 3925:WP:NOGOODOPTIONS 3920: 3885: 3879: 3865: 3856:revoke the trout 3793: 3787: 3743: 3737: 3491:WP:NOGOODOPTIONS 3310:I fully endorse 3269: 3259:WP:NOGOODOPTIONS 3239: 3231: 3210: 3202: 3124: 3118: 3114: 3108: 3101: 3095: 3035: 3015: 3007: 2999: 2977: 2957: 2933: 2926: 2895: 2857: 2851: 2824: 2818: 2806: 2802: 2794: 2747: 2741: 2709: 2699: 2676: 2669: 2646: 2639: 2625: 2513: 2489: 2469: 2461: 2453: 2431: 2408: 2400: 2388: 2373: 2366: 2344: 2338: 2323: 2316: 2308: 2293: 2253: 2227:User:Poindextero 2211: 2191: 2183: 2175: 2153: 2119: 2104: 2097: 2076: 2068: 2029: 1996: 1975: 1955: 1927: 1923: 1915: 1895: 1820: 1805: 1750: 1742: 1736: 1686: 1677: 1614:WP:NOTDICTIONARY 1580: 1560: 1552: 1544: 1526: 1522: 1513: 1473: 1466: 1415: 1395: 1387: 1379: 1357: 1334: 1326: 1319: 1308:Procedural close 1296: 1289: 1262: 1257: 1252: 1207: 1203: 1195: 1185: 1173: 1168: 1163: 1066: 1064: 1059: 1052: 1051:’s reasonings - 1036: 1034: 1029: 1022: 997: 995: 990: 983: 580: 539: 489: 454: 434: 426: 418: 396: 350: 330: 323: 301: 295: 290: 259: 239:WP:NOGOODOPTIONS 185: 166: 146: 138: 130: 108: 66: 52: 36: 31: 5037: 5036: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5012: 5011: 5001: 4963:Template:RM top 4920: 4893: 4892: 4886: 4880: 4873: 4872: 4865: 4864: 4857: 4856: 4835: 4814: 4806: 4769: 4677: 4669: 4612: 4604: 4531: 4523: 4504:NOGOODOPTIONS. 4490: 4482: 4397: 4389: 4348: 4340: 4313:Paine Ellsworth 4299: 4291: 4272:Paine Ellsworth 4258: 4250: 4242: 4229:in its entirety 4184: 4176: 4147:Paine Ellsworth 4132: 4124: 4101:Paine Ellsworth 4086: 4078: 4027:Paine Ellsworth 4012: 4004: 3939: 3931: 3883: 3877: 3859: 3791: 3785: 3741: 3735: 3546:WP:SMALLDETAILS 3369:arguments that 3367:WP:SMALLDETAILS 3263: 3235: 3227: 3206: 3198: 3125:as directed by 3122: 3116: 3112: 3106: 3099: 3093: 3031: 3030: 3024: 3018: 3011: 3010: 3003: 3002: 2995: 2994: 2973: 2948: 2922: 2855: 2849: 2822: 2816: 2800: 2792: 2745: 2739: 2693: 2674: 2667: 2658:Слава Україні! 2656:feminist (talk) 2644: 2637: 2623:Leaning endorse 2619: 2610:rough consensus 2525: 2521:Слава Україні! 2519:feminist (talk) 2506:Слава Україні! 2504:feminist (talk) 2485: 2484: 2478: 2472: 2465: 2464: 2457: 2456: 2449: 2448: 2427: 2406: 2398: 2362: 2342: 2336: 2321: 2314: 2291: 2207: 2206: 2200: 2194: 2187: 2186: 2179: 2178: 2171: 2170: 2149: 2093: 2072: 2064: 1921: 1913: 1875:Overturn (Move) 1803: 1788:Overturn (Move) 1764: 1763:Blaze Wolf#6545 1740: 1734: 1671: 1576: 1575: 1569: 1563: 1556: 1555: 1548: 1547: 1540: 1539: 1527: 1520: 1509: 1462: 1411: 1410: 1404: 1398: 1391: 1390: 1383: 1382: 1375: 1374: 1353: 1332: 1324: 1315: 1285: 1260: 1255: 1250: 1218:Paine Ellsworth 1201: 1193: 1171: 1166: 1161: 1062: 1055: 1053: 1032: 1025: 1023: 993: 986: 984: 582: 578: 541: 537: 483: 450: 449: 443: 437: 430: 429: 422: 421: 414: 413: 392: 319: 299: 293: 284: 181: 162: 161: 155: 149: 142: 141: 134: 133: 126: 125: 104: 64: 57: 50: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 5035: 5033: 5025: 5024: 5014: 5013: 5008: 5007: 4992: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4958: 4957: 4922: 4908: 4907: 4890: 4884: 4878: 4870: 4862: 4854: 4842: 4841: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4807:P.I. Ellsworth 4776: 4775: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4670:P.I. Ellsworth 4605:P.I. Ellsworth 4524:P.I. Ellsworth 4483:P.I. Ellsworth 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4390:P.I. Ellsworth 4341:P.I. Ellsworth 4292:P.I. Ellsworth 4251:P.I. Ellsworth 4210: 4177:P.I. Ellsworth 4125:P.I. Ellsworth 4079:P.I. Ellsworth 4005:P.I. Ellsworth 3954: 3953: 3932:P.I. Ellsworth 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3689:Uanfala (talk) 3676:WP:PRIMARYFILM 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3609:Uanfala (talk) 3576:Uanfala (talk) 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3539: 3538: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3433: 3427: 3426: 3410:WP:NAMECHANGES 3397: 3390: 3389: 3371:The In Between 3364: 3358: 3340:The In Between 3332: 3331: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3308: 3295: 3288: 3279:The In Between 3274: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3216: 3215: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3146: 3145: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3103: 3075: 3046: 3045: 3028: 3022: 3016: 3008: 3000: 2992: 2980: 2979: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2929: 2928: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2841: 2840: 2835:Uanfala (talk) 2811: 2793:P.I. Ellsworth 2780:Uanfala (talk) 2770: 2753: 2724: 2704: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2601: 2579: 2554: 2527: 2526: 2516: 2511: 2500: 2499: 2482: 2476: 2470: 2462: 2454: 2446: 2434: 2433: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2399:P.I. Ellsworth 2369: 2368: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2329: 2303: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2222: 2221: 2204: 2198: 2192: 2184: 2176: 2168: 2156: 2155: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2100: 2099: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2053: 2024: 2019:Uanfala (talk) 2012: 1991: 1970: 1950: 1932: 1914:P.I. Ellsworth 1890: 1871: 1870: 1830: 1829: 1815: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1748: 1710: 1683: 1682: 1591: 1590: 1573: 1567: 1561: 1553: 1545: 1537: 1516: 1515: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1469: 1468: 1453: 1452: 1422: 1421: 1408: 1402: 1396: 1388: 1380: 1372: 1360: 1359: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1325:P.I. Ellsworth 1292: 1291: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1222:Bibliomaniac15 1194:P.I. Ellsworth 1180: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 887: 886: 885: 849: 812: 797: 796: 795: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 614: 613: 612: 572: 569:Rzeczpospolita 531: 461: 460: 447: 441: 435: 427: 419: 411: 399: 398: 383: 382: 381: 380: 326: 325: 310: 309: 308: 307: 283:as closer. If 278: 253: 219: 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: 5034: 5023: 5020: 5019: 5017: 5006: 5004: 4999: 4994: 4993: 4988: 4984: 4980: 4976: 4972: 4968: 4964: 4960: 4959: 4956: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4940: 4935: 4934:Endorse close 4932: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4925: 4917: 4913: 4905: 4901: 4896: 4889: 4883: 4876: 4868: 4860: 4853: 4849: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4840: 4838: 4833: 4828: 4827: 4822: 4819: 4817: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4801: 4797: 4796:the usual way 4793: 4789: 4788: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4774: 4772: 4767: 4762: 4761: 4756: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4741: 4740: 4705: 4701: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4688: 4686: 4682: 4680: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4641: 4639: 4633: 4628: 4624: 4623: 4621: 4617: 4615: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4600: 4596: 4591: 4586: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4542: 4540: 4536: 4534: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4511: 4507: 4502: 4501: 4499: 4495: 4493: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4477: 4473: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4441: 4419: 4416: 4413: 4409: 4408: 4406: 4402: 4400: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4382: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4372: 4369: 4364: 4360: 4359: 4357: 4353: 4351: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4330: 4327: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4311: 4310: 4308: 4304: 4302: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4280: 4277: 4273: 4270: 4269: 4267: 4263: 4261: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4211: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4196: 4195: 4193: 4189: 4187: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4165: 4162: 4157: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4143: 4141: 4137: 4135: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4119: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4109: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4097: 4095: 4091: 4089: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4055: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4039: 4035: 4032: 4031:Move album to 4028: 4024: 4023: 4021: 4017: 4015: 4009: 4008: 4007: 3999: 3998:In ictu oculi 3995: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3951: 3948: 3944: 3942: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3926: 3919: 3916: 3915: 3906: 3903: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3887: 3886: 3880: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3863: 3857: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3798: 3795: 3794: 3788: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3772: 3768: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3760: 3757: 3753: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3745: 3744: 3738: 3732: 3727: 3724: 3723: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3641: 3640: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3620: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3610: 3606: 3603:a section of 3601: 3600: 3599: 3596: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3577: 3573: 3570: 3569: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3524:Batman (film) 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3492: 3488: 3485: 3484: 3475: 3472: 3469: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3449: 3445: 3443: 3437: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3398: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3362: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3334: 3333: 3330: 3327: 3324: 3320: 3319: 3313: 3309: 3307: 3304: 3301: 3296: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3284: 3281: 3280: 3275: 3273: 3270: 3268: 3267: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3249: 3248: 3243: 3240: 3238: 3232: 3230: 3225: 3224:SportingFlyer 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3214: 3211: 3209: 3203: 3201: 3196: 3195:SportingFlyer 3191: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3151: 3148: 3147: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3133: 3128: 3121: 3111: 3104: 3098: 3091: 3086: 3081: 3076: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3043: 3039: 3034: 3027: 3021: 3014: 3006: 2998: 2991: 2987: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2978: 2976: 2971: 2966: 2965: 2960: 2955: 2952: 2946: 2942: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2927: 2925: 2920: 2915: 2914: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2894: 2891: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2859: 2858: 2852: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2839: 2836: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2826: 2825: 2819: 2812: 2809: 2805: 2803: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2781: 2776: 2771: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2754: 2752: 2749: 2748: 2742: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2725: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2708: 2705: 2703: 2700: 2698: 2697: 2690: 2687: 2681: 2677: 2671: 2670: 2668:Crouch, Swale 2663: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2647: 2641: 2640: 2638:Crouch, Swale 2632: 2624: 2621: 2620: 2611: 2606: 2602: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2587:highly likely 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2563:primary topic 2560: 2555: 2552: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2514: 2510: 2509: 2505: 2497: 2493: 2488: 2481: 2475: 2468: 2460: 2452: 2445: 2441: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2432: 2430: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2414: 2411: 2409: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2392: 2386: 2382: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2367: 2365: 2360: 2355: 2354: 2349: 2346: 2345: 2339: 2333: 2330: 2328: 2324: 2318: 2317: 2315:Crouch, Swale 2307: 2304: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2235:Axem Titanium 2232: 2228: 2219: 2215: 2210: 2203: 2197: 2190: 2182: 2174: 2167: 2163: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2152: 2147: 2142: 2141: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2123: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2098: 2096: 2091: 2086: 2085: 2080: 2077: 2075: 2069: 2067: 2062: 2061:SportingFlyer 2057: 2054: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2039: 2035: 2028: 2025: 2023: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1995: 1992: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1974: 1971: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1936: 1933: 1930: 1926: 1924: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1894: 1891: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1873: 1872: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1826: 1819: 1816: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1799: 1794: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1761: 1759: 1758: 1749: 1747: 1744: 1743: 1737: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1711: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1678: 1676: 1675: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1637: 1635: 1631: 1625: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1602: 1600: 1596: 1588: 1584: 1579: 1572: 1566: 1559: 1551: 1543: 1536: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1518: 1517: 1514: 1512: 1507: 1502: 1501: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1467: 1465: 1460: 1455: 1454: 1451: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1435: 1429: 1427: 1419: 1414: 1407: 1401: 1394: 1386: 1378: 1371: 1367: 1366:Japan bashing 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1358: 1356: 1351: 1346: 1345: 1340: 1337: 1335: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1318: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1303:Japan bashing 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1290: 1288: 1283: 1278: 1277: 1268: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1258: 1253: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1212: 1210: 1206: 1204: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1184: 1181: 1179: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1169: 1164: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1140: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1086: 1070: 1065: 1060: 1058: 1057:GizzyCatBella 1050: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1035: 1030: 1028: 1027:GizzyCatBella 1020: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005:GizzyCatBella 1003: 1002: 1001: 996: 991: 989: 988:GizzyCatBella 981: 978: 975: 974: 973: 969: 965: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 943: 942: 938: 934: 929: 925: 924: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 906: 905: 901: 897: 893: 888: 884: 880: 876: 871: 867: 863: 859: 854: 850: 848: 844: 840: 836: 831: 827: 826: 825: 821: 817: 813: 811: 807: 803: 798: 794: 790: 786: 781: 777: 776: 775: 771: 767: 764: 761: 760: 741: 737: 733: 728: 724: 723: 722: 718: 714: 711: 706: 705: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 687: 686: 682: 678: 674: 673: 672: 668: 664: 660: 657:? What about 656: 652: 648: 647: 646: 642: 638: 634: 633: 632: 628: 624: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 586: 585: 581: 575: 570: 565: 561: 560: 559: 555: 551: 546: 545: 544: 540: 534: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 504: 503: 502: 501: 497: 493: 490:as he asked. 487: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 458: 453: 446: 440: 433: 425: 417: 410: 406: 403: 402: 401: 400: 397: 395: 390: 385: 384: 379: 375: 371: 370: 366: 365: 360: 354: 347: 343: 339: 338: 334: 333: 332: 331: 324: 322: 317: 312: 311: 306: 303: 302: 296: 288: 282: 279: 277: 273: 269: 265: 257: 254: 252: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 228: 224: 220: 218: 214: 210: 209: 205: 204: 199: 195: 192: 191: 190: 189: 186: 184: 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: 38:2022 February 33: 32: 23: 19: 5002: 4995: 4942: 4933: 4909: 4836: 4829: 4804: 4803: 4791: 4785: 4770: 4763: 4742: 4696:No such user 4667: 4666: 4637: 4631: 4626: 4602: 4601: 4598: 4585:unreasonable 4584: 4557: 4554:no consensus 4553: 4546:no consensus 4545: 4521: 4520: 4480: 4479: 4475: 4471: 4452: 4444: 4387: 4386: 4380: 4363:WP:CONSENSUS 4338: 4337: 4321:specifically 4320: 4317:WP:CONSENSUS 4289: 4288: 4248: 4247: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4174: 4173: 4156:specifically 4155: 4150: 4122: 4121: 4117: 4076: 4075: 4070: 4046: 4042: 4037: 4030: 4002: 4001: 3963:to endorse? 3946: 3929: 3928: 3917: 3882: 3868: 3867: 3862:No such user 3855: 3838:no consensus 3837: 3833: 3790: 3780: 3775: 3774: 3771:No such user 3740: 3730: 3725: 3649:disambiguate 3648: 3619:or guideline 3618: 3571: 3549: 3486: 3453:No such user 3447: 3441: 3379:No such user 3335: 3291: 3276: 3265: 3264: 3255:WP:SUPERVOTE 3250: 3234: 3226: 3205: 3197: 3189: 3170: 3153:WP:Supervote 3149: 3047: 2974: 2967: 2944: 2938: 2923: 2916: 2900:BilledMammal 2896:(uninvolved) 2892: 2854: 2821: 2790: 2789: 2755: 2744: 2730: 2726: 2706: 2695: 2694: 2688: 2665: 2635: 2630: 2622: 2566: 2501: 2428: 2421: 2396: 2395: 2384: 2378: 2363: 2356: 2341: 2331: 2312: 2309:(uninvolved) 2306:Weak endorse 2305: 2276: 2257: 2250: 2223: 2150: 2143: 2115: 2109: 2094: 2087: 2071: 2063: 2055: 2043:No such user 2037: 2033: 2030:(uninvolved) 2026: 2014: 1993: 1981:BilledMammal 1976:(uninvolved) 1972: 1952: 1934: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1892: 1874: 1856:WP:MALPLACED 1844:WP:MALPLACED 1835:wikt:discord 1825:User:Sceptre 1817: 1787: 1756: 1739: 1720: 1712: 1692:WP:JUSTAVOTE 1673: 1672: 1662: 1654: 1641:Adumbrativus 1638: 1626: 1603: 1592: 1510: 1503: 1482: 1478: 1463: 1456: 1441:Someone97816 1438: 1430: 1423: 1354: 1347: 1322: 1321: 1311: 1307: 1301: 1286: 1279: 1251:bibliomaniac 1248: 1247: 1244:WP:CFD#HOWTO 1191: 1190: 1182: 1162:bibliomaniac 1159: 1158: 1149: 1141: 1087: 1056: 1044: 1026: 987: 527: 462: 393: 386: 367: 362: 358: 351:(uninvolved 341: 335: 320: 313: 298: 280: 255: 243:Adumbrativus 234: 230: 226: 222: 206: 201: 197: 193: 182: 178: 105: 98: 82:No such user 77: 71: 60: 4998:move review 4973:, going to 4832:move review 4766:move review 4476:at any time 4025:I'm sorry, 3681:got deleted 3506:. Finally, 3336:From closer 2970:move review 2919:move review 2868:WP:OUTCOMES 2775:WP:NOTAVOTE 2735:WP:NOTAVOTE 2424:move review 2359:move review 2162:The Armorer 2146:move review 2114:– Decision 2111:The Armorer 2090:move review 1663:same policy 1622:Hearthstone 1506:move review 1459:move review 1350:move review 1282:move review 931:location. 661:and so on? 464:A month ago 389:move review 346:WP:SNOWBALL 316:move review 260:Uninvolved) 101:move review 4947:Randy Kryn 3781:already be 3414:WP:CRYSTAL 3375:In Between 2872:Necrothesp 2760:Rreagan007 2714:Necrothesp 2710:(involved) 2626:(involved) 2575:Apple Inc. 2262:Mike Cline 2254:(Involved) 1997:(involved) 1960:Necrothesp 1956:(involved) 1880:Rreagan007 1757:Blaze Wolf 1751:(Involved) 1687:(Involved) 1610:dissonance 1317:rightly so 1150:instead of 933:Rathfelder 896:Rathfelder 853:Rathfelder 830:Rathfelder 816:Rathfelder 802:Rathfelder 780:Rathfelder 766:Rathfelder 727:Rathfelder 713:Rathfelder 691:Rathfelder 677:Rathfelder 637:Rathfelder 618:Rathfelder 602:Rathfelder 579:reply here 564:Rathfelder 550:Rathfelder 538:reply here 476:Rathfelder 268:Mike Cline 231:Helianthus 61:2022 March 48:2022 April 3895:Red Slash 3834:was moved 3752:Red Slash 3312:SmokeyJoe 3175:SmokeyJoe 3157:SmokeyJoe 2542:WP:PTOPIC 2540:). Under 2258:Not Moved 2027:Overturn. 1994:Overturn. 1973:Overturn. 1904:generally 1860:SmokeyJoe 1793:WP:PTOPIC 1773:SmokeyJoe 1696:WP:STRONG 1667:WP:PTOPIC 1215:SmokeyJoe 1146:SmokeyJoe 1125:SmokeyJoe 1096:SmokeyJoe 1047:move per 344:Invoking 287:AjaxSmack 183:AjaxSmack 117:Sunflower 73:Sunflower 5016:Category 4939:WP:RMNAC 4912:WP:RMNAC 4800:WP:CLOSE 4645:Mdewman6 4570:Mdewman6 4506:Mdewman6 4457:Mdewman6 4451:is that 4215:Mdewman6 4200:Mdewman6 3994:Mdewman6 3965:Mdewman6 3918:Endorse. 3893:My dear 3842:Mdewman6 3816:Mdewman6 3707:Mdewman6 3653:Mdewman6 3555:Mdewman6 3150:Overturn 3135:Mdewman6 2954:a·po·des 2945:Overturn 2731:terrible 2385:Endorsed 2282:WP:NCTHE 2116:endorsed 2034:too much 2002:SnowFire 1935:Overturn 1893:Endorse. 1713:Overturn 1665:(namely 1240:Marcelus 1226:Marcelus 1110:Marcelus 1049:Marcelus 1009:Marcelus 977:Marcelus 964:Marcelus 914:Marcelus 875:Marcelus 839:Marcelus 785:Marcelus 732:Marcelus 695:Marcelus 663:Marcelus 623:Marcelus 588:The the 492:Marcelus 264:WP:FLORA 256:Overturn 20:‎ | 4888:archive 4867:history 4550:WP:RMCI 4043:nothing 3980:Amakuru 3726:Endorse 3588:Colin M 3584:Uanfala 3572:Endorse 3528:Amakuru 3266:Calidum 3222:close. 3190:Endorse 3127:WP:RMCI 3026:archive 3005:history 2893:Endorse 2756:Endorse 2707:Endorse 2696:Calidum 2689:Endorse 2480:archive 2459:history 2332:Endorse 2277:Endorse 2251:Comment 2202:archive 2181:history 2056:Endorse 2015:Comment 1953:Endorse 1848:Discord 1729:discord 1723:equal; 1700:Colin M 1674:Calidum 1655:Endorse 1599:Discord 1571:archive 1550:history 1479:Discord 1406:archive 1385:history 1183:Endorse 1088:Endorse 653:to the 522:...and 486:Piotrus 445:archive 424:history 157:archive 136:history 4969:. Per 4916:Ahecht 4383::: --> 4378::: --> 3729:this: 3670:-: --> 3412:cites 3171:relist 1798:topic. 1483:relist 953:? Why 233:or to 4975:WP:AN 4967:WP:RM 4895:watch 4882:links 4747:Hobit 4632:moved 4627:never 4558:moved 4237:knows 4233:knows 4151:maybe 3884:Slash 3871:WP:RM 3792:Slash 3742:Slash 3731:trout 3548:does 3436:WP:AT 3402:WP:AT 3292:clear 3120:RMpmc 3110:RMnac 3033:watch 3020:links 2856:Slash 2823:Slash 2746:Slash 2571:Apple 2487:watch 2474:links 2343:Slash 2209:watch 2196:links 2038:which 1741:Slash 1725:apple 1717:Apple 1618:apple 1578:watch 1565:links 1413:watch 1400:links 1045:wrong 452:watch 439:links 364:mello 300:Slash 203:mello 164:watch 151:links 51:: --> 16:< 4983:talk 4951:talk 4937:Per 4923:PAGE 4921:TALK 4875:logs 4859:edit 4852:talk 4751:talk 4700:talk 4649:talk 4574:talk 4510:talk 4461:talk 4219:talk 4204:talk 4071:most 4047:that 3984:talk 3969:talk 3846:talk 3820:talk 3711:talk 3657:talk 3559:talk 3532:talk 3457:talk 3448:That 3406:WP:D 3404:nor 3383:talk 3349:and 3179:talk 3161:talk 3139:talk 3013:logs 2997:edit 2990:talk 2951:Wug· 2904:talk 2876:talk 2764:talk 2718:talk 2675:talk 2645:talk 2597:... 2589:... 2467:logs 2451:edit 2444:talk 2440:Dock 2380:Dock 2322:talk 2297:talk 2292:Aqua 2290:Pale 2266:talk 2239:talk 2189:logs 2173:edit 2166:talk 2131:Chat 2127:Iffy 2047:talk 2006:talk 1985:talk 1964:talk 1944:Chat 1940:Iffy 1898:Whew 1884:talk 1864:talk 1837:and 1809:talk 1804:Aqua 1802:Pale 1777:talk 1704:talk 1645:talk 1606:Eris 1558:logs 1542:edit 1535:talk 1491:talk 1445:talk 1393:logs 1377:edit 1370:talk 1230:talk 1220:and 1129:talk 1114:talk 1100:talk 1013:talk 968:talk 937:talk 918:talk 900:talk 879:talk 843:talk 820:talk 806:talk 789:talk 770:talk 736:talk 717:talk 699:talk 681:talk 667:talk 641:talk 627:talk 606:talk 554:talk 496:talk 432:logs 416:edit 409:talk 272:talk 247:talk 144:logs 128:edit 121:talk 86:talk 35:< 4902:) ( 4898:) ( 4815:ed. 4802:). 4678:ed. 4613:ed. 4532:ed. 4491:ed. 4445:was 4412:В²C 4398:ed. 4368:В²C 4349:ed. 4326:В²C 4300:ed. 4276:В²C 4259:ed. 4185:ed. 4161:В²C 4133:ed. 4118:and 4105:В²C 4087:ed. 4063:В²C 4051:В²C 4013:ed. 3940:ed. 3899:В²C 3878:Red 3786:Red 3767:В²C 3756:В²C 3736:Red 3624:В²C 3592:В²C 3550:not 3498:to 3468:В²C 3418:В²C 3323:В²C 3300:В²C 3115:or 3040:) ( 3036:) ( 2850:Red 2817:Red 2801:ed. 2740:Red 2678:) 2648:) 2567:and 2494:) ( 2490:) ( 2407:ed. 2337:Red 2325:) 2233:. 2216:) ( 2212:) ( 2133:-- 1946:-- 1922:ed. 1735:Red 1721:not 1585:) ( 1581:) ( 1436:) 1416:) ( 1333:ed. 1202:ed. 571:). 455:) ( 369:hi! 294:Red 208:hi! 171:) ( 167:) ( 22:Log 5018:: 4985:) 4953:) 4943:RM 4926:) 4900:RM 4812:- 4790:– 4753:) 4702:) 4675:- 4651:) 4638:no 4610:- 4576:) 4568:. 4529:- 4512:) 4488:- 4463:) 4395:- 4366:-- 4346:- 4324:-- 4297:- 4256:- 4221:) 4206:) 4182:- 4130:- 4084:- 4010:- 3986:) 3971:) 3937:- 3848:) 3822:) 3713:) 3659:) 3561:) 3534:) 3459:) 3385:) 3321:-- 3283:. 3181:) 3173:. 3163:) 3141:) 3123:}} 3117:{{ 3113:}} 3107:{{ 3100:}} 3094:{{ 3038:RM 2949:— 2943:– 2906:) 2878:) 2798:- 2766:) 2720:) 2551:it 2548:, 2492:RM 2404:- 2383:– 2299:) 2268:) 2241:) 2214:RM 2118:. 2049:) 2008:) 1987:) 1966:) 1919:- 1886:) 1866:) 1811:) 1795:: 1779:) 1706:) 1647:) 1630:it 1597:→ 1583:RM 1493:) 1481:– 1447:) 1418:RM 1330:- 1320:. 1306:– 1232:) 1199:- 1131:) 1116:) 1102:) 1063:🍁 1033:🍁 1015:) 994:🍁 982:- 970:) 939:) 920:) 902:) 881:) 864:, 845:) 822:) 808:) 791:) 772:) 738:) 719:) 701:) 683:) 669:) 643:) 629:) 608:) 600:. 556:) 498:) 457:RM 376:) 374:投稿 361:, 357:— 340:– 274:) 249:) 215:) 213:投稿 200:, 169:RM 88:) 76:– 4981:( 4949:( 4918:( 4906:) 4891:| 4885:| 4879:| 4871:| 4863:| 4855:| 4850:( 4749:( 4698:( 4647:( 4599:! 4572:( 4508:( 4459:( 4415:☎ 4381:! 4371:☎ 4329:☎ 4279:☎ 4217:( 4202:( 4164:☎ 4108:☎ 4099:@ 4054:☎ 3982:( 3967:( 3902:☎ 3864:: 3860:@ 3844:( 3818:( 3759:☎ 3709:( 3655:( 3627:☎ 3595:☎ 3557:( 3530:( 3471:☎ 3455:( 3421:☎ 3381:( 3326:☎ 3303:☎ 3237:C 3233:· 3229:T 3208:C 3204:· 3200:T 3177:( 3159:( 3137:( 3129:. 3044:) 3029:| 3023:| 3017:| 3009:| 3001:| 2993:| 2988:( 2956: 2902:( 2874:( 2762:( 2716:( 2672:( 2642:( 2498:) 2483:| 2477:| 2471:| 2463:| 2455:| 2447:| 2442:( 2393:) 2389:( 2319:( 2295:( 2264:( 2260:. 2237:( 2220:) 2205:| 2199:| 2193:| 2185:| 2177:| 2169:| 2164:( 2129:★ 2124:) 2120:( 2074:C 2070:· 2066:T 2045:( 2004:( 1983:( 1962:( 1942:★ 1908:! 1900:! 1882:( 1862:( 1807:( 1775:( 1702:( 1643:( 1632:( 1589:) 1574:| 1568:| 1562:| 1554:| 1546:| 1538:| 1533:( 1489:( 1443:( 1409:| 1403:| 1397:| 1389:| 1381:| 1373:| 1368:( 1261:5 1256:1 1238:@ 1228:( 1172:5 1167:1 1127:( 1112:( 1098:( 1011:( 966:( 935:( 916:( 898:( 877:( 851:@ 841:( 828:@ 818:( 804:( 787:( 778:@ 768:( 734:( 725:@ 715:( 697:( 689:@ 679:( 665:( 639:( 625:( 616:@ 604:( 576:| 562:@ 552:( 535:| 494:( 488:: 484:@ 448:| 442:| 436:| 428:| 420:| 412:| 407:( 372:( 355:) 289:: 285:@ 270:( 258:( 245:( 211:( 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/2022 March - Knowledge

Index