Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 May

Lucas Horton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Closer initially closed the request as "no consensus." The main opposer complained, and the closer then moved the page. I did not see any solid reasoning given by the closer for going ahead and moving the article. Like the closer, I saw the discussion as "no consensus" as well, and would like a review of whether or not the second outcome of the close is valid and the change in the decision followed protocol. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also have concerns about the experience level of the closer, but I am aware that the close review should not focus on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the policy up-page:
Editors desiring to initiate a move review should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

• [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move.
• [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted.

Flyer22 Reborn initiates the review with neither! She is disregarding policy here - as she did in the move debate itself - and instead she appears to instead be fishing in the editorial pool for the result that she wants - without doing the necessary and important work of placing a valid argument as per the protocol that a move review is supposed to adhere to. Why is this approach even being entertained? It seems an abuse of the system to me. We need to be all about policy here - if a good outcome is to be reached - and the closer correctly stated in their decision that "The move was supported by good policy based arguments." This is very true, and that is why it is a great decision. As the review-initiator has failed to put forth rationale as to why the closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI policy, this is an improper review request, and it should be thrown out.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, per the comments made by others below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am the nominator of the move. There were three votes (including mine) for the move, and two against. As I was surprised by the initial close decision of "no consensus", and the closer had not initially given any reason for their decision, I raised the matter with the closer on their talk page,as per protocol. Happily they responded. I specifically asked the closer this question: given that WP:RMCI#Three_possible_outcomes, says "no consensus" is indicated when "equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides", can you state what arguments by the two opposers you found had "equal weight" to all the arguments, evidence, and logic presented in the request (and its defense) that enabled you to arrive at the conclusion of "no consensus"? The closer, Yashovardhan, responded by changing their decision, on their own initiative, to "MOVE". And they have my appreciation and commendation for that! I had asked the question for the very reason that I did not believe the initial decision reflected wikipedia policy. It is a question I pose again to those who would overturn the decision to MOVE, and restore a "no-consensus" closure. What argument/s of the two opposers do you find are equally strong to the plentiful, reasoned, and evidence-backed arguments I provided in the nomination, its defense, and the ongoing discussion about the move. By the way, Flyer22 Reborn (the opposer-in-chief) appears to have initiated this move review before waiting for a response to their own submission to the closer. @Born2Cycle: @TAnthony: Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not overturn for now - To be honest, I don't strongly favor the move. I really thought the character should be surnamed "Roberts" based on real-life sources. I would give the closure a weak endorsement. However, the closer said that those who opposed the move used IMDB. Actually, one of the supporters mentioned IMDB, though the person implicitly could not use IMDB for obvious reasons. None of us voters, support and oppose, used IMDB. "Neutral" arguments were not summarized. However, the whole comment does not imply that the decision should be overturned. In fact, the previous title "Lucas Roberts", which was used from 2012 to 2017, had been disputed, leading to move warrings. Any kind of title change would not help improve the article, which already mentions both of his surnames. Well, I did favor "Roberts", and I still do prefer it. However, I realize that more readers do not mind typing or calling him "Lucas Horton" than "Lucas Roberts". Also, I realize nothing is wrong about using one title as the article title and the other as the redirect. I hope the title change would prevent or reduce more edit warrings. --George Ho (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 23:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  – I'll take PaleAqua's suggestion: reopen, rewrite rationale, and reclose without relisting. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I interpret what you say correctly, the old name for you is a personal preference, in other words you have a personal attachment to the old name, and I thank you for sharing this. It is totally understandable for folks who watched the show before 2007 to have an attachment to the name used before 2007. This is a good opportunity point out that we need to use the name that is best for the user, and our personal feelings are irrelevant. Clearly you understand this yourself - I am merely taking the opportunity to underline it for the benefit of this discussion. It is the name that is best for the user which matters - and the name that is best for the user is the current name that the show uses (and has been using for the past ten years) and WP:COMMONNAME, which are both Lucas Horton. The move to Lucas Horton is a benefit to the user and good for the encyclopedia. (Nominator Aliveness Cascade) (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I wonder whether most readers are part of democracy, which Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Also, consensus ≠ democracy. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "user" is part of consensus. What constitutes a "user"... well... we'll decide for ourselves. --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? A reader! Someone who goes to a page to read it for information! It is inherently confusing to a reader for the show to call the character one thing and the encyclopedia to call it another. What is the reader going to take from that? And is wikipedia a better authority than the show or something? Plus it is inherently confusing for son Will to be at Will Horton and father Lucas to be at Lucas Roberts when Lucas changed their names at the same time, nine-and-a-half years ago to boot! It makes no sense, and is baffling to the reader. If the article is at Lucas Roberts it makes the encyclopedia look out of date! And *that* means folks will always be coming by to move it to Lucas Horton. LOL - that's been proven over and over and over! The page will never be stable at Lucas Roberts! Never! And it is indefensible to put the page back at Lucas Roberts, because Lucas Horton *has* now become WP:COMMONNAME.(Nominator Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Endorse result / Overturn (Reclose) - The arguments for moving were stronger but the close itself was a bit lacking especially for what appears to be a contentious MR given the number of previous discussions. Note that the closing instructions advise caution when closing such discussions. PaleAqua (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also support overturning for reclosing the discussion as suggested by SmokeyJoe below. PaleAqua (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for someone else to close. A demonstrably bad NAC, clearly wavering on the edge. The closer failed to use Template:RMnac, which I note, as others have noted previously, correlates with bad RMnacs. Advise the closer to review the excellent advice at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A demonstrably bad closure? It is demonstrably the right decision to move to Lucas Horton - and right is good! I demonstrated in the opening of the move request that Lucas Horton is WP:COMMONNAME, and the right location of the article. The opposers only demonstrated that they did not understand WP:SET#Notability and the necessity of using "phrase searches" when using google to measure notability of two-word or more names.(Nominator Aliveness Cascade (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing the merits of the proposal. I am criticising the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I was talking about "whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines", as per move review guidelines above.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. What you say may be true, but it is not the point and I don't want to go there. The discussion was not appropriate for an inexperience NACer. The result was something not looking very good, not endearing of respect, and detrimental to the RM process. Another NACer may well have done something different. The closer also failed to follow the instructions and declare himself a NAC closer. It should be reverted and reclosed, by any admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "it is not the point" - This is a free discussion, and many points can be made. That's kind of the point, LOL! What's more it is perfectly appropriate of me to say why I think the key part of the decision is correct, and why I think it should be upheld, and to express an alternative view on the importance of other elements. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure. It's not my point. I assume we are discussing my !vote. I think the NAC should be reverted some someone else to close. I have no issue with what I think is your point, which I think is that the end result should be the same. "Demonstrably bad" in terms of style and equivocating by a technically incompliant NAC close. Not necessarily bad in terms of the end result. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per all above. My preference would have been an overturn to no consensus, but a reclose by someone else will be fine. RMCI says being a non-admin is not a reason in itself to overturn something, but this is an issue of a closer who has made enough mistakes on RMs in the past that their judgement on closing contentious ones can be questioned. IAR on it and punt to someone else not involved to judge. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • RMCI does say "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure", but no one is saying that. The additional facts, that the closer did not follow the advice of WP:NAC, or the instructions of WP:RMNAC, or the fact that they made a dubious looking close. There is no need to appeal to IAR, it is documented, in two places. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything in either of those that was violated to the point of overturning. The issue is that this closer in particular has made several bad calls in the past and had trips to move review before to the point where the community (or at least those of us who are activish in these matters) aren't confident in this close being done by them, and the convoluted nature of this close makes it better for someone else to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking at cross-points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The issue is that this closer has made several bad call in the past...". The issue here and now is the decision on this move-request, and the decision was correct. As the closer said in their decision, "The move was supported by good policy based arguments." The closer is correct in that, and that is what chiefly matters for this decision. (Nominator Aliveness Cascade (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

No, the close was flummoxed because it went from one justifiable close to another without a very good rationale in my opinion, and the fact that there have been issues in the past and the community would prefer that someone else who is more experienced take a look at it is reason enough to have another uninvolved closer evaluate it. I personally think the first close of no consensus was correct and that it should be overturned to that, but I'm willing to have another closer take a look. I would have been fine if they had done a courtesy relist, but if you can't find a consensus in your initial close, moving to move on something that is controversial is not a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What arguments of the two opposers do you find equally strong to the arguments, evidence, and logic of the move request (and its defense and support), that allows you to reach an opinion of "no consensus", given that WP:RMCI#Three_possible_outcomes, says "no consensus" is indicated when "equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides"?Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed that it was wrong of me to ping move-supporters TAnthony and Born2Cycle into this review discussion, and not move-opposer @Livelikemusic: and neutral-voter @Old Naval Rooftops:. Sincere apologies to the latter for bothering you now. It is necessary in the interests of fairness and balance. This is a one-off to restore balance. Thank you.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse move to Lucas Horton. The move is supported by WP:COMMONNAME, WP:SET#Notability, and WP:ASTONISH. The closer was entirely correct in saying "The move was supported by good policy based arguments." The opposition's arguments were based on a fallacious use of google searches without the quote marks which are needed to indicate the phrases being tested for notability. This was sufficiently explained to the opposition within the move debate, but was repeatedly dismissed out-of-hand by the main opposer. Nevertheless it is a fact. The opposition's argument is entirely based on fallacious use of google searches and false logic; whereas the nominator's arguments are based on correct and appropriate use of google searches with enclosing quote marks to indicate the phrases being tested for notability; and good logic, and appeals to the policies of to WP:ASTONISH and WP:COMMONNAME and plain common sense. The discussion shows that Flyer22 Reborn (the main opposer) initially has no understanding of the nature of the searches with and without enclosing quote marks; and it also I'm afraid shows that she had no interest in it when this was pointed out and explained to her. Instead of taking advantage of the information presented to her and seeking understanding of how google searches work and what the policy is on the matter, she initiated a move-review to overturn the move, which would put the article back at a location which is not supported by policy, which is not WP:COMMONNAME, and which is not the name used by the show, and which hasn't been used by the show for the past nine-and-a-half years. Such an overturn would endorse Flyer22 Reborn's fallacious notion that quote marks in searches don't matter, and go against the actual fact that they totally matter, and would go against WP:SET#Notability. If this article is moved back to Lucas Roberts (which is what on overturn will do) then that will be in conflict with the policy of WP:SET#Notability, and be in conflict with the very facts of how googles searches work. A move back to Lucas Roberts should only be done if you are also prepared to move Virgin of the Rocks to Madonna of the Rocks, and change WP:SET and WP:SET#Notability to say, a la Flyer22 Reborn, that quote marks don't matter. Are you prepared to do that? Moving the article to the current and predominant name Lucas Horton, is the right decision, in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, WP:SET, and WP:ASTONISH, and it should not be reversed. The closer could have written a better rationale, but the decision is right! A better closer rationale would have been "There are strong arguments for the move, supported by WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ASTONISH, and evidence from google searches made in accordance with WP:SET#Notability, and referenced sources; whereas the opposition argument was fallacious, being entirely based on a mistaken view of how google searches work, and contrary to WP:SET#Notability". The fallacious arguments against the move should *not* be endorsed by overturning the move, nor given false equivalence by a "no consensus" result. This is why it's very important to endorse the move to Lucas Horton, which is backed by policy, evidence, and common sense. (Nominator: Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Iznik pottery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I am listing this here because there is still controversy over it at the closer's talk page. The original discussion was to move the article İznik pottery to non-diacritic form (unlike İznik, the article for the town). The non-admin closure of this RM was a WP:BADNAC by closer User:Born2cycle under criteria #2, owing to the large amount of discussion and 50/50 split numerically; and supposedly under criteria #1 according to User:In ictu oculi. After the close generated controversy, B2C offered to revert his closure at the request of an uninvolved editor. After no less than seven editors requesting him to revert on his talk page, at least two of them completely uninvolved (User:Dicklyon and User:Omnedon), he closes the discussion. Was this an inappropriate close? Laurdecl ^talk 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. User:Born2cycle did offer to overturn if asked by an uninvolved editor, but then declined on the grounds that "the only ones objecting to my close were either involved in the discussion or have a history of disagreeing with me" (emphasis added). Well, this kind of points to the problem. User:Born2cycle is heavily invested in the subject of article titles and has number of strongly held views, and there are a number of editors who have have a history of disagreeing with User:Born2cycle, as well as number who have a history of supporting him. If nothing else, this would have a potential to make any close of a move discussion by User:Born2cycle into a political question, and on that basis I wonder whether User:Born2cycle closing move discussions is a good idea. (This is also probably true of some other editors who have historically been involved in contention over article titles, but we are not talking about them right now.) Herostratus (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There were only four votes and they were evenly split between "support" and "oppose", and there was significant discussion considering the low number of votes. This can't be described as a situation in which consensus was reached, and without consensus the default position is to leave the article where it is. Born2cycle cited WP:COMMONNAME in his close, and he often refers to it in other discussions, which seems to indicate that he had his own view on this move; certainly he has strong views on article titling generally. This was a supervote and an inappropriate non-admin closure. Omnedon (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Not a SINGLE SOURCE was presented that uses the spelling the above three editors demand the article uses. None of the sources used for the article's content uses this spelling. Dozens of RS sources were presented to indicate the current title is the ONLY one in usage. The above editors appear to have a severe case of I Just Don't Like It, grounded on some long-standing dislike of / grudge against Born2cycle and long-settled COMMONNAME issues that they were all involved with many (five?) years ago (hence their repeated mention here of "uninvolved"). The close occurred on 15 March and the last contribution to the Title discussion was 28th February, so it had reached its natural conclusion. The arguments against the move presented in the discussion were empty and bizarre bordering on perverse: they consisted of a denial (against all evidence) that the phrases "Iznik pottery" / "Iznik wear" / "Iznik-style" are internationally used art terms (the aim being to divorce the word Iznik from the word pottery and thus open it to be being rendered using the Turkish alphabet), and that every source was wrong because they all wanted to use the Turkish alphabet but were just incapable of using it. Born2cycle's assessment of the various arguments presented in the discussion was correct, and his close was appropriate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but in my head I translated "The arguments against the move presented in the discussion were empty and bizarre bordering on perverse" to "The arguments against the move presented in the discussion were ones that I, personally, didn't agree with" since that seems to be a more accurate summarization based on my reading of the discussion. Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, maybe, rather than using your head, you start to use your eyes and take a look at the actual "arguments" you accuse me of personally disagreeing with. Are you claiming that "every source was wrong because they were all just incapable of reproducing their typefaces correctly" was an incorrect summarization of the argument presented by opposes of the move, or are you claiming that it is actually an acceptable policy-based argument for dismissing dozens of RS sources? Are you claiming that the opposes of the move were not trying to argue that the phrases "Iznik pottery" / "Iznik wear" / "Iznik-style" are not internationally used art terms, or are you claiming that they actually are not internationally used art terms? Are you claiming that I was incorrect in stating that no sources were presented that use the wording advocated by the opposes? Are you claiming that I was incorrect in asserting that all the sources used in the article use the current spelling? Perhaps you can enlighten us about which of the five article naming criteria you want to use to support an article titled in a way that appears to be not found in ANY English-language RS sources? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield , I know I mentioned my opinions slightly (which perhaps I shouldn't), but move review is not supposed to be a second requested move. It is focused mostly on the procedural question of "was this a good close." So the question is less "internationally used art terms" but "was this an acceptable close." SnowFire (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get that - but your opinion that only admins should close move discussions is not actually supported by policy (as far as I know), though it would be an acceptable policy to have if it existed. Making that policy is something that should be addressed elsewhere. Allegations that B2C was "involved" are non-starters, they never edited the article or on subjects related to it or had disputes with those contributing to the move discussion. If there is some wider allegations regarding B2C that should be addressed elsewhere. If there are ongoing disputes regarding the Wikipedia-wide interpretation of policy and guidance related to name changes, that should be addressed elsewhere. So the basis of disputing this close would be just whether B2C had correctly or incorrectly assessed the contents of the discussion and its process. Surely that means looking at the contents? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the only point that matters here is if B2C's close falls under any of the criteria of WP:BADNAC. Given the split of opinion and extended discussion, it falls under criteria #2 and, assuming that B2C does have strong opinions on this topic – which he appears to – #1. Laurdecl ^talk 00:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "only admins should close move discussions", it's a matter of "some people shouldn't close some move discussions". WP:BADNAC is, like most rules, a blunt instrument. As to BADNAC #2, there are some non-admins who are well qualified to close contentious discussions (and some admins who aren't, for that matter). I guess if you want to point to BADNAC, point to BADNAC #1: "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality..." and my assertion it that closer has an inherent lack of impartiality because of his strongly held views on titling generally.

Let me ask this: Has the closer ever closed a move discussion along the lines of "Well, moving Foo to Foo (bar), where the parenthetical disambiguation is not required, goes against everything I personally believe about titling. But, the consensus here, both by numbers and the more strongly-made arguments, is that the move has been accepted, so the result is 'MOVE article to Foo (bar)'."

Can you, or closer, point to something like that? If you can,maybe I'll change my mind. Herostratus (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Herostratus that it might not be advisable for someone with strong opinions in the RM field to do a NAC, but as I expressed below, I think the close is perfectly reasonable and don't see the perceived COI as a reason to overturn what would in other cases be a good close on policy grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see how BADNAC criteria 2, "the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial" is applicable - there were not several valid outcomes in this case, policy could not allow an article to be titled in a way that is not found in ANY sources. This was not a case of some sources use X and some use Y and some use Z, all of the many sources cited used the title form that B2C's close gave to the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn close but support result of move. This was a "bad" non-admin closure, which should be reserved for extremely cut-and-dry cases; B2C should have simply made a support vote, seeing that there existed multiple oppose votes. However, if this is overturned, I believe a neutral administrator (treating B2C's close as "support move") should move it anyway in a new close. (And while Move Review is not RM part II, I'd personally support the move as well, at least until opposers can find relevant sources that have their preferred usage.). SnowFire (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing that the resulting name is still the correct one. But in what way was it a bad closure? Are you saying it was "bad" for a non-admin but it would not have been "bad" for an admin? If so, why? What is the difference? From what I gather, many years ago there were some discussions about COMMONNAME issues and article titles in which B2C and some other editors took part. Those issues were settled (or at least stopped being formally discussed since there have been no subsequent discussions on those issues), and the position advocated by B2C became the community-accepted position. However, those on the "loosing" side seem to have a continuing resistance against that outcome. I think their claim here of B2C being "involved" is incorrect - involved surely means being involved with the article, or with editors involved with the article. Involved should not mean being involved in deciding some Wikipedia-wide policies and then, years later, enacting those same policies on an article they have had no previous connection to. However, his decision to close rather than just express an opinion does appear to have brought with it a lot of historic baggage, none of which is actually related to the article or the strength of evidence presented in the title change discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This very move review is the reason why it was a bad close; it wasn't seen as legitimate. Non-admin closes should be saved for non-controversial closes where nobody (or perhaps only a single account) is against the result, i.e. a sparsely-attended RM where only one person chimed in and is past-due for closure. If non-admins could close controversial requests, there would be a perverse incentive for advocates of one side to sneak in as soon as the period closes and close it with a supervote for "their" side. (Think of famous disputes like Ireland naming.) Admins are people trusted to NOT do such tomfoolery, and an admin doing something like that would get their privileges revoked. SnowFire (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a fair position of principle to take, but is it actually a Wikipedia policy-supported position? You are essentially saying that only admins should close a title move discussion. After all, if a move is non-controversial, it doesn't actually require discussion! A suspicion that even one person might disagree is enough to make a move "controversial" and thus requiring discussion, and, regardless of any real controversy or risk of disagreement, a move proposal will still technically be classed as "controversial" if the page title has been changed once in the past. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not that cut and dried. For my part, I've closed contentious discussions and not been gainsaid, yet. But there are some negative factors in play here: 1) the closer is heavily involved in the subject of titling, and the assumption is that he has a dog in the fight in any titling discussion. 2) the closer has strongly held views on the issue, which some people don't agree with (though others do) and that have been characterized as somewhat rigid and idiosyncratic; and so there'd be reasonable suspicion of a "supervote" situation being in play. 3) closer did nothing to dispel this suspicion, really. If he had taken a couple paragraphs to stretch it out and show that had heard, thought deeply about, understood, appreciated, and addressed the arguments of both camps, that might be different. Herostratus (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a reasonable close. Being a NAC isn't a reason to overturn and NACs of more contentious discussions are more common in RMs than other discussions like AfD (partially because the close can be technically implemented either way in most cases.) Close was within the closers discretion and I don't see a glaring reason to overturn. Whether or not a RM regular who has strong opinions on article titles should have closed is a discussion for another forum, but I don't see it affecting the outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]