Harry S. Truman National Historic Site – The original closure of "no consensus" is endorsed; the consensus here is that move review just rehashes the same points from that discussion. Nothing precludes another RM from being opened at a later point.--Cúchullaint/c 13:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
"No consensus" closure appeared to be a straight !vote count, and did not take into account that policy-based arguments (specifically, WP:COMMONNAME) were advanced in favor of the move, and arguments against the move were of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT category. There has been extensive documentation provided that the site's common and official name is Harry S Truman National Historic Site with no period, and the page should be moved to that title in accordance with naming policy. 19:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)
Endorse close - The arguments against seemed to based on style guidelines and not WP:IDONTLIKE, and it looks like no consensus is the right close. PaleAqua (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close (I participated in the RM) Your arguments here are simply rehashing the debate on the talk page and not a valid reason to overturn the closure. Hot Stop 03:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - Ugh... unlike April 2013 move reviews, this is a mere rehash of move request. The Truman Memorial is in the U.S., not the UK. However, "Mr" and "Mrs" are more common in the UK, while not in the U.S. Arguments that encourage omittance of the period should have been weak at best, considering the spelling in the U.S., but I guess bias isn't used in the close rationale. --George Ho (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I did not participate in the RM. The only argument opposing the move is based on favoring style guide rules over common usage in reliable sources. The point that the proposed title, without the period, is used most commonly in reliable sources to refer to this topic (the park) was not disputed. The usage without the period referenced in the discussion was in regard to references to the person, not the park.
It's one thing to rely on our style guide as a "tie breaker" when both styles in question are used in reliable sources, but to ignore clear common usage in reliable sources in order to follow the style guide is quite another, and, I don't think, supported by community consensus as reflected in practice or in policy.
So, in evaluating the arguments, we have only a very weak argument opposing the move (style guide trumps WP:COMMONNAME), and a very strong one (WP:COMMONNAME), bolstered by similar precedents (Harry S Truman Building and Harry S Truman College), supporting it. As such, I think consensus clearly favors the move, and so the "no consensus" decision should be overturned. At the very least, the RM should be re-opened, allow a few days for additional input, and then have someone else review it and close it. --B2C 05:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A no consensus close does not prevent a new RM from being open. PaleAqua (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I would actually support the move, but this was a crystal-clear no-consensus move request. It can totally be re-opened later, or even semi-immediately. Red Slash 19:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Sanjeev Nanda – Withdrawn by submitter per discussions elsewhere. Article has now been moved by someone else to an acceptable title so the issue has gone away. – EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I am unsure why that ended with a "no move"! Tito Dutta (contact) 11:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slap the closer for a terrible WP:NAC. As there was support, and no objection, in nearly a month, someone else has performed the move[1]. I don't aprove of the close marking the move edit as minor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
