List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The closer (1) did not consider the requested move of 2 March alongside that of 13 March 2017, choosing to ignore the declarations in the first move; (2) claimed that the previous move was not based in policy when the first sentence of the opening comment in the previous requested move explicitly cites a policy; and (3) moved the article after closing the discussion to a title that was not discussed during the discussion. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) I did consider the old RM (even mentioning it in my close) and so did the participants in the new RM; 2) My statement reflected multiple other editors' comments that it was based on "shaky logic" (said by Amakuru and Ebonelm); 3) The title I moved to was suggested by Amakuru and apparently supported by TonyBallioni. Best, Laurdecl ^talk 07:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. (Disclaimer: I supported the target to which the article was moved). As noted by others in the move request, and here by the closer, the previous RM wasn't ignored, and everyone participating in the new one was aware of it. There is no requirement to count the votes of a previous RM as contributing to supports/opposes in the new one, and in this case there was a clear consensus to support moving away from the title, using consistency as the grounds, consistency in two dimensions, across both UK government topics and worldwide articles on the same subject as this one. And although conciseness was indeed mentioned in the previous RM, the consistency question was not brought up at all, which means that the new RM was a more thorough examination of the case for all of the WP:CRITERIA, not just one.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse almost didn't comment because of the ping, but I likely would have commented anyway, so here goes: I would personally relisted another time bedside of the other recent RM, but I consider this reading of the consensus to be fine. Both sides kept to policy and the closer was well within their judgement to close as moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least, it was rude to not ask or even notify the closer of the previous RM before starting another so quickly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: This is something for User:Neve-selbert to consider. I can't really see that it has anything to do with my close. Laurdecl ^talk 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it required you to look at the previous close. Your implied serious criticism of the previous closer, normally a very respected admin RM closer, makes me uncomfortable every time I look at it. If it were me, I'd have contacted him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't criticise the previous closer and I apologise if it came across that way. The support was unanimous and the burden rests on the participants to properly consider policy, not on the closer to override them. I would have done the same, in his place. Laurdecl ^talk 06:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Just to clarify the above: In the previous RM, it would have seemed obvious to any closer that there was a consensus to move the article, especially seeing that no objection was raised. It became obvious in the following RM that the participants did not consider WP:CONSISTENCY. My remark was not directed to the closer per se.Laurdecl ^talk 06:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Laurdecl. While, as is my point, the repeated RM doesn't feel quite right, and I can sympathise with DrKay, and I don't find the closer's rationale impressive, I think the close should stand. We need to get that basically agreed 6-month default moratoria written into WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record SmokeyJoe, I regret any impropriety on my part in opening the new move. In retrospect, indeed I should have notified the closer of the last one. Jenks24, I sincerely apologise if I in any way undermined your close. Rudeness on my part was most certainly unintentional.--Nevé–selbert 12:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: (Disclaimer: I supported the target to which the article was moved). I'll deal with each of DrKay's points in turn. Regarding point (1), DrKay has ignored that closer made it clear during their close (and subsequently on this page) that they did read the comments made on the previous move. Of the three comments on the previous move only one was grounded in policy, one made no justification for their support at all, and the third makes a statement which actually suggested that the office of 'prime minister' needed to be removed from the article in its entirety. Hardly a ringing endorsement. There is no obligation on a closer to treat the declarations made in previous move requests as !votes. Regarding point (2) first it should be noted that DrKay's argument is so flawed that they appear to have failed to notice that points (1) and (2) of their argument contradict one another! The closer did not state that the previous close was "not based in policy" but rather that "the last RM was not very policy-based", the first move request was actually very controversial as it suggested that WP:CONCISE overrides WP:CONSISTENCY, an issue which was not raised at all (because the quality of the comments in the first move were so poor). Mentioning a policy is not the same thing as having a debate on policy! Regarding point (3) the general outcome of the debate in this close was that the previous move request, a few days prior, was incorrect. Whether we have "List of" at the front of this article or not it not massively pressing and it is rather ridiculous to suggest that this would have changed the outcome. If DrKay wishes to start the third move request on this article to move the title from 'List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom' to 'Coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom' then they are more than welcome. As a general comment the first move on this page which the move being discussed here reversed was a clear attempt to eventually move all of the articles relating to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom found here by using what Yes, Prime Minister would term 'salami tactics'. Ebonelm (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Points (1) and (2) are not self-contradictory. They're both about the previous requested move not being given due consideration. DrKay (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are. You cannot claim that "the closer (1) did not consider the requested move of 2 March alongside that of 13 March 2017" and then proceed to state that the closer "(2) claimed that the previous move was not based in policy". Either you think that the closer did consider the requested move of 2 March as well as that of 13 March or you don't, it's a binary. Ebonelm (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closer claimed incorrectly that the previous move was not based in policy, thus demonstrating that he had not considered it. If he had considered it, he would not have made such an error. Moving the page to a title that was opposed in the first discussion and not the focus of the second discussion also indicates that the discussions were not read thoroughly. DrKay (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No the closer claimed that there had not been any discussion regarding how different and contrasting policies should be weighted, something which obviously should have occurred in a situation in which an attempt to make one article more concise made it inconsistent with all of the other articles relating to that topic! That you mentioned a policy in your nominator statement on 2 March does not mean that the subsequent 2 March discussion considered policy at all. Considered does not mean blindly accepting what was said, that the closer referred to the lack (note I use 'lack' not 'absence') of policy discussion in the 2 March move when closing the 13 March move demonstrates that they considered the move of 2 March in their close and found the 2 March content to be sub-par. As such your statement i.e. your point (1), that the closer did not consider the 2 March move, is false. Regarding the decision to revert to the pre-2 March title this was discussed, as you are interested in the "focus" of the discussion the entire debate revolved around objections to the change from "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" to "British prime ministers". The latter being firmly rejected. As I have already stated if you want to start a third move request, to move the title from 'List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom' to 'Coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom' then you are more than welcome. Ebonelm (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Typically after a requested move that results in a finding of consensus there is a de facto moratorium on new RMs. That said this RM was over a different choice, still it should have been discussed with the closer of the previous RM first. The new close appears to over value consistency and there reasonable arguments for weighing the other factors. I don't see any counter made to the argument that first several British Prime Ministers that predate the United Kingdom. PaleAqua (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My close was a reversion of the previous RM, in which the participants implied that WP:CONCISE was more important than WP:CONSISTENCY. Laurdecl ^talk 06:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments were also about why consistency did not apply in this case.The lists contains British prime ministers that predated the United Kingdom. Con district and concise are both important but so is accuracy. I did not see any arguments in favor of consistency that addressed that issue. PaleAqua (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God of War (franchise) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I think closer incorrectly called the consensus at Talk:God of War (franchise)#Requested move 3 March 2017. Yes, there was consensus to move to something, but the consensus was tipped slightly in favour of God of War (video game series) and not God of War (franchise). Myself and three other editors favoured the original suggestion of God of War (video game series), with only two in favour God of War (franchise). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move. Rob is right, there was more support for (video game series) and the closer didn't explain why (franchise) might be preferable.--Cúchullain ^t/c

Changing to endorse following closer's explanation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to hear the closer's rationale on this, as they haven't edited since the request was posted on their talk page. They should have provided a rationale when going against the nose count on a requested move of a featured article. I could possibly see it being within the realm of discretion, though, after reading the discussion again. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer Comment: I went with "God of War (franchise)" as the discussion for "(video game series)" did not convince me that would satisfy and encompass all of the elements of the franchise. Based on the multiple forms of media brought up by JDC808 and shown in the article, regardless of whether or not they have articles they seemed to meet the definition of franchise. As the !vote count was so close (indeed with the last editor swinging both ways) and I believed the consensus showed a better argument for (franchise), I moved it to the current location. I stand by this closing rationale and I should have made this more clear in my initial closure and I apologize for the lack of clarity on the initial closer. -- Dane ^talk 17:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – All discussants agreed that the "God of War" universe spawned more material than the original video games. Several editors considered that the extra material turned the article subject into a media franchise while some others considered that the extra products were merely merchandising extensions of the video games. Some editors were comfortable with both naming options. Within this semantic debate, the closer exercised discretionary powers to pick the "(franchise)" disambiguator among two equally valid options. The only alternative would have been to find "no consensus" which would be wrong, as there was clear consensus that the existing "(series)" disambiguator was insufficient because of the unrelated God of War (TV series). Hence, endorse close. — JFG ^talk 08:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closing rationale is sane and within the closer's discretion. There was a clear consensus for a move. There was not a clear consensus that ons was better than the other, pace nose count. I'd have no problem with a new RM after this is closed asking people to sort out which disambiguator they prefer. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the finding of consensus to move to something else. The something else was reasonably chosen, but was not "consensus", and so interested editors should feel invited to propose fine tuning to a different (not the previous) title with a fresh RM in two months. Acceptable NAC close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Actually, I was about to close that myself, and having thought "this will be a very close call, or a coin toss, to pick one of the two alternatives", I moved on. But as there 1) was consensus to move somewhere and 2) it required closer's discretion, I think that it was a reasonable call which resulted in a reasonable title. It does not preclude a further RM, but I don't think it's worth the fuss. No such user (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jinsha River Jin'an Bridge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I just closed this procedurally after ShakyIsles went ahead and made the move without a formal close. ShakyIsles had commented on the move already in support and made the comment Everyone was just debating and going around in circles. I've just moved it. Your efforts are probably better spent updating the article as what would normally be a closing rationale. I don't think there was a consensus on the page for a move, and especially given that the individual who made the move had commented on the RM, I think overturning this to no consensus would be the best bet. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Moves by involved editors cannot be tolerated except maybe in extreme cases where consensus is obvious. That is certainly not the case here. --В²C ☎ 16:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn close and relist: clear violation of moves policy by an involved editor. Frankly I don't understand why this wasn't just taken to requests to revert undiscussed moves and re-opened. Ebonelm (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Revert the close, and revert the mid-RM bold page move. The discussion is was contested and/or very unclear. An inability to make yourself understood is never a reason to act in spite of a discussion underway. In support of the status quo ante, sources refer to as Taku Bridge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn and relist – ShakyIsles rushed to judgment and violated process. Deserves a WP:TROUT while other editors continue the debate. — JFG ^talk 07:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]