Please review your close at Isabella II

Hi. Would you mind taking a closer look at your close at Talk:Isabella II of Spain#Requested move 26 January 2024? My concern is that though there are a significant number of opposers, they all opposed based on the undisputed ambiguity of “Isabella II”, but without addressing nom’s pre-emptive rebuttal to this position by pointing out this Isabella II is “already the primary topic”. This point about PT was reiterated by every Support !vote because ambiguity is not a policy-based reason to oppose when the topic is primary for the proposed title. Furthermore, no one challenged the PT claim probably because PT has been established here for 20 years with the Isabella II WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. In short, Opposition is not policy-based at all, while Support is solidly based on SOVEREIGN as well as PT.

I should note that in a similar recent RM at Talk:Ferdinand VI#Requested move 22 December 2023 the closer, upon reviewing WP:SOVEREIGN, found consensus to move despite an 8 to 3 opposition majority because “none of the Oppose votes are actually based in policy”. This close was strongly endorsed at Move Review and even lauded as a textbook example of a great Wikipedia close, assessing WP:CONSENSUS not according to how people voted, but by actually considering which votes followed policy and which didn't. Please ensure you’re doing that here too, okay? Thanks! —-В²C ☎ 18:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2cycle: You're right. I'll reopen the discussion, because I believe "Isabel II" vs. "Isabella II" should be discussed further before closing as moved. – Hilst [talk] 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More