Knowledge:Move review/Log/2024 April

773:

happening. Yes it is distant. The proponents of that RfC were a small group of royalist afficionados, obsessed with kings, queens & princesses. They watch such guidelines. Most of us don't. This is not a "kings, queens & princesses" article, it's a "history" article, used by a much wider range of writers of history articles, who don't have any particular interest in kings, queens & princesses, and merely refer to them out of necessity. We trusted the norm that exists in historical writing, and the norm which has prevailed on Knowledge for the past twenty years. This change came as a complete surprise, damaging history articles across the board, and had been duly resisted everywhere it has been tried to apply. Yet the peculiar opinion of a narrow obsessive clique of how to refer to their favorite crowned idiot overrules the much larger and much longer opinion of the wider community on significant articles of historical interest? That one obscure guideline instantly trumps all other concerns and overwhelming objections, including all other policy concerns? That's a rather poor weighting system.

4022:. Editors who would have seen the nomination and would find no reason to object (and did not !vote, presumably) under a premise that the rationale, based on the equivalencies drawn, seems fine, were not introduced to the facts properly, because, indeed, the Venezuelan government =/= Chavismo. Calling anyone who opposes the current government as anti-Chavista implies an essentialized notion of the government as embodying Chavismo, which is obviously questionable. It is actually original research. Under these circumstances it can't be said with sufficient certainty that the decision reached was a good decision. RMs exist to provide the community with time and structure to reach a good decision. The process does not exist for the sake of process. The nominating statement in the reviewed RM is probably not conducive to making the best decision. Therefore, instead of reopening, allow an interested editor to start a brand new RM that is not based on questionable equivalencies.— 1302:. Do you have any potential moves in which you think applying the guideline would actually improve the title? IAR is for exceptions, not rewriting guidelines established by broader community consensus. As for the closure, I agree it should have been done by an admin (and I hope this MR is closed by an admin). However, solely being a BADNAC is not a reason to overturn a close. There wasn't a lot to analyze: one side had the support of the guideline, the other argued that we should LOCALCONSENSUS that guideline out of existence. You don't need to write a dissertation to analyze the outcome of that discussion. 1493:(uninvolved). After weeks of languishing in the backlog without being addressed by any admins we should be thanking the NAC rather than admonishing them for closing this discussion. As to the closing statement, it’s concise. It’s obvious that they mean Support was based on SOVEREIGN and opposers were not policy-based (that wasn’t refuted); an accurate assessment. Anyway, they've clarified here as well as on their talk page, and brevity in the closing statement is no reason to reopen, much less overturn, and they’ve already explained their closing more in at least one subsequent close. — 2337:, after which Dylanvt could have opened a RM to reinstate the move. However, Classicwiki instead opened a RM to revert the move. Now we have no consensus to revert the move, no consensus to keep the present title, and (while there is consensus to remove the year) no consensus to just remove the year and keep the rest of the present title. Given the title is controversial, I think the cleanest sensible path forward is to wind the clock back to before 14:26, 2 April, restoring the original title, after which Dylanvt or anyone can start a new RM. As it happens, 443:

recognize or acknowledge that policy was invoked on both sides of this debate. Instead, to judge from their three-word closure at the RM, they considered the guideline to be literally the only relevant factor, which again is very much at odds with the outcome of the discussion. In the post-RM follow-up on their talk page, and in comments they've made here in this MR, the closer seems to support quite firmly the position advocated by those supporting the move despite the discussion having failed to reach such a conclusion.

1595: 2068: 904:, and the guideline was then updated accordingly. The oppose votes did not give any specific reason why that guideline should not apply in this individual case, but simply tried to refute the whole premise of the updated guideline. But an individual RM isn't the forum for that, a fresh RFC would be required to update the guideline. As such, the closer was entirely right to ignore those !votes per the Knowledge version of 440:, a non-admin closure is not appropriate for moves in which the outcome either is close or is likely to be controversial — and the lengthy, highly divided, and at times even contentious nature of the recent spate of SOVEREIGN-related discussions such as this one unquestionably meets that threshold. Despite this, the closer refused to consider reverting even when asked by two editors (myself one of them). 1508:(involved). Opposition was actually policy-based, overwhelming and entirely ignored. It is poorly-conceived guideline change that is contradictory of policy. Cavalierly moved without careful nor balanced consideration of the policy at stake. There was no consensus for this move, nor did the mover claim to find any, nor addressed why policy should be ignored in this case. 3247:(uninvolved). The closer, BilledMammal, was correct to point out the sources cited in the RM (all apparently product listings) are unreliable. The information provided on the closer's talk page may be reliable, but needs to be presented at a future RM. (PS, I've gone ahead and informed BilledMammal about this discussion since the user who began it did not.) ~~ 1873:. The closer correctly interpreted the discussion as concerning a request to move away from the current title. They correctly observed that a proposal to return to the initial title was among the actively discussed options, however it did not garner necessary support – the community has undoubtedly supported the initial rename, even if it was undiscussed. — 736:

article's talk page, a consensus that must be strong indeed to overcome a community consensus. The "distant" guideline, which happens to be part of a very extended series of naming conventions, and which appears to apply directly to this naming issue (rather than being "distant"), represents just such a community consensus. And the participation in the

325:

the guideline improperly balances these things, they should seek to amend the guideline. Retaining a handful of titles that contradict a guideline because editors feel they are more appropriate, without defining and codifying why they are more appropriate in said guideline, ultimately decreases rather than increases the consistency of our titles.

993:. This statement reveals misunderstanding of the role of the closer and mustn’t be allow to stand. It is not the role of the close to apply policies and guidelines, but to summarise the participants’ discussed application of policies and guidelines. It is not acceptable to say there is a role, secondary or otherwise, to count votes. 1855:; the discussion at RMTR is the cause of this move review being opened, as while three uninvolved admins have agreed that the article is at the wrong title, none have been willing to unilaterally move it over full move protection and the objections of the closing admin - they have instead recommended that a move review be opened. 2466:(involved): I see very little well-reasoned support for moving it back to the original title, or original minus the year, and plenty for the current title. It seems to me that the consensus was to keep the title except for removing the superfluous date per NOYEAR, hence why I Endorse the move for correctly applying that policy. -- 263:

this one clearly was. The response to my approach was that "The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. In this case, the guideline's prescription is clear". If the latter were truly the case, there would not have been such a long dispute over its application.

3857:(2) If the closer had seen the previous RM with opposition, I would consider it unreasonable to close the move as "uncontested" without the participants in the previous RM having been pinged. (And even if the closer wasn't aware of the previous RM, that would still be a reason to reopen under the second bulletpoint of 3011:

in line with the relevant Knowledge policy. My point is: the common name of the subject is its abbreviation and the abbreviation is primarily used for this subject. I have proven this with various different shops and manufacturers as examples, and in discussion with the closer also Google Ngram and book titles.

2858:(uninvolved). The close was reasonable based on the discussion that had occurred up to that point. I concur with Alalch that, if you're looking to change the title again (including back to the previous title), starting a new RM seems more likely to yield a productive discussion than reopening the prior RM would. 721:

wider group (and 20+ years stability) are to be given 0% weight? Is there any point to RMs then? Or is this just kabuki theater? Why even have any human editors do closures? We could just program a machine program to do it. Blind machine reasoning would be no less enlightened than the closer's reasoning here.

4195:

To attempt to clarify, and speaking for myself, I supported the MRV nom because he had new arguments. But I am not personally persuaded by the arguments. And noting now that he began by arguing editor behavioural problems, and is now blocked for “abusive” sockpuppetry, this MRV is severely tainted.

1345:

As for BADNAC, an almost entirely unexplained closure by a non-admin of a divided discussion on a controversial request which doesn’t even acknowledge many of the points that were raised or discussed strikes me as sufficient grounds to seek a closure by an admin. The NAC guidance exists for a reason,

1329:

Regarding guidelines, we seek to apply them wherever it makes sense to do so, but the idea that the existence of a guideline overrules all other titling considerations or objections, and is the only relevant consideration in RMs, is simply wrong. If it were so then RMs would become unnecessary and we

1131:

Do you know the meanings of the words “specifically” and “mere” that you have quoted. It seems not. Part of the close is the closing statement, and the closer did not do a good enough job. No respected admin would close with that one-sided terse statement that reads like a Supervote and conveys no

772:

A narrow RfC on a narrow guidelines page that very few people watch but ends up significantly affecting thousand of pages outside of it, which a lot of people watch. Who is the wider community exactly? Most of the opponents of this move did not participate in that RfC, and were not even aware it was

720:

My query was not about rehashing, but asking about the weights you're assigning in your argument about assessing local vs. community consensus. Who do you think is the community? Who is local? A distant guideline recently changed by a narrow group of people should be given 100% weight, but RMs by a

533:

We see several RMs, some still ongoing, where this issue, which has been discussed endlessly, is either being handled or mishandled. In this case the guideline along with its community consensus is crystal clear. And local consensus, no matter how strong numercally, should not overthrow the community

262:

Discussion was closed by a non-admin in favour of the move, even though consensus was clearly not in favour. The closure appeared to have little reasoning or valuation of the arguments behind it. Non-admins are advised against closing discussions where the outcome is likely to be controversial, which

1429:

I think that one is a candidate for MR as well. At first glance it looks like a good close namely by taking into account the opinions of people in the discussion it doesn't take into account community consensus. I was going to wait and see what the consensus of these other MRs are before considering

4507:

While you have previously called these out of process RMs a number of times, that shouldn't be conflated with what "is considered out of process" by MRV commenters generally (or ). As you know, RMCI includes an observation that successful re-requests generally take place at least 3 months after the

3748:

Sounds like you've never closed a move request that was attended only by the nom. Over the years I've closed several like that. What makes this request any different? Editors had a full week plus a relisted week and then some. What would reopening accomplish? It might draw attention from those here

3010:

There were three people involved in the discussion. One person initally opposed the move but later changed their mind and supported. The other two people continued opposing it, of which one never replied to my comment. They stated their opinion for a title, based on incorrect reasoning which is not

1391:

compelling and controversial debate that apparently started long before the RfC that gave the guideline a new direction. This particular eruption of Mt. Concise Titles has spewn gas and dust that often blocks the Sunlight of rational rebuttal. It's lava boldly covers up civility and sears and burns

1284:

The guideline wasn’t ignored: its application was raised and thoroughly discussed. However, a consensus did not emerge that applying the guideline in this case would actually improve the titles, with policy-based rationales raised on both sides. As such, the concern here at MR is that the closure —

1262:

we can't just ignore the guideline because of who happens to turn up at a discussion. If you dislike the guideline, you can open an RfC to get it changed. IAR is for exceptions, not rewriting rules. There is no indication about how Edward IV and Edward V are different so as to require an exception.

1201:

The majority of !votes did not mention “WP:SOVEREIGN”. One that did was in opposition. Many of the oppose !votes cited shortcuts to policy section, which nominally outrank WP:SOVEREIGN as a mere guideline. That makes the discussion contested and complicated, and the closers closing rationale that

1070:

The essay is fairly emphatic about “weighted” counting, and the complexity is in the weighting. The phase “to count votes” implies a lack of appreciation of the importance of weighting, and even if they know this, it’s important to call out the bad phrase for the benefit of less experienced others.

288:

clear: article names of Medieval European monarchs should not include territorial designations unless disambiguation is required, which everyone agrees is not the case here. Consensus is based on the strength of arguments rooted in policies and guidelines, and the arguments of one side were clearly

1640:

The RM is for presenting arguments supporting or opposing the move. This MR is about evaluating closer’s finding that support arguments were better based in policy. This MR, not a reopened RM, is therefore the appropriate forum for showing how policy cited by opposers didn’t actually support their

1167:

Admins being more experiences is definitely a correlation, but admins being vetted for wisdom in difficult closes is the point. This closer does not appear to be good enough to be trusted with contentious closes, like a typical NAC-er, and the terse closing statement is an example of a bad close,

735:

The difference seems clear enough to most editors: a community consensus is represented by a policy or guideline, a strong consensus that has been garnered over time as the result of long-standing edits, RfCs or other discussions. A local consensus is the result of a local discussion on a specific

324:

Topic-specific naming guidelines provide a stable framework by which to balance all five criteria (recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision and consistency). Their consistent application provides for what editors have determined to be the best balance of all five. If editors believe that

3917:

Although I lean to preferring the current title, per the balance of statements on that talk page after stripping the blocked user’s statements, restoring the old title on the basis of the March RM being too soon after the November RM, is nit unreasonable. However, noting the blocked user was all

2557:

and also agreement to remove the year. So I endorse this closure; the current title should remain so. I would ask only that the closer adjust the RM's closing statement to include this information for posterity. The closing admin has no problem with a fresh and immediate RM to resolve any further

2503:

This was not asked nor covered on the closer's talk page. As much as I would like to endorse the closure of an editor who has been on WP for coming up on twenty years next year, who became a sysop in 2006 and who is now a trusted and seasoned admin, I just cannot make an informed decision without

1182:

We're not going to agree or change each other's mind, so I acknowledge your view but politely and firmly disagree and will leave that as that on this discussion specifically. I'm happy to continue elsewhere, though. I would like to keep this MR solely about the specific close, since we seem to be

746:

found it and had entered your opinion before it ended. The rest of your questions, with a healthy amount of respect and esteem, are frankly beneath you and represent heartfelt frustration that is understandable, even if not agreed with by many editors. This issue is apparently still up for grabs,

462:

while there was a bit more opposition (14 v 10) and the close looks a bit of a supervote it was closed in accordance with the guideline which yes is controversial but that's what the guideline is and I don't see a reason to ignore the guideline when the !vote tally isn't so lopsided to ignore the

3678:

When I see a close and agree that I would have reached the same conclusion, then I pretty much endorse. Consensus can change, and when there is no opposition for twice the time it should take to reach a conclusion, then I see it as a change of consensus probably due to complacency on the part of

841:

I agree. Nobody has said that WP is perfect. Perhaps another RfC should be opened to revert the guideline change? In any case, as things stand right here in the present moment, this RM closure should be endorsed in accord with the guideline in its present state. Changing the guideline is not our

616:

to a guideline) but fails to achieve consensus, that's a legitimate and useful result that can then prompt a reappraisal of the guideline, including discussions in other venues about how to improve it. That's less likely to happen if we simply rubber-stamp-approve even contentious or problematic

3715:

I'm sorry, but a move discussion with only one !vote is not "consensus." This is no different procedurally than unilaterally moving the page using the Move tool, even if it is not the fault of the nominator, and then having someone else notice it was moved several weeks ago and reverting. I see

3053:

Please take a look at the dates of the comments in this discussion. I provided the examples to the user YorkshireExpat, who agreed with me in the end. The last comment by an opposing user was 06:05, April 3rd. Most of the examples in the top discussions are from after that moment, so it is not

2217:

That's not responsive to BilledMammal's point, which wasn't about how long the title was live, but the fact that it was immediately contested. Clearly there is no stable title, since the page has only existed for a few weeks and the title has been debated essentially the entire time. Hence the

442:

In the RM itself the closer chose to provide no rationale beyond simply linking to the guideline, which ignores the substantial amount of debate (and lack of consensus) on the very question of whether applying the guideline in this case would yield the best title. The closer also seemed not to

3811:

I'm genuinely sorry if my words seem cryptic to you. Like SJ below, and as I said before, I am not against what appears to be the probable outcome and consensus of this review. Perhaps there should be further immediate discussion? The close was good, and yet maybe you and others here are onto

563:

There was more participation and a greater margin of opposition in this RM than there was in the November RfC that changed the wording in an obscure guideline. Who is the "local community" and who is the "community consensus"? Can I make up my own guideline and force the change across pages

3142:

decision. The longer one waits, the more likely one will build stronger arguments and successfully rename the article. If this RM were to be reopened, the liklihood is that it would still end in no consensus, so it would be better to wait and strengthen your rationale. There have been a few

341:

topic-specific naming guidelines provide a stable framework — but the recent contentious change to NCROY is neither successful nor stable, as mounting evidence affirms. The results of RMs prompted by the change have been all over the board, and a number of them have entirely failed to reach

4101:) is the sole driver for reopening/ relisting, others merely supporting, and so for practical reasons at least this should be closed, with the standard moratorium of six months before a fresh RM, unless another editor in good standing speaks up soon and want to pick up the nom’s cause. 371:

still appears to suggest it is. In any case this makes NCROY consistent with most other topics that aren't disambiguated unless needed. So the guideline was brought in line with most other topics so its not like its a bad close to ignore it when it was made consistent with others.

4180:

that's... kind of how nominations work? If there was unanimous opposition to this proposal, sure, close it and let someone else re-file down the line, but "procedurally closed because people are agreeing with a now-blocked user" is one of the weirdest takes I've seen in a while.

1110:

The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of

1845:. The close itself appears reasonable, but the decision on what title should be utilized given a no-consensus close is contrary to policy, and I am opening this move request to request overturning that aspect and moving the article to "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". 1377:

One can easily agree with that as you wrote it, but that's not what happened. It was the idea that the existence of the community consensus behind a guideline overrules all other titling considerations or objections that are considered by the closer to be too weak to warrant

611:

Or simply observe RM results. After all, one way we determine whether a guideline merits the kind of attention you describe is through RMs just like the one we're considering here. When an RM seeks to apply the provisions of a guideline (or in this case a questionable

88:

that established the new guideline was well-attended, and comparisons of the relative size of participation of the RfC and individual RMs are not helpful unless the RfC consensus is so weak that it cannot be said to represent the broader opinion of the community.

4481:

decisions an RM is out of process if it begins less than three months after the decision. Waiting times are pretty arbitrary and based on past experience of successes or failures of the new RMs. "Out of process" is just a description – nothing's etched in stone.

1886:

Why do you say "the community has undoubtedly supported the initial rename"? Maybe I missed some context, but that doesn't seem supported by the no-consensus close, at least. The closer clarified that "There was no consensus in the discussion for anything except

1716:

would result in that title being kept, so the outcome should be robust to variations in the exact process used to get there. There is consensus in the RM to remove the year, but that is orthogonal to the question of which of two alternatives should be chosen.

695:. MRV is not a place to rehash the RM nor is it a place to rehash the RfC that changed the guideline. Here at MRV only the closure of the move request that has been nominated above is the focus of attention. Said closure was reasonable and should be endorsed. 354:, etc. Continuing to try to apply a guideline that lacks consensus support in practice is what's making our titles about sovereigns inconsistent... and until we take the lessons of these contentious RMs to heart and revisit NCROY, it's unlikely to improve. 653:, not policy. It’s right to apply them wherever it makes sense to do so, but not where it doesn’t, and discussion is how we find the line. The idea that a guideline automatically trumps all objections short-circuits that process and is not how we operate. 2114:

If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was

293:'s prescription, but they should be seeking a consensus to change that guideline, not waging dozens of battles across individual RMs. Until they do, it is the closer's job to apply policy as it is, rather than as some editors wish it were. 1450:

Perhaps a good call, I don't know. First glance yields a seasoned admin closer who apparently detected a really good IAR arg to ignore the guideline. If that RM is reviewed, I'd have to look at it more closely before rendering an opinion.

1392:

unsuspecting inexperienced editors. Just as this review might go either way, the issue itself has yet to be fully flushed out, and anything may as yet happen. On the level of local RMs, the issue has been going both ways, for example, see

3527:

I do not oppose to this being reopened but calling it a reverted unilateral page move is uncalled-for; the supposed controversial move was opened for 2 weeks with no one supporting or opposing. Doesn't look so controversial to me. Best,

4512:

closed as having very little chance of getting a different outcome, but they shouldn't be procedurally closed as invalid process absent an express moratorium (or a consensus to change that observation into a procedural waiting period).

4446:

created every time a requested move is closed with a consensus, particularly not one that lasts for four months, which was the amount of time between these two RMs. And the nominator plausibly asserted a change in circumstances.

1386:

wrong. And coming from a place of closing many RMs that were contentious, some of which were reviewed here and most of which were endorsed, I have to applaud the closer for diving into this issue. He has gotten caught up in a

1237:, a non-admin closure is not appropriate for moves in which the outcome either is close or is likely to be controversial. This is clearly a disputed move, without consensus. Huwmanbeing's comments above summarize my thoughts. 366:

says that we don't disambiguate just because other similar articles need disambiguation and I'd note that NCROY was one of the exceptions to the rule of not being more precise than needed and this exception was changed though

3175:

This may be because a discussion has fractured into several possible titles and none seem especially suitable, or simply because equally strong arguments and appeals to Knowledge policy and outside sources were found on both

2846:. You are suggesting an incremental improvement over the result of the last RM which indicates starting a new RM to further improve the names. There is no need to do anything with respect to the RM nominated here for review.— 1799: 4508:

previous one, but that is just a description of likelihood of success, not a procedural waiting period (however flexible) for a re-request to be a valid RM process. Re-requests are often quickly rejected by commenters and

3786:

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me. An AfD with one participant is soft closed. I don't see why a RM should be treated any differently. And an RM by a user that's now topic banned shouldn't carry any weight at all.

1613:

What? Do a search for “London” without England. By your ”logic” London is not recognizable and needs disambiguation. Please. This is why opposition arguments were discounted. They were based in nonsense, not policy.

1202:

was only “per WP:SOVEREIGN” is patently inadequate as a summary. That makes it a BAD close (even if the result happens to be right), and them being a non admin makes it a BADNAC and means they really should read

3749:

at MRV, but if it takes two weeks and an MRV to change the consensus found by the closer, then there is something wrong with this picture. And I'm sorry right back to ya because a discussion with only one !vote

925:(uninvolved) this is one of the instances where the guideline is crystal clear, and those opposing didn't really rebut it apart from an IAR argument. I agree an RfC would be necessary in order to overturn this. 2119:

Further, the new title wasn’t stable because it was disputed an hour later on the talk page by opening an RM - stable means undisputed, not unreverted, as for it to mean otherwise would encourage edit warring.

2981: 1641:

position. Continuing to misinterpret RECOGNIZABILITY here in the MR is not helpful, except to reinforce closer’s point about their job: “to apply policy as it is, rather than as some editors wish it were”. —

747:

because we still see RMs going both ways. Don't know if that helps your stomach rumblings, but it appears that not all of the cards are as yet "in", so to speak. Your opinion, if a minority one, is not alone.

3602:

In light of current events, the older title should be restored, and a fresh RM should only be opened if there are new and strong arguments to do so. The RM under review was opened only about 3 months after a

3885:. This consensus at a formal move request was to move to the proposed article title. The longer editors wait to open a fresh RM, the better their chance of success. Recommended wait time is minimum one year 2550: 1852: 3968:, and discourage a fresh RM for two months. No criticism of the close, but with ArbCom being involved, a central editor now topic banned, another sock-blocked, it’s a mess and a pause would be helpful. — 1113:, which was done. I do think that an elaborated rationale would have been beneficial, especially for utter shitfests like the NCROY RMs, which I saw from other closes by Compassionate made after this one. 1553:

are policy. And it is not baseless. As someone who claims to be "uninvolved", it turns out you have opinions on the matter. The RM should be reopened to allow you to make your case there, and not here.

1711:

explained, Classicwiki could certainly have reverted Dylanvt's move unilaterally, and then any further unilateral moves would be prohibited as move-warring. A no consensus result on an RM initiated from

2341:

says "default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made" – that was the original title. (I don't understand at all the arguments that

534:

consensus of the guideline without very compelling reasons. This closer did not see reasons that were compelling enough to ignore the guideline. I think that's reasonable and in accord with the RM

1146:

Insinuating I don't know what words mean is rude and I ask that you not do that again. RM isn't like a VPP close; controversial RMs have been closed without a policy link even and upheld at MR.

1580:(which show the opposite in this case, by a huge margin), and why their name meets the RECOGNIZABILITY threshold, but the other doesn’t. Opposition did none of that; it was not policy-based. — 1289:— did not consider or fairly represent the outcome of the discussion, and seems like a supervote. Without a proper closure by an administrator I don’t see having any confidence in the result. 2094:

and remained so for two weeks, with a few later changes, back-an-forth, but always "embassy" was the more stable title. Yet, there was nothing resembling "long time" in this very new article.

93:

can only be invoked if the invoker explains what makes this case special, or else IAR could be used to ignore the newly passed guideline entirely, which is clearly against the spirit of IAR.

3400: 1576:“because COMMONNAME and RECOGNIZABILITY”, is not a policy-based argument. To be policy-based on those policies, one has to show their preferred answer is more commonly used in RS, like with 3757:. And now, after two weeks of complacency, one other editor opens an MRV? That may be enough for some, but it is not enough for me. This RM close should stand on its own as viable for now. 3646:

There's only one way it could have been closed, though, because there was only one participant, who is now topic-banned. The close itself was not the issue, the procedure was the issue...

738: 85: 1976:, the page clearly needs to go the "most recent stable title" (or, if you prefer, "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub") minus the year— 1577: 1523: 1817: 1769: 2099:

Anyway, if policies are contradictory, we have to refer to local consensus, and there was no consensus to support the proposal of going back the much less stable term "consulate". —

3864:(3) There is no reason to wait several months to continue a minimally-attended discussion. If that were an actual requirement, it would be all the more reason to reopen this RM. 4477:

outcome is followed in less than a year by another RM, it is considered out of process unless there are significant new arguments or old arguments have been strengthened. With

1805: 4059:

That was unexpected. I still think allowing immediate renomination might make sense considering the new discussion on the talk page and the fact this is or was at ArbCom.

2609:" This is the part that belongs in the closing statement to dispel any confusion. It's not just the date that was unwanted, but the entire old title. The closer went on, " 1765: 1696: 3453:

Overall, the "Opposition to Chavismo" title is inaccurate, "Opposition to Chavismo and Madurismo" is a mouthful and having two different articles would be an unnecessary

2999: 2951: 2987: 2310:(uninvolved) on the no consensus but yet not moving back to the original title conclusion. I had said my part in the RM/TR discussion. I don't mind it being moved to 84:. The close should have been performed by an admin and included more explanation of the rationale, but otherwise there is consensus that the decision is correct. The 4575: 1373:

the idea that the existence of a guideline overrules all other titling considerations or objections, and is the only relevant consideration in RMs, is simply wrong.

1104:. The buttons one has doesn't make a good closer. The close is policy-aligned with current NCROY, and the closer correctly applied close procedures. Directly from 2824:'s one year. I support the second move occurring, but the first move doesn't need to occur and this article should be reverted back to its original location at " 1602:, and see what comes up. It's not this guy. Anyway, that's not what is being discussed here. The closure is the topic, not your opinions on the proposed move. 2787: 787:

Specific guideline aside, all you have to show is including “of location” is most commonly used in RS when referring to the person. Nobody did that in the RM. —

4527:

Regardless of your disagreement on the term "out of process", NoonIcarus listing an RM barely three months after they'd had the previous RM that they'd listed

3029:

Unfortunately there was clearly no consensus to move, the examples were not convincing to those who participated in the discussion. Try again in a few months.

3499:

controversial especially given the POV-pushing, we should treat this as a reverted unilateral page move and re-open the discussion to get a better consensus.

3370: 2947: 2903: 2494: 2239: 1957: 4196:

Unless someone really believes the nom’s 2nd paragraph arguments and is prepared to argue them in the reopened RM, I don’t think the RM should be reopened.

4119:, I think enough editors have spoken for relist/reopen for that to speak for itself. This discussion should be assessed on its merits, not who started it. 3753:

a consensus – even a page moved without discussion is a consensus until challenged. But wait! that's not the case is it. This consensus is the result of a

3392: 1164:

Happy to talk about what you wrote, if you want to claim your meaning is different. No one is claiming it should be overturned merely because it’s an NAC.

742:

appears to have been a bit more than you have depicted with your "narrow group of people" observation. The outcome is unlikely to have changed even if you

2088:(bolding mine). In this instance, however, "consulate" was never stable for more than a day: the article was first renamed from "consulate" to "embassy" 3568:(which includes comments that would still appear to apply in opposition to the move even with edits to the article), this is not a good candidate for a 3572:

closure as uncontested. (I will also note that the portion of the argument based on consistency with Spanish Knowledge should have little weight since

4010: 3609:

Not unsympathetic toward the nom's well-made points; however, we are here to evaluate only the closure, which was reasonable and in accord with the

2867: 2346:

does not apply.) I don't object to dropping the year from the original title – that would be a less clean rollback, but is probably more sensible.

2238:

does apply here, and according to the "first non-stub version" stipulation therein, the stable default title in the event of no other consensus is

2516: 2498: 2437:. You mention some non-procedural reasons for supporting the outcome, but they seem out of place in a move review, which is "not a do-over of the 1977: 1713: 1703: 1526:? The notion that “Edward V” is not the COMMONNAME or does not meet the RECOGNIZABILITY threshold is baseless; it’s not a policy-based position. — 3427: 502: 1909:: Kashmiri was involved in the RM (opposed the proposed revert and replied supporting removing the year). Involvement should be disclosed per 3679:

topic-tired editors. Ya snooze, ya lose. In terms of what this review board is here for, that was a good close, reasonable and in line with

3219:

Good, reasonable decision. Again, editor PhotographyEdits, wait a few months and try again if you still think a title change is necessary.

1728: 974: 347: 104: 37: 2793: 3376: 4231: 4073: 3801: 3738: 3660: 3517: 3399:

Reading Beans may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: NoonIcarus, a user

3082: 3043: 2054: 939: 1096:

uninvolved. Any arguments at MR about an admin specifically being preferred because of more experience are hypocritical. Directly from

3690:

and supply a policy-based argument. In terms of this particular closure, consensus has changed for the present and should be honored.

1401: 1307: 1268: 1054: 1015: 631: 595: 413: 47: 4087:

with the allegation that he used multiple accounts abusively. Primefac might have a helpful comment, but my leaning is to note that

2611:

I made the ruling to put the page at 'Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus', regardless of previous naming of the page.

2333:(uninvolved). Dylanvt boldly moved the page at 14:26, 2 April. Classicwiki disagreed with the move and was entitled to revert it per 1522:

Merely claiming COMMONNAME or RECOGNIZABILITY does not establish basis in policy. Not to re-argue here, but did you look at relevant

3854:. It would be aberrant if that counted as a stable consensus only in RMs (in contrast to content editing, deletion, and bold moves). 3683:. It should be endorsed, and editors who snoozed and now think it's wrong should wait several months and then try to move it back. 2583:

I'm pretty sure that just means there was strong consensus not to go back to the title with the year. The closer specifically said

1935:(uninvolved) for the procedural reasons BilledMammal mentioned. A no-consensus close should have restored the default mentioned in 1568:

My opinion is we should title our articles based on policy. Of course COMMONNAME and RECOGNIZABILITY are policy. But arguing, say,

1007: 2656: 2292:

discussion – what is being discussed is only whether the closer closed the discussion in line with our policies and consensus. —

1848: 1733: 343: 109: 3997:, true, but if nobody but the nominator has commented then I don't think we have enough evidence to determine whether consensus 1132:

reflection of the other side of the discussion. There is more to closing a contested discussion that getting the result right.

175: 2607:...and consensus was strong that that name ('2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus') was not what the community wanted. 989:, due to the closing statement being inadequate, and moreso because of the closer’s statement in response on their talk page: 4098: 233: 3993:, but in this case, the proposed move almost exactly duplicated an RM that was rejected by consensus just a few months ago. 1400:

as "no consensus" (therefore "not moved"). And of course there are others that resulted in page moves, such as this one and

2825: 2700: 42: 1626:

Oh, plenty. At any rate, this is not the place to have this discussion. When the RM reopens, you can go argue it there.

4006: 3305: 2916: 2863: 2805: 2757: 2596: 1989: 1330:

could just mass-apply the guideline to every possible case via undiscussed moves and technical requests — but we don’t.

2202:

RMs can be opened at will, they only mean that an editor didn't like the existing title. We need to jduge consensus. —

956:. Yes, an admin closure would arguably have been preferable, but that is not a sufficient reason to overturn the move. 181: 4361: 4200: 3565: 3388: 3340: 239: 2411:. Based on the edit history embassy seems to be the more stable article name. Both embassy and bombing are much more 1346:

and as it stands I simply don’t see that we can have confidence in the appropriateness of the closure that was made.

2820:

is the obvious primary topic for "Today (Australian TV program)", which has aired for 44 years in comparison to the

2510:

If no reason is forthcoming, I don't see how this closure could possibly be endorsed. Unless there is a really good

2363:(uninvolved) per Extraordinary Writ. I also dispute the removal of the year given how little attention it received. 3196: 3121: 3099:. Start an RM at some point in the future by including all or most of those arguments in the nominating statement.— 3059: 3016: 1837:), but has also insisted the title remain at the location it was boldly moved to, rather than to title used in the 255: 1049:

There is clearly a role for counting votes, as the essay demonstrates. Why else would we care about VOTESTACKing?

4498: 4050: 3905: 3828: 3777: 3706: 3634: 3235: 3162: 2724: 2629: 2574: 2537: 2334: 2174:

2 April: RM opened, with editor saying "I suggest moving it back to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus"

1550: 1467: 1420: 1393: 1031:

Nuance can be important. A clumsy close of a contested discussion looks like a WP:Supervote and is a WP:BADNAC.

858: 763: 711: 554: 351: 21: 1939:, rather than keeping the result of an improper move (a clearly-controversial move that was done without a RM). 3109: 2471: 1723: 1259: 626:

If we are just going to ignore the guidelines willy-nilly, why would we bother having them in the first place?

99: 2489:

I'm perplexed how any editor here could possibly make an informed decision without first asking this question

4223: 4065: 4002: 3793: 3730: 3652: 3557: 3529: 3509: 3408: 3301: 3074: 3035: 2912: 2859: 2821: 2817: 2753: 2592: 2584: 2424: 2279: 2046: 1999: 1985: 1961: 1821: 1439: 931: 476: 381: 3918:

over the November RM, I would call this a “no concensus” situation and recommend a fresh RM at two months.

4519: 4453: 4378:

I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could read that RM as resulting in a move even without WMRapids.

3870: 3582: 3336: 3288: 3003: 2665: 2652: 2505: 2381: 2343: 2338: 2235: 2193: 2125: 2074: 2033: 1973: 1936: 1919: 1860: 1842: 1314: 1275: 1061: 1022: 638: 602: 420: 2467: 4217:

The initiator of the conversation you linked even noted they would have likely opposed the name change.

3320: 3293: 3267: 3192: 3117: 3055: 3012: 2931: 2882: 2737: 2679: 2613:" That to me means that the closer made a reasonable administrative decision, which should be endorsed. 2508:. There must have been a good reason, a very good reason, to ignore this long-term community consensus. 2002:

Before the 2 April move, the article had existed for a whole of 19 hours, so this is a weak argument. —

1910: 1749: 1675: 1245: 1190: 1153: 1120: 328: 296: 125: 17: 3300:

since the November 2023 discussion should use their judgment in considering whether to start a new RM.

2189: 2121: 1856: 991:

The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes

4485: 4443: 4037: 3892: 3851: 3815: 3764: 3693: 3621: 3573: 3443: 3252: 3222: 3149: 2833: 2711: 2616: 2561: 2524: 2036:

doesn't really apply, even though it's a strange one. However I don't see clear support for invoking

1645: 1618: 1584: 1530: 1497: 1454: 1407: 1300:

a consensus did not emerge that applying the guideline in this case would actually improve the titles

897: 845: 791: 750: 698: 579: 541: 363: 4414:

Likewise. I should have stated move to previous name to start with given the RM was out of process.

1960:

prior to a BOLD move on 2 April. The closer found consensus to remove the year but explicitly said "

446:

It'd be best to vacate this closure and allow the request to be closed instead by an administrator.

4405: 4369: 4249: 4208: 4168: 4106: 4023: 3973: 3952: 3923: 3423: 3188: 3100: 2847: 2809: 2389: 2321: 1718: 1631: 1607: 1559: 1546: 1513: 1404:

did. Life is forever fascinating and anything...but...dull on this encyclopedia project, isn't it?

1324: 1211: 1173: 1137: 1076: 1036: 998: 905: 778: 726: 569: 290: 282: 94: 2514:

behind this closure, it should be overturned, and the correct title, which in my opinion would be

4533: 4416: 4380: 4340: 4288: 4260: 4218: 4186: 4143: 4121: 4092: 4060: 3788: 3725: 3647: 3504: 3482: 3069: 3030: 2450: 2420: 2404: 2298: 2275: 2242:. The present title of the article is not the default unless a consensus explicitly finds so. — 2223: 2208: 2156: 2105: 2041: 2024:

the page move, and I endorse the no consensus to revert the move to the original title, as there

2008: 1944: 1896: 1879: 1432: 961: 953: 926: 514: 506: 469: 374: 307: 3108:

That doesn't make much sense. You seem to think that the arguments hold merit, but Knowledge is

4548: 4531:

would be considered by many to be disruptive. It's not a stretch to call it "out of process".

4522: 4514: 4501: 4456: 4448: 4431: 4409: 4395: 4373: 4355: 4303: 4275: 4253: 4236: 4212: 4190: 4172: 4158: 4136: 4110: 4078: 4053: 4026: 4014: 3990: 3977: 3956: 3927: 3909: 3873: 3865: 3847: 3831: 3806: 3780: 3743: 3709: 3665: 3638: 3585: 3577: 3569: 3553: 3536: 3522: 3486: 3462: 3431: 3309: 3256: 3238: 3200: 3165: 3125: 3103: 3087: 3063: 3048: 3020: 2920: 2871: 2850: 2837: 2726: 2668: 2660: 2632: 2600: 2577: 2540: 2475: 2454: 2434: 2428: 2416: 2412: 2393: 2372: 2355: 2325: 2300: 2283: 2271: 2251: 2247: 2234:

As noted above, this supposed procedural "clarification" by Kashmiri here is factually wrong.

2227: 2210: 2197: 2158: 2129: 2107: 2059: 2010: 1993: 1948: 1922: 1914: 1900: 1881: 1864: 1738: 1648: 1635: 1621: 1587: 1563: 1533: 1517: 1500: 1470: 1445: 1423: 1350: 1318: 1304: 1293: 1279: 1265: 1250: 1215: 1196: 1177: 1159: 1141: 1126: 1105: 1102:

the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure

1080: 1065: 1051: 1040: 1026: 1012: 1002: 981: 965: 944: 917: 913: 901: 861: 794: 782: 766: 730: 714: 657: 642: 628: 621: 606: 592: 573: 557: 518: 496: 482: 450: 424: 410: 387: 368: 358: 332: 319: 300: 272: 114: 3989:(Uninvolved, though I closed an earlier RM on this article.) I'm normally a big proponent of 4360:

If you discount the contributions from the now blocked abusive sockpuppeteer, the prior RM,

4258:

In fact both participants in that thread have indicated that they are not fans of the move.

3947:. Nothing wrong with the close, but the nom has reasonable points that weren’t discussed. — 2408: 2037: 1888: 1834: 1347: 1290: 1286: 1241: 1234: 1184: 1147: 1114: 978: 892:. (involved) There was an RFC in the autumn which clarified this exact point, as to whether 654: 618: 447: 437: 355: 81: 3561: 3495:

Since no one participated in the move discussion apart from the proposer, and the move is

3454: 3248: 2829: 2816:

This move request should be re-opened as closer wasn't able to take into account that the

2368: 2067: 1969: 1642: 1615: 1581: 1527: 1494: 1334:, when viewed not just through the lens of a single guideline but in the wider context of 788: 587: 3473:. Also, having an article move proposal on such a controversial topic being closed with 2828:", it is the most likely topic being referred to when readers search for this program. 4509: 4401: 4365: 4245: 4204: 4164: 4116: 4102: 3969: 3948: 3919: 3850:

for two weeks isn't a stable consensus, just a "presumed" consensus. See, for example,

3680: 3610: 3139: 3113: 2385: 2351: 2317: 2112:

If you read the final sentence of the paragraph you quoted from it clearly does apply;

1627: 1603: 1555: 1509: 1397: 1207: 1169: 1133: 1097: 1072: 1032: 994: 774: 722: 583: 565: 535: 145: 4569: 4241: 4182: 4088: 4084: 3994: 3858: 3478: 3297: 3184: 3116:). Then why not reopen? Then I don't have to wait months and write everything again. 2511: 2446: 2293: 2219: 2203: 2151: 2100: 2003: 1940: 1892: 1874: 1569: 1379: 1203: 957: 688: 510: 492: 315: 268: 251: 203: 193: 90: 4141:

Noting also that this RM was started a little over 3 months after the previous one.

1047:

It is not acceptable to say there is a role, secondary or otherwise, to count votes.

3613:. Also would not be averse to reopening and relisting if MRV consensus deems it so. 2442: 2438: 2243: 1339: 909: 464: 4163:

A relist or reopen needs at least one person who will champion the new arguments.

1332:

RMs explicitly exist to solicit feedback on the appropriateness of requested moves

647:

If guidelines must always be applied despite any objection, why bother having RMs?

405: 4201:

Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#New title "Opposition to Chavismo" + LEDE language

3180: 2364: 401: 4034:

Please note that the nominator of this review has been blocked indefinitely.

2384:. But also since the current title clearly does not match the article lead. 2270:. The current title is wrong and misleading, moreover failing to comply with 2265:

the building destroyed was the Counsulate as everyone can check by their own

3419:. As the previous discussion laid out, "Opposition to Chavismo" is actually 2441:

discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process" (

2347: 2020:(uninvolved) this is a bit of an odd RM as it seems there was opposition to 1708: 1206:

and be more conservative in choosing to try to help by closing discussions.

397: 141: 72: 3887:– I cut that in half to six months to give the nom the benefit of the doubt 3477:

is not recommended. The move discussion should be reopened and relisted. --

3426:

because there is both "Chavismo" and "Madurismo". Making the comparison to

3171:

My point is that the following about no-consensus is not true in this case:

2266: 4338:

the RM was completely out of process and the result should be overturned.

3143:

exceptions to this over the years, but not many. Sincerely hope this helps

3138:

Well, please let me try to show how sensible it is. This RM closure was a

2433:

This was a no-consensus close, though, not a close based on policies like

908:

which requires closers to view discussions through the lens of policy. —

896:

and similar constructs could be dropped for primary topics, in line with

578:

Venue is everything. If you want to change the guideline, open an RfC at

488: 311: 264: 199: 3068:

I don't believe that's a reason to overturn a lack of consensus, sorry.

3556:

closure, the best practice is to reopen. Reopening is a better way to "

1839:

first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made

582:(which can then be advertised at other venues, including WikiProjects, 408:. But more to the point, consistency does not apply to disambiguation. 4442:

Opening a new RM was not "out of process". There isn't some automatic

3179:

The policies cited by users opposing the move were either irrelevant (

4493: 4045: 3900: 3823: 3772: 3701: 3629: 3230: 3157: 2719: 2624: 2569: 2553:, which I had missed. The closer distinctly found "strong consensus" 2532: 1573: 1462: 1415: 853: 758: 706: 549: 3758: 2316:

if the consensus was found to have the year removed from the title.

1285:

specifically a three-word, non-admin closure in direct violation of

4336:

it would be best to reopen to allow a more fuller consensus to form

2268: 509:– which is why it was endorsed. The same applies in this instance. 1168:

being a closing statement that does not reflected the discussion.

2708:

A fresh move request can be opened to settle any ongoing issues.

4322:(uninvolved) Given the severe lack of involvement in the RM and 4244:

consistently opposed the move. Do I misunderstand your point?

3438:

presidencies and has not been against just one individual. The

2040:

and would overturn the move to the originally suggested title.

4334:

involvement and which arrived at a completely different close

3183:) or they cited a policy that actually supported my argument ( 2081:

and should be disregarded – it only refers to situations when

1233:: (uninvolved here, but involved in another with closer). per 3615:

As it presently stands, though, this was (still) a good close

2605:

And I'm pretty sure that the closer was clear when he wrote "

2504:

first hearing why such an esteemed editor did not follow the

1323:

MR isn’t the place to discuss other moves or our opinions of

4286:

That is not a good argument. It was started out of process.

3564:

a place for continuing the move discussion. And in light of

2294: 2204: 2152: 2101: 2004: 1875: 1847:

Note that there have been two other discussions on this, at

617:

requests simply on the grounds that "the guideline exists".

436:(involved), both procedurally and on its merits. First, per 4362:

Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#Requested move 22 November 2023

3566:

Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#Requested move 22 November 2023

3292:– There is consensus to restore the status quo ante title ( 1183:

disagreeing fundamentally about what makes a proper close.

987:

Overturn for an admin or better experienced closer to close

3054:

unreasonable to assume the other users haven't seen them.

289:

better rooted. It is obvious that some people do not like

2501:

per the closer's perceived consensus to remove the year?

1394:

Talk:Charles XI of Sweden#Requested move 13 January 2024

1258:(involved; started RM): the guideline is clear, and per 467:

was endorsed at MR despite the !vote tally being 8 v 4.

3558:

help in establishing a consensus whether to move or not

3447: 3416: 3412: 3404: 3383: 3363: 3355: 3347: 2994: 2974: 2966: 2958: 2800: 2780: 2772: 2764: 2312: 2183: 2176: 2169: 2143: 2138: 2092: 1829: 1812: 1792: 1784: 1776: 649:

The answer of course is that guidelines are just that:

246: 226: 218: 210: 188: 168: 160: 152: 3607:

decision and so appears to have been out of process.

2493:

What is the closer's reason for not moving to either

4203:, does not to support a return to the prior title. 2218:aforementioned "first major contribution" default. 1045:Of course. I am just responding to your claim that 3417:three months after their past proposal was opposed 2150:The stable name is obvious, no need to pretend. — 1766:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus 1697:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus 1430:MR and if anyone else also has the same opinion. 505:called it an excellent close, correctly applying 3552:): Whenever someone requests reopening a recent 2464:Overturn finding of "no consensus", Endorse move 281:: I'll just repeat what I said on my talk page. 2555:to not move the page back to the previous title 842:focus here; endorsing a reasonable closure is. 4469:Here at MRV if a RM that resulted in a clear 3945:Relist / Reopen / Allow an immediate fresh RM 3576:is not aimed at inter-language consistency.) 8: 2948:Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications 2904:Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications 2495:2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus 2240:2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus 1958:2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus 501:Actually, several of those who commented at 3319:The following is an archived debate of the 2930:The following is an archived debate of the 2736:The following is an archived debate of the 1748:The following is an archived debate of the 124:The following is an archived debate of the 3560:" (quoting the closer), since move review 3450:) has been opposed to both presidencies. 3281: 2896: 2693: 1689: 1327:, only the appropriateness of the closure. 65: 1396:, a similar RM closed recently by editor 952:(involved): the closer correctly applied 687:The answer to your questions is found at 4400:Ok. I support restoring the old title. 3716:absolutely no reason not to reopen this 2403:(involved) The closer correctly applied 1342:. This was not reflected in the closure. 3413:forced their own titling on the project 2517:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus 2499:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus 2313:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus 2142:14 April: Article moved to "consulate" 2137:2 April: Article moved to "embassy..." 1978:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus 1714:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus 1704:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus 4576:Knowledge move review monthly listings 4177: 3434:since the opposition has spanned over 3428:Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia 2610: 2606: 2180: 2173: 2166: 2113: 2082: 1838: 1372: 1299: 1109: 1101: 1046: 990: 4330:after the previous RM which did have 3465:, precise and is the common name for 3401:recently topic banned for POV pushing 2587:that "there was not" consensus to do 2181:13 April: RM closed as "no consensus" 564:regardless of widespread opposition? 7: 2520:, should become the article's title. 2167:1 April: Article ceases to be a stub 303:; edited 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 3270:of the page listed in the heading. 2885:of the page listed in the heading. 2682:of the page listed in the heading. 2655:as explained by others here and at 1678:of the page listed in the heading. 2163:You missed a few relevant events: 1594:Recognizability? Do a search for 487:Another example of a bad closure. 28: 4326:that it was barely over 3 months 2407:and understood the consensus for 2083:an article title has been stable 4199:Further, talk page progress, at 2497:per editor Amakuru above, or to 2066: 973:(uninvolved) per my comments at 396:The new name is consistent with 3430:and the other categories are a 3296:). As usual, editors who think 3266:The above is an archive of the 2881:The above is an archive of the 2678:The above is an archive of the 2657:the preceding technical request 2090:within 15 hours of its creation 1674:The above is an archive of the 1008:Knowledge:Of course it's voting 2380:(uninvolved) procedurally per 1: 4320:Move to previous article name 2826:Today (Australian TV program) 2701:Today (Australian TV program) 2032:to move it back. As a result 1338:our policy obligations under 30: 4020:Allow immediate renomination 2591:other than change the year. 2147:Back-and-forth moves follow. 1980:. No objections to a new RM 1956:(uninvolved). The title was 1911:#Commenting in a move review 1402:another one this month (May) 3686:There was plenty of time to 1830:made a "no-consensus close" 4592: 4549:12:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 4523:08:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 4502:18:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC) 4457:17:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 4432:00:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 4410:06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 4396:01:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 4374:14:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4364:, reads very differently. 4356:02:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4304:13:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4276:01:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 4254:22:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4237:16:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4213:14:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4191:07:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4173:04:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4159:02:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4137:02:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4111:01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 4079:22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 4054:04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 4027:20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 4015:13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) 3978:06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 3966:move back to the old title 3928:23:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 3913:16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 3642:16:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 3467:the movement that opposes 3257:14:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 3239:04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 3201:10:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 3166:04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 3126:22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 3104:21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 3088:03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 3064:17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 3049:16:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 3021:14:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 2921:03:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 2872:19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 2851:12:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 2838:08:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 2727:20:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 2558:issues, so neither do I. 2476:12:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 2455:04:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 2429:02:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 2394:15:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 2373:23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2356:10:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2326:10:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2301:11:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2284:07:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2252:13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2228:03:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2211:11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2198:02:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2159:02:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2130:00:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2108:23:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 2060:23:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 2011:11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 1994:22:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 1949:16:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 1923:04:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 1901:14:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 1882:13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 1865:10:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 1041:22:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 1027:18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 1003:13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 982:03:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 966:08:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 945:22:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 918:19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 622:00:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 607:18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 574:23:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 558:19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 519:08:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 497:07:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 483:18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 451:17:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 425:18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 359:00:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 333:16:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 320:15:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 301:14:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 273:13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 3957:03:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 3910:02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 3874:00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 3832:00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC) 3807:03:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 3781:02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 3744:23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 3710:23:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 3666:22:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 3639:22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 3586:22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 3537:06:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 3523:03:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 3487:02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 2335:Knowledge:Requested moves 4178:others merely supporting 3326:Please do not modify it. 3273:Please do not modify it. 2937:Please do not modify it. 2888:Please do not modify it. 2743:Please do not modify it. 2685:Please do not modify it. 2134:1 April: Article created 1755:Please do not modify it. 1681:Please do not modify it. 308:guideline on consistency 131:Please do not modify it. 4001:changed on this topic. 3310:05:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 2754:Today (1982 TV program) 2669:03:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 2633:03:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 2601:01:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 2578:17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 2541:16:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 1984:this review is closed. 1833:(with the exception of 1739:06:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC) 1649:14:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 1636:03:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 1622:01:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 1588:11:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 1564:00:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 1534:20:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 1518:18:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 1501:19:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 1471:18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 1446:17:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 1424:12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 1351:18:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 1319:17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 1294:15:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 1280:13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 1251:04:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 1216:08:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 1197:01:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 1178:03:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 1160:14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 1142:05:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 1127:01:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 1081:03:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 1066:13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 862:17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 795:01:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 783:00:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 767:09:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 731:18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 715:10:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 658:18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 643:13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 388:16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 115:05:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC) 3883:and should be endorsed 3843:A few points in reply: 3471:Chavismo and Madurismo 3393:Discussion with closer 3337:Opposition to Chavismo 3289:Opposition to Chavismo 3004:Discussion with closer 2810:Discussion with closer 1822:Discussion with closer 256:Discussion with closer 3600:< uninvolved : --> 3598:(Restore old title.) 3459:Venezuelan opposition 3440:Venezuelan opposition 3415:proposed a move only 3298:consensus has changed 3294:Venezuelan opposition 3217:< uninvolved : --> 2487:< uninvolved : --> 1853:the article talk page 531:< uninvolved : --> 18:Knowledge:Move review 3995:Consensus can change 3611:closing instructions 3448:the English language 2288:Bad vote. This is a 2018:Endorse and overturn 536:closing instructions 43:Move review archives 3755:formal move request 3432:false equivalencies 3323:of the page above. 2934:of the page above. 2740:of the page above. 2079:not applicable here 1752:of the page above. 1572:should be moved to 344:Holy Roman Emperors 128:of the page above. 4003:ModernDayTrilobite 3879:Agree to disagree. 3302:Extraordinary Writ 2913:Extraordinary Writ 2860:ModernDayTrilobite 2593:Extraordinary Writ 2000:Extraordinary Writ 1986:Extraordinary Writ 1964:" consensus to do 1551:WP:RECOGNIZABILITY 4564: 4563: 4517: 4504: 4451: 4056: 3914: 3868: 3834: 3783: 3712: 3643: 3601: 3580: 3551: 3280: 3279: 3241: 3218: 3168: 3110:WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY 2895: 2894: 2692: 2691: 2663: 2650: 2635: 2580: 2543: 2488: 1925: 1917: 1841:, as required by 1688: 1687: 1473: 1426: 1260:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 864: 769: 717: 560: 532: 461: 56: 55: 4583: 4515: 4500: 4496: 4488: 4449: 4234: 4226: 4076: 4068: 4052: 4048: 4040: 3907: 3903: 3895: 3866: 3830: 3826: 3818: 3804: 3796: 3779: 3775: 3767: 3741: 3733: 3708: 3704: 3696: 3663: 3655: 3636: 3632: 3624: 3599: 3593: 3578: 3549: 3534: 3520: 3512: 3472: 3441: 3386: 3366: 3358: 3350: 3328: 3282: 3275: 3237: 3233: 3225: 3216: 3193:PhotographyEdits 3164: 3160: 3152: 3118:PhotographyEdits 3085: 3077: 3056:PhotographyEdits 3046: 3038: 3013:PhotographyEdits 2997: 2977: 2969: 2961: 2939: 2897: 2890: 2803: 2783: 2775: 2767: 2745: 2722: 2714: 2694: 2687: 2661: 2648: 2631: 2627: 2619: 2576: 2572: 2564: 2539: 2535: 2527: 2506:Knowledge policy 2486: 2315: 2296: 2206: 2154: 2103: 2070: 2057: 2049: 2006: 1915: 1905: 1877: 1832: 1815: 1795: 1787: 1779: 1757: 1690: 1683: 1469: 1465: 1457: 1442: 1435: 1422: 1418: 1410: 1310: 1271: 1249: 1193: 1187: 1156: 1150: 1123: 1117: 1057: 1018: 942: 934: 860: 856: 848: 765: 761: 753: 713: 709: 701: 634: 598: 556: 552: 544: 530: 479: 472: 459: 416: 384: 377: 331: 329:Compassionate727 299: 297:Compassionate727 279:Closer's comment 249: 229: 221: 213: 191: 171: 163: 155: 133: 66: 52: 36: 31: 4591: 4590: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4566: 4565: 4494: 4486: 4318:Relist / Reopen 4230: 4222: 4072: 4064: 4046: 4038: 3901: 3893: 3824: 3816: 3800: 3792: 3773: 3765: 3737: 3729: 3702: 3694: 3659: 3651: 3630: 3622: 3591: 3530: 3516: 3508: 3466: 3439: 3405:been engaged in 3382: 3381: 3375: 3369: 3362: 3361: 3354: 3353: 3346: 3345: 3324: 3271: 3231: 3223: 3158: 3150: 3081: 3073: 3042: 3034: 2993: 2992: 2986: 2980: 2973: 2972: 2965: 2964: 2957: 2956: 2935: 2886: 2822:1960 TV program 2818:1982 TV program 2799: 2798: 2792: 2786: 2779: 2778: 2771: 2770: 2763: 2762: 2741: 2720: 2712: 2683: 2653:WP:TITLECHANGES 2625: 2617: 2570: 2562: 2551:this discussion 2533: 2525: 2382:WP:TITLECHANGES 2344:WP:TITLECHANGES 2339:WP:TITLECHANGES 2311: 2236:WP:TITLECHANGES 2085:for a long time 2075:WP:TITLECHANGES 2053: 2045: 2034:WP:TITLECHANGES 1974:WP:TITLECHANGES 1937:WP:TITLECHANGES 1843:WP:TITLECHANGES 1828: 1811: 1810: 1804: 1798: 1791: 1790: 1783: 1782: 1775: 1774: 1753: 1679: 1463: 1455: 1440: 1433: 1416: 1408: 1308: 1269: 1238: 1191: 1185: 1154: 1148: 1121: 1115: 1055: 1016: 938: 930: 854: 846: 759: 751: 739:RfC in question 707: 699: 632: 596: 550: 542: 477: 470: 414: 382: 375: 326: 306:What about the 294: 245: 244: 238: 232: 225: 224: 217: 216: 209: 208: 187: 186: 180: 174: 167: 166: 159: 158: 151: 150: 129: 78:Result endorsed 64: 57: 50: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4589: 4587: 4579: 4578: 4568: 4567: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4487:P.I. Ellsworth 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4256: 4197: 4139: 4081: 4039:P.I. Ellsworth 4029: 4017: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3960: 3959: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3894:P.I. Ellsworth 3889:. Good close. 3881:Close was good 3862: 3855: 3844: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3817:P.I. Ellsworth 3766:P.I. Ellsworth 3724:topic-banned. 3695:P.I. Ellsworth 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3623:P.I. Ellsworth 3588: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3501: 3500: 3475:no involvement 3409:page-move wars 3397: 3396: 3379: 3373: 3367: 3359: 3351: 3343: 3331: 3330: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3278: 3277: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3242: 3224:P.I. Ellsworth 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3177: 3172: 3151:P.I. Ellsworth 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3008: 3007: 2990: 2984: 2978: 2970: 2962: 2954: 2942: 2941: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2893: 2892: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2853: 2814: 2813: 2796: 2790: 2784: 2776: 2768: 2760: 2748: 2747: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2713:P.I. Ellsworth 2690: 2689: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2618:P.I. Ellsworth 2563:P.I. Ellsworth 2526:P.I. Ellsworth 2479: 2478: 2468:Gimmethegepgun 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2397: 2396: 2375: 2358: 2328: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2178: 2171: 2148: 2145: 2140: 2135: 2117: 2096: 2095: 2063: 2062: 2015: 2014: 2013: 1951: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1903: 1826: 1825: 1808: 1802: 1796: 1788: 1780: 1772: 1760: 1759: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1686: 1685: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1503: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1456:P.I. Ellsworth 1409:P.I. Ellsworth 1375: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1253: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1165: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 984: 968: 947: 920: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 847:P.I. Ellsworth 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 752:P.I. Ellsworth 700:P.I. Ellsworth 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 543:P.I. Ellsworth 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 454: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 348:Prussian kings 260: 259: 242: 236: 230: 222: 214: 206: 197: 184: 178: 172: 164: 156: 148: 136: 135: 120: 119: 118: 117: 63: 58: 54: 53: 45: 40: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4588: 4577: 4574: 4573: 4571: 4550: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4542: 4539: 4536: 4530: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4521: 4518: 4511: 4506: 4505: 4503: 4499: 4497: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4458: 4455: 4452: 4445: 4444:WP:MORATORIUM 4441: 4433: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4425: 4422: 4419: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4389: 4386: 4383: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4349: 4346: 4343: 4337: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4321: 4319: 4315: 4305: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4297: 4294: 4291: 4285: 4277: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4269: 4266: 4263: 4257: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4242:User:WMrapids 4240: 4239: 4238: 4235: 4233: 4227: 4225: 4220: 4219:SportingFlyer 4216: 4215: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4179: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4152: 4149: 4146: 4140: 4138: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4130: 4127: 4124: 4118: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4097: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4085:User:Primefac 4082: 4080: 4077: 4075: 4069: 4067: 4062: 4061:SportingFlyer 4058: 4057: 4055: 4051: 4049: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4033: 4030: 4028: 4025: 4021: 4018: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3985: 3984: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3943: 3942: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3916: 3915: 3912: 3911: 3906: 3904: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3872: 3869: 3863: 3860: 3856: 3853: 3852:WP:SOFTDELETE 3849: 3845: 3842: 3833: 3829: 3827: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3805: 3803: 3797: 3795: 3790: 3789:SportingFlyer 3785: 3784: 3782: 3778: 3776: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3742: 3740: 3734: 3732: 3727: 3726:SportingFlyer 3723: 3720:the proposer 3719: 3714: 3713: 3711: 3707: 3705: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3689: 3687: 3682: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3667: 3664: 3662: 3656: 3654: 3649: 3648:SportingFlyer 3645: 3644: 3641: 3640: 3635: 3633: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3618: 3614: 3612: 3606: 3597: 3594: 3589: 3587: 3584: 3581: 3575: 3574:WP:CONSISTENT 3571: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3555: 3547: 3544: 3543: 3538: 3535: 3533: 3532:Reading Beans 3526: 3525: 3524: 3521: 3519: 3513: 3511: 3506: 3505:SportingFlyer 3503: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3470: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3451: 3449: 3445: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3394: 3390: 3385: 3378: 3372: 3365: 3357: 3349: 3342: 3338: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3329: 3327: 3322: 3317: 3316: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3290: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3276: 3274: 3269: 3264: 3263: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3243: 3240: 3236: 3234: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3215: 3212: 3211: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3185:MOS:ACROTITLE 3182: 3178: 3173: 3170: 3169: 3167: 3163: 3161: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3146: 3141: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3095: 3089: 3086: 3084: 3078: 3076: 3071: 3070:SportingFlyer 3067: 3066: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3045: 3039: 3037: 3032: 3031:SportingFlyer 3028: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3005: 3001: 2996: 2989: 2983: 2976: 2968: 2960: 2953: 2949: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2940: 2938: 2933: 2928: 2927: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2905: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2891: 2889: 2884: 2879: 2878: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2854: 2852: 2849: 2845: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2795: 2789: 2782: 2774: 2766: 2759: 2755: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2746: 2744: 2739: 2734: 2733: 2728: 2725: 2723: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2688: 2686: 2681: 2676: 2675: 2670: 2667: 2664: 2658: 2654: 2646: 2643: 2634: 2630: 2628: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2581: 2579: 2575: 2573: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2545: 2544: 2542: 2538: 2536: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2521: 2519: 2518: 2513: 2507: 2502: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2485: 2481: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2462: 2461: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2421:Aquabluetesla 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2401:Endorse close 2399: 2398: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2376: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2329: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2314: 2309: 2306: 2302: 2299: 2297: 2291: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276:Nicola Romani 2273: 2269: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2260: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2216: 2212: 2209: 2207: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2182: 2179: 2177: 2175: 2172: 2170: 2168: 2165: 2164: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2157: 2155: 2149: 2146: 2144: 2141: 2139: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2118: 2116: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2106: 2104: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2080: 2076: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2061: 2058: 2056: 2050: 2048: 2043: 2042:SportingFlyer 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2016: 2012: 2009: 2007: 2001: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1966:anything else 1963: 1962:there was not 1959: 1955: 1952: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1924: 1921: 1918: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1878: 1872: 1871:Endorse close 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1831: 1823: 1819: 1814: 1807: 1801: 1794: 1786: 1778: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1756: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1715: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1684: 1682: 1677: 1672: 1671: 1650: 1647: 1644: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1617: 1612: 1611: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1599: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1570:San Francisco 1567: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1552: 1548: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1535: 1532: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1492: 1489: 1488: 1472: 1468: 1466: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1437: 1436: 1434:Crouch, Swale 1428: 1427: 1425: 1421: 1419: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1390: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1374: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1343: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1306: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1267: 1261: 1257: 1254: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1243: 1236: 1232: 1229: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1194: 1188: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1151: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1124: 1118: 1112: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1092: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1053: 1048: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1019: 1014: 1009: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 985: 983: 980: 976: 972: 969: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 948: 946: 943: 941: 935: 933: 928: 927:SportingFlyer 924: 921: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 898:WP:COMMONNAME 895: 891: 888: 887: 863: 859: 857: 851: 850: 849: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 796: 793: 790: 786: 785: 784: 780: 776: 771: 770: 768: 764: 762: 756: 755: 754: 745: 741: 740: 734: 733: 732: 728: 724: 719: 718: 716: 712: 710: 704: 703: 702: 694: 690: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 660: 659: 656: 652: 646: 645: 644: 640: 636: 635: 630: 625: 624: 623: 620: 615: 610: 609: 608: 604: 600: 599: 594: 589: 585: 581: 577: 576: 575: 571: 567: 562: 561: 559: 555: 553: 547: 546: 545: 537: 529: 526: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 499: 498: 494: 490: 486: 485: 484: 480: 474: 473: 471:Crouch, Swale 466: 458: 455: 453: 452: 449: 444: 439: 435: 432: 426: 422: 418: 417: 412: 407: 403: 399: 395: 389: 385: 379: 378: 376:Crouch, Swale 370: 365: 364:WP:CONSISTENT 362: 361: 360: 357: 353: 352:Swedish kings 349: 345: 340: 336: 335: 334: 330: 323: 322: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 304: 302: 298: 292: 287: 284: 283:The guideline 280: 277: 276: 275: 274: 270: 266: 257: 253: 248: 241: 235: 228: 220: 212: 205: 201: 198: 195: 190: 183: 177: 170: 162: 154: 147: 143: 140: 139: 138: 137: 134: 132: 127: 122: 121: 116: 113: 112: 108: 107: 103: 102: 98: 97: 92: 87: 83: 79: 75: 74: 70: 69: 68: 67: 62: 59: 49: 46: 44: 41: 39: 33: 32: 23: 19: 4543: 4540: 4537: 4534: 4532: 4528: 4516:SilverLocust 4484: 4483: 4479:no consensus 4478: 4474: 4470: 4450:SilverLocust 4426: 4423: 4420: 4417: 4415: 4390: 4387: 4384: 4381: 4379: 4350: 4347: 4344: 4341: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4317: 4316: 4298: 4295: 4292: 4289: 4287: 4270: 4267: 4264: 4261: 4259: 4229: 4221: 4153: 4150: 4147: 4144: 4142: 4131: 4128: 4125: 4122: 4120: 4095: 4071: 4063: 4036: 4035: 4031: 4019: 3998: 3986: 3965: 3944: 3908: 3891: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3867:SilverLocust 3814: 3813: 3799: 3791: 3763: 3762: 3754: 3750: 3736: 3728: 3721: 3717: 3692: 3691: 3685: 3684: 3658: 3650: 3637: 3620: 3619: 3616: 3608: 3604: 3595: 3590: 3579:SilverLocust 3545: 3531: 3515: 3507: 3496: 3492: 3474: 3468: 3458: 3457:. The title 3455:content fork 3452: 3435: 3420: 3411:and who has 3398: 3325: 3318: 3287: 3272: 3265: 3244: 3221: 3220: 3213: 3189:WP:ARTSINGLE 3148: 3147: 3144: 3140:no-consensus 3096: 3080: 3072: 3041: 3033: 3026: 3009: 2936: 2929: 2908: 2902: 2887: 2880: 2855: 2843: 2815: 2742: 2735: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2699: 2684: 2677: 2662:SilverLocust 2644: 2615: 2614: 2588: 2560: 2559: 2554: 2546: 2523: 2522: 2515: 2509: 2490: 2483: 2482: 2463: 2400: 2377: 2360: 2330: 2307: 2289: 2262: 2190:BilledMammal 2122:BilledMammal 2089: 2084: 2078: 2071: 2052: 2044: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 1981: 1965: 1953: 1932: 1916:SilverLocust 1906: 1870: 1857:BilledMammal 1846: 1754: 1747: 1734: 1729: 1724: 1719: 1702:Overturn to 1701: 1695: 1680: 1673: 1597: 1547:WP:COMMONAME 1505: 1490: 1453: 1452: 1431: 1406: 1405: 1388: 1383: 1382:, is simply 1344: 1335: 1331: 1328: 1303: 1264: 1255: 1239: 1230: 1093: 1050: 1011: 986: 970: 949: 937: 929: 922: 906:WP:CONSENSUS 893: 889: 844: 843: 749: 748: 743: 737: 697: 696: 692: 650: 648: 627: 613: 591: 540: 539: 527: 468: 465:Ferdinand VI 456: 445: 441: 433: 409: 373: 338: 337:Correction: 291:WP:SOVEREIGN 285: 278: 261: 130: 123: 110: 105: 100: 95: 77: 71: 60: 4083:Blocked by 3812:something. 3444:common name 3321:move review 3268:move review 2932:move review 2883:move review 2738:move review 2680:move review 2405:WP:NOTAVOTE 2318:– robertsky 2290:move review 1750:move review 1676:move review 1596:"Edward V" 1186:Sennecaster 1149:Sennecaster 1116:Sennecaster 954:WP:NOTAVOTE 507:WP:NOTAVOTE 463:guideline. 406:Edward VIII 342:consensus: 126:move review 3991:WP:RMNOMIN 3848:WP:SILENCE 3570:WP:RMNOMIN 3554:WP:RMNOMIN 3550:uninvolved 3403:, who has 3249:Jessintime 3181:MOS:JARGON 2907:– Closure 2830:Happily888 2649:uninvolved 2435:WP:PRECISE 2417:WP:CONCISE 2413:WP:PRECISE 2272:WP:PRECISE 2028:consensus 1317:· he/him) 1278:· he/him) 1106:WP:DISCARD 1064:· he/him) 1025:· he/him) 902:WP:CONCISE 894:of England 651:guidelines 641:· he/him) 605:· he/him) 460:(involved) 423:· he/him) 402:Edward VII 369:WP:PRECISE 339:successful 61:2024 April 38:2024 March 4529:not moved 4475:not moved 4402:SmokeyJoe 4366:SmokeyJoe 4246:SmokeyJoe 4205:SmokeyJoe 4165:SmokeyJoe 4117:SmokeyJoe 4103:SmokeyJoe 4024:Alalch E. 3970:SmokeyJoe 3949:SmokeyJoe 3920:SmokeyJoe 3605:not moved 3596:Overturn. 3101:Alalch E. 2848:Alalch E. 2706:Endorsed. 2484:Question. 2409:WP:NOYEAR 2386:Marokwitz 2038:WP:NOYEAR 1889:WP:NOYEAR 1835:WP:NOYEAR 1720:King of ♥ 1628:Walrasiad 1604:Walrasiad 1600:"England" 1556:Walrasiad 1510:Walrasiad 1398:Thryduulf 1325:SOVEREIGN 1287:WP:BADNAC 1235:WP:BADNAC 1208:SmokeyJoe 1170:SmokeyJoe 1134:SmokeyJoe 1073:SmokeyJoe 1033:SmokeyJoe 995:SmokeyJoe 775:Walrasiad 723:Walrasiad 566:Walrasiad 438:WP:BADNAC 398:Edward VI 142:Edward IV 96:King of ♥ 82:WP:BADNAC 73:Edward IV 4570:Category 4324:how soon 4183:Primefac 4099:contribs 4089:WMrapids 4032:Comment. 4011:contribs 3592:Endorse. 3479:WMrapids 3461:is more 3214:Endorse. 2909:endorsed 2868:contribs 2645:Overturn 2589:anything 2447:XDanielx 2378:Overturn 2361:Overturn 2331:Overturn 2308:Overturn 2295:kashmīrī 2220:XDanielx 2205:kashmīrī 2153:kashmīrī 2102:kashmīrī 2072:Comment: 2005:kashmīrī 1970:WP:NOCON 1968:. Under 1954:Overturn 1941:XDanielx 1933:Overturn 1893:XDanielx 1876:kashmīrī 1506:Overturn 1298:You say 1231:Overturn 958:Rosbif73 588:WP:VPROP 580:WT:NCROY 528:Endorse. 511:Rosbif73 434:Overturn 200:Edward V 80:despite 48:2024 May 20:‎ | 4510:WP:SNOW 3987:Reopen. 3718:even if 3681:WP:RMCI 3497:clearly 3463:concise 3424:precise 3377:archive 3356:history 3245:Endorse 3114:WP:SNOW 3097:Endorse 3027:Endorse 2988:archive 2967:history 2856:Endorse 2844:Endorse 2794:archive 2773:history 2547:Endorse 2244:Amakuru 1827:Closer 1806:archive 1785:history 1598:without 1491:Endorse 1309:Blaster 1270:Blaster 1256:Endorse 1242:Timothy 1098:WP:RMCI 1094:Endorse 1056:Blaster 1017:Blaster 971:Endorse 950:Endorse 923:Endorse 910:Amakuru 890:Endorse 633:Blaster 597:Blaster 584:WP:VPOL 503:that MR 457:Endorse 415:Blaster 240:archive 219:history 182:archive 161:history 4328:it was 3859:WP:IMR 3722:wasn't 3688:oppose 3546:Reopen 3493:Reopen 2651:) per 2512:WP:IAR 2022:revert 1578:ngrams 1574:Frisco 1524:ngrams 1380:WP:IAR 1204:WP:NAC 1111:issue. 979:Mach61 975:WP:DfD 693:policy 689:WP:IAR 614:change 586:, and 404:, and 91:WP:IAR 4471:moved 3562:isn't 3442:(its 3407:some 3384:watch 3371:links 3176:sides 3174:: --> 2995:watch 2982:links 2801:watch 2788:links 2443:WP:MR 2439:WP:RM 2365:Pilaz 1982:after 1813:watch 1800:links 1707:. As 1340:WP:AT 1305:House 1266:House 1052:House 1013:House 629:House 593:House 411:House 247:watch 234:links 189:watch 176:links 51:: --> 16:< 4544:Path 4427:Path 4406:talk 4391:Path 4370:talk 4351:Path 4332:more 4299:Path 4271:Path 4250:talk 4209:talk 4187:talk 4169:talk 4154:Path 4132:Path 4107:talk 4093:talk 4007:talk 3974:talk 3953:talk 3924:talk 3846:(1) 3759:ymmv 3483:talk 3469:both 3421:less 3364:logs 3348:edit 3341:talk 3306:talk 3253:talk 3197:talk 3187:and 3122:talk 3060:talk 3017:talk 2975:logs 2959:edit 2952:talk 2917:talk 2864:talk 2834:talk 2781:logs 2765:edit 2758:talk 2597:talk 2585:here 2549:per 2472:talk 2451:talk 2425:talk 2415:and 2390:talk 2369:talk 2352:talk 2348:Nurg 2322:talk 2280:talk 2263:Move 2248:talk 2224:talk 2194:talk 2126:talk 2115:made 1990:talk 1945:talk 1907:Note 1897:talk 1861:talk 1851:and 1849:RMTR 1793:logs 1777:edit 1770:talk 1709:Nurg 1632:talk 1608:talk 1560:talk 1549:and 1514:talk 1441:talk 1389:very 1348:╠╣uw 1315:talk 1291:╠╣uw 1276:talk 1246:talk 1212:talk 1192:Chat 1174:talk 1155:Chat 1138:talk 1122:Chat 1077:talk 1062:talk 1037:talk 1023:talk 999:talk 962:talk 914:talk 900:and 779:talk 727:talk 691:, a 655:╠╣uw 639:talk 619:╠╣uw 603:talk 570:talk 515:talk 493:talk 478:talk 448:╠╣uw 421:talk 383:talk 356:╠╣uw 316:talk 269:talk 227:logs 211:edit 204:talk 169:logs 153:edit 146:talk 35:< 4541:hed 4538:nis 4535:Tar 4495:ed. 4473:or 4424:hed 4421:nis 4418:Tar 4388:hed 4385:nis 4382:Tar 4348:hed 4345:nis 4342:Tar 4296:hed 4293:nis 4290:Tar 4268:hed 4265:nis 4262:Tar 4151:hed 4148:nis 4145:Tar 4129:hed 4126:nis 4123:Tar 4047:ed. 3999:has 3902:ed. 3825:ed. 3774:ed. 3703:ed. 3631:ed. 3446:in 3436:two 3391:) ( 3387:) ( 3232:ed. 3191:). 3159:ed. 3002:) ( 2998:) ( 2808:) ( 2804:) ( 2721:ed. 2626:ed. 2571:ed. 2534:ed. 2445:). 2077:is 2030:not 2026:was 1891:." 1820:) ( 1816:) ( 1643:В²C 1616:В²C 1582:В²C 1528:В²C 1495:В²C 1464:ed. 1444:) 1417:ed. 1384:not 1336:all 1244::: 1240:// 855:ed. 789:В²C 760:ed. 744:had 708:ed. 590:). 551:ed. 489:Deb 481:) 386:) 312:Deb 265:Deb 254:) ( 250:) ( 192:) ( 86:RfC 22:Log 4572:: 4520:💬 4492:, 4454:💬 4408:) 4372:) 4252:) 4211:) 4189:) 4171:) 4109:) 4044:, 4013:) 4009:• 3976:) 3955:) 3926:) 3899:, 3871:💬 3861:.) 3822:, 3771:, 3761:. 3751:is 3700:, 3628:, 3583:💬 3485:) 3389:RM 3308:) 3255:) 3229:, 3199:) 3156:, 3124:) 3062:) 3019:) 3000:RM 2919:) 2911:. 2870:) 2866:• 2836:) 2806:RM 2718:, 2704:– 2666:💬 2659:. 2623:, 2599:) 2568:, 2531:, 2474:) 2453:) 2427:) 2419:. 2392:) 2371:) 2354:) 2324:) 2282:) 2274:. 2250:) 2226:) 2196:) 2128:) 1992:) 1947:) 1920:💬 1913:. 1899:) 1863:) 1818:RM 1700:– 1634:) 1614:—- 1610:) 1562:) 1516:) 1461:, 1414:, 1214:) 1195:) 1176:) 1158:) 1140:) 1125:) 1108:, 1100:, 1079:) 1039:) 1010:. 1001:) 977:. 964:) 916:) 852:, 781:) 757:, 729:) 705:, 572:) 548:, 538:. 517:) 495:) 400:, 350:, 346:, 318:) 310:? 286:is 271:) 252:RM 194:RM 76:– 4404:( 4368:( 4248:( 4232:C 4228:· 4224:T 4207:( 4185:( 4167:( 4115:@ 4105:( 4096:· 4091:( 4074:C 4070:· 4066:T 4005:( 3972:( 3951:( 3922:( 3802:C 3798:· 3794:T 3739:C 3735:· 3731:T 3661:C 3657:· 3653:T 3617:! 3548:( 3518:C 3514:· 3510:T 3481:( 3395:) 3380:| 3374:| 3368:| 3360:| 3352:| 3344:| 3339:( 3304:( 3251:( 3195:( 3145:! 3120:( 3112:( 3083:C 3079:· 3075:T 3058:( 3044:C 3040:· 3036:T 3015:( 3006:) 2991:| 2985:| 2979:| 2971:| 2963:| 2955:| 2950:( 2915:( 2862:( 2832:( 2812:) 2797:| 2791:| 2785:| 2777:| 2769:| 2761:| 2756:( 2647:( 2595:( 2491:! 2470:( 2449:( 2423:( 2388:( 2367:( 2350:( 2320:( 2278:( 2246:( 2222:( 2192:( 2124:( 2055:C 2051:· 2047:T 1998:@ 1988:( 1972:/ 1943:( 1895:( 1859:( 1824:) 1809:| 1803:| 1797:| 1789:| 1781:| 1773:| 1768:( 1735:♠ 1730:♣ 1725:♦ 1646:☎ 1630:( 1619:☎ 1606:( 1585:☎ 1558:( 1531:☎ 1512:( 1498:☎ 1438:( 1313:( 1274:( 1210:( 1189:( 1172:( 1152:( 1136:( 1119:( 1075:( 1060:( 1035:( 1021:( 997:( 960:( 940:C 936:· 932:T 912:( 792:☎ 777:( 725:( 637:( 601:( 568:( 513:( 491:( 475:( 419:( 380:( 327:— 314:( 295:— 267:( 258:) 243:| 237:| 231:| 223:| 215:| 207:| 202:( 196:) 185:| 179:| 173:| 165:| 157:| 149:| 144:( 111:♠ 106:♣ 101:♦

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

Knowledge

:Move review/Log/2024 April - Knowledge

Index