Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 February

<2016 January	Move review archives	2016 March>

2016 February

[edit]

Humour–endorsed.This is a slam dunk close, but because rationales have apparently been an issue with these discussions I will say that there is a clear consensus that Number 57's close was a valid reading of the consensus.Jenks24(talk)15:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

No reason was given for closing the move request. Rationale points were made by both sides of the move request, none of which were touched upon by the closer. While I am the nominator of the move request, I will support a no-movement decision if it is the community consensus, but there was no evidence against community consensus, or why legitimate policy concerns were not addressed.2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:95B4:F4A:9B7E:1497(talk)11:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always think a line or two should be given in explanation when closing contested discussions, yes. Although kudos was given, Alex clearly did not inject sufficient humour for all involved. --SmokeyJoe(talk)12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closeConsensus seems pretty clear to me. Why does this issue keep being revisited? Surely more important concerns exist? Every time someone wastes community time with pointy move requests the result is the same. It's time to get over it and move on. The title is stable.AusLondonder(talk)13:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close- the consensus was crystal clear. And oppose votes are very clearly valid, as they were based on the policyWP:TITLECHANGES,which supports retention of long term stable titles in the absence of consensus to the contrary. —Amakuru(talk)18:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close.Seriously, the conclusion was visible from outer space. If (perish the thought) I were to speculate on the closer's motivation for not spelling out the rationale, it would be that he had to bite his tongue to keep from yelling at people not to waste precious time bickering repeatedly over such a ludicrous issue.Favonian(talk)19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Although theWP:RETAINissue is a compelling argument for returning to the American spelling, there were reasonable points on the other side, and this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the close of this review.Please do not modify it.

Glitter Force–Endorsed.(NAC)Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}19:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

The spirit and intent ofWikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructionswas not followed, because there was NO CONSENSUS as to the move, and Wikipedia policy states that if the title has been stable for a long time, you have to stick with the long-standing title (in this case, "Smile Pretty Cure!" ).Joseph123454321(talk)03:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Smile Pretty Cure is NOT the long-standing title of the article. It has been at Smile PreCure for most of its time prior to it being converted to an English title per the MOS.AngusWOOF(bark•sniff)04:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Then we should move the article back to "Smile PreCure", but not "Glitter Force". --Joseph123454321(talk)05:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close- I agree with the summary made byJenks24in the closing note. Those arguing that "Glitter Force" is theWP:COMMONNAMEin English language sources made a much more persuasive argument, in particular the citation to a much larger hit count in English news sources for this title. The oppose votes do not present any evidence to back up their claim that PreSmile or other variants are commonly used in English sources. Therefore I see no reason to overturn the close. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)12:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It isWP:TOOSOONto determine that "Glitter Force" is the more prominent name. There was a little bit of media coverage when "Glitter Force" was introduced a few months ago (most of which came in response to press releases from Saban, the producers of "Glitter Force" ), but there is absolutely NO data as to whether "Smile Precure" or "Glitter Force" is the more common name amongst English speakers in general. "Smile Precure" (an English name itself), has been freely available in subtitled format for more than 3 years, whereas "Glitter Force" is very new and only exists behind a paywall (Netflix in the US). My position is we revert to "Smile Precure" and conduct more research as to which name is more prominent. --Joseph123454321(talk)21:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:In addition, we cannot ignore that there are many other articles for other Precure series that make references and/or link to "Smile". We have a major inconsistency as a result. "Glitter Force" is a black sheep, and should only be accepted if the arguments in favor of causing an inconsistency outweigh the arguments against (namely that "Glitter Force" isdefinitelyandprovablythe more well-known title in the English-speaking world). --Joseph123454321(talk)21:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same issue with Pokemon Best Wishes vs. Pokemon Black & White. Japan markets the show under the English name Best Wishes, but North America markets it as Black & White. Thus the article is Black & White. Also, whether the material is behind a paywall does not matter. There should only be a new RM if Saban or whoever licenses the English version ends up re-marketing and re-releasing it entirely by the original name as per Cardcaptors going back to Cardcaptor Sakura, or Battle Vixens back to Ikki Tousen. The franchise, regardless, is still PreCure (or Pokemon), and the navboxes show Smile / Glitter Force, which does not disrupt the other articles. The Japanese feature films still refer to the Smile version.AngusWOOF(bark•sniff)22:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.The close is totally within the closer's purview perWP:RMCI.Though a numeric majority opposed the move, it's plain to see that "Glitter Force" is morecommon.If things change in the future, open another RM, but this close was perfectly reasonable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment.The nominator here seems largely to be rearguing the case rather than the merits of the close. To reiterate from my closing comment at the talk page, the arguments in support were significantly stronger than those opposing – they made good arguments that "Glitter Force" is the most common name and also the standard practice for anime shows that have been renamed in English. These are both very good arguments in terms of ourarticle titles policy.Jenks24(talk)13:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here has everything to do with the merits of the close. It has to do with the fact that a 55% to 45% voteagainstthe move is hardly aconsensusto approve the move. Those in opposition could hardly agree that the one piece of evidence introduced by the opposite side (namely the Google news results) is enough to prove that one name is more prominent than the other. Many articles turned up by Google are syndicated. But most importantly, other important evidence necessary to establish a clear victor isn't yet available (such as viewership information). I'm not arguing which title islikelyto be the more prominent based on the preponderance of the evidence, rather I'm saying that it was too early to tell, as reflected by thelack of consensusin the vote. And per Wikipedia rules, we must hold onto the original title until the dust settles. It is not the job of a few admins to declare and impose a consensus across a multitude of Wikipedians just because one argument happens to ring more positively than the others. --Joseph123454321(talk)18:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dust should be settled by now. The second season is being produced in English under the same Glitter Force title as shown on a voice actor's Instagram[1]AngusWOOF(bark•sniff)01:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.I might have gone "no consensus", but a rough consensus to move based on stronger arguments is justified and well within admin discretion. --SmokeyJoe(talk)23:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.

2016 MSA Formula season–Endorsed.(NAC)Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}19:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

Not only was evidence presented and ignored previously, I also present, that on the official page of this motor racing series this2016 MSA Formula Championshipis the correct name:[2]Falcadore(talk)09:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close- there is clearly nothing wrong with the close, evidence was given as to why the move was proposed, and there wasn't even any opposing point of view in two weeks of debate. Also, for your information@Falcadore:,the instructions atWP:MRsay that you should have discussed this at the talk page of the closer, i.e.User talk:Jenks24,before opening a request here. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)10:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, and obviously I missed that bit in the instructions. They are rather heavy, but the responsibility is nonetheless mine. Regards --Falcadore(talk)12:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment.It would have been nice to have some sort of notification about this, I've only noticed this because I happen to have this page on my watchlist but that can't be said of every person who closes RMs. I do understand the instructions can be a bit dense though, so just something to keep in mind if you use this process again. On to the actual crux of the discussion, this was an easy call. There were the four supporters and the only person who made anything even resembling an objection ended up supporting later on. When this discussion is closed (assuming it is endorsed), the closer should move the article back to2016 MSA Formula season,which was the outcome of the RM. In the last few days there has been some move-warring going on and it is currently at2016 MSA Formula.Jenks24(talk)09:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that the article has now been moved back to the consensus title.Jenks24(talk)13:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.This was a perfectly reasonable close. The only (mild) objection that was raised was challenged; otherwise support was unanimous and well considered. The article needs to go back to the title as of the close.--Cúchullain^t/c21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, that mild objector ended up being a supporter later in the discussion.Jenks24(talk)13:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.There was no process or closing failure with the January RM discussion. Wait six months before re-contesting the best title; if the nominator here is right, the error is not so great that it must be fixed immediately. BewareWikipedia:Official names.--SmokeyJoe(talk)23:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.

Hours (David Bowie album)–endorsed.The nominator here has made a decent case, but there is a clear consensus that Amakuru's close was a reasonable reading of discussion.Jenks24(talk)16:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

There are multiple reasons I consider the closing of the RM was improperly performed. The closure was performed byUser:Amakuru,an editor, who according to his talk page, has been active through the RM process. It should be noted from now Amakuru is not an administrator, and that I have no problem with Amakuru for not being one. Also, it should be noted there has been a discussion attheir respective talk pageabout the closure. From now, I will discuss the reasons why the closure was not handled properly.

The background is that the album now located atHours (David Bowie album),which was released through Parlophone Records in 1999 bein called "'hours...'" (yes, with that name, including spaces and punctuation). In 2005, the article was created at'hours...' (album)by User:Aziraphale Jasra ([3]). In September 2006, the article was moved to'hours...'by User:Hahnchen ([4]) for being "needless dab title". In September 2008, User:Xnux opened a RM located atTalk:Hours (David Bowie album)#Requested move (2008).The consensus reads "move toHours...with no prejudice against future discussion to omit the ellipsis in favor of a disambiguation. "by User:JPG-GR. For an unknown reasonUser:BGCmoved the page to'Hours...'against consensusthe following month.

The title remained stable since then until Bowie's death last month. Due to thatUser:Mwtoewsopened the RM located atTalk:Hours (David Bowie album)#Requested move 12 January 2016.Mwtoews opened it due to "Restore previous move consensus from 12 September 2008." This RM argument was moretechnicalin itself. After several weeks of discussion, only 9 editors (including me) joined the RM. I want to make a notation that one comment was refactored (from thistothisby the poster).

Amakuru closed the debate, as I cite:

"There is not a lot of support for the status quo, with alternative titles Hours (David Bowie album) and the original requested Hours... both garnering some support. There is clearly some strong disagreement about whether" Hours... "is sufficiently recognizable to identify this, and whether it's simply styling, or a clear case of WP:SMALLDETAILS. Having read the discussion, I feel that although it's hard to strike a definite consensus one way or the other, the balance of the argument is in favour of those arguing that that" Hours... "does not meet Recognizability, and therefore" Hours (David Bowie album) "is the title that garners the consensus of those contributing."

Extended, I will explain what I'm disagreeing about Amakuru' closure

"'Hours...'"was not supported.
bothHours (David Bowie album)andHours...being supported.
"There is clearly some strong disagreement about whether" Hours... "is sufficiently recognizable to identify this."I don't agree with this. There are two users who cited recognazibilityIn ictu oculiandRichhoncho.That is not "strong disagreement" as declared, it hardly can be.
"and whether it's simply styling."The styling was discussing by one person ([5]), but the comment is so misleading that it also says: "The single quotation mark is not present in the first source, it is required to preserve readability with the ellipsis" There is no "single quotation mark" in the official title. Also it should be noted that styling is handled byMOS:TM,which is a guideline. While the whole discussion is supported byWP:AT,a policy. No guideline is above a policy.
"or a clear case of WP:SMALLDETAILS."
"Having read the discussion, I feel that although it's hard to strike a definite consensus one way or the other, the balance of the argument is in favour of those arguing that that" Hours... "does not meet Recognizability, and therefore" Hours (David Bowie album) "is the title that garners the consensus of those contributing."Amakuru weighed the whole RM in "Recognizability" alone, which is listed atWP:CRITERIA,but in itself is not a policy, not even a rule, but a goal, as criteria itself states.

I moved the discussion to the talk pageUser talk:Amakuru#Hours.I asked 5 questions to Amakuru around the RM closure. "[W]hich comment(s) listed at Hours' RM led you to decide to move the page toHours (David Bowie album)rather thanHours...orHours... (David Bowie album)?"[H]ow did you reach such conclusion?" "[D]o you know the differences between consensus and polling?" [D]o you know what does "styling" means in Wikipedia's guidelines? "[sic] and "[A]re you aware ofWP:RMNAC?Most of the answers were satisfactory, but certain answers led me to realize Amakuru may not be prepared to make closures of contentious discussions as a non-admin user. The main issue was the answer to question 5 ( "[A]re you aware ofWP:RMNAC?). "Do you think an admin would have closed this differently? Obviously you preferred a different option, so you are objecting to the close... I don't think me being an admin or not has too much bearing on that". I think admins do have different opinions, in fact an admin could have closed as no consensus, or even being wiser, the admin could have moved the page to "Hours... (David Bowie album)",as this title handles both, the alleged recognazibility issuesandthe usage of the name in English-reliable sources (I like to note now I am not opposed to "Hours... (David Bowie album)" but to the unjustified exlusion of the ellipsis ( "..." )). Amakuru also ommited to resolve whatWP:RMNACstates about non-admin closures: "Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved."

My second main issue is the answer to question 4 ( "[D]o you know what does" styling "means in Wikipedia's guidelines?" [sic]). Amakuru said "As I interpreted it, styling is something covered by MOS:TM, for example" Macy*s "rather than Macy's. Plenty of responders in the RM discussion felt that the... on the end of the Bowie album title falls into this category." Although the very first part is true,MOS:TMis a guideline that has no major relevance than whatWP:ATtext says. For example, refer to the comment given by User:Slim Virgin when closing a discussion about a similar MOSTM issue[6]"There is consensus to move the article back toSunn O)))[fromSunn (band)], perWP:COMMONNAME,which is policy and overridesWikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks."Amakuru said that" Plenty of responders in the RM discussion "(only one) considered the ellipsis as an style. In fact, this album's official title is what MOSTM and AT talk about:" 'hours...' "is not supported by sources, that makes the official title an stylization;" Hours "is supported by some sources; and" hours... "," hours... "and" Hours... "are supported by most sources, resulting that the ellipsis are making"Hours..."theWP:COMMONAME.In a second comment Amakuru decided to not discuss what I pointed them about MOSTM.

To conclude, although Amakuru recognizes that they moved the page toHours (David Bowie album)"usually when there is clear consensus to move away from an existing title, but not so clear consensus which title is preferred, it is still productive to figure out which of the alternatives has more weight behind it and use that." ([7]) they weighed more into what most users said ( "SupportHours (David Bowie album)"--regardless if they were policy-based or not), and not seeing all available options, and at the end an undue weight was given to the current title solely for" Recognizability "purposes.©Tbhotch^™(en-2.5).04:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note- as noted above, I explained my reasoning both in the close summary and to Tbhotch on my talk page. Given that there was no support for the status quo, moving the page was the decision to go for. After that, the choice is which of two conflicting options to move to. Essentially, reading the comments in the debate, I considered the arguments for both "Hours..." and "Hours (David Bowie album)" to have validity, depending on your point of view. Clearly quite a few sources use "Hours...", but (unlike iPad for example), by no means all sources do, which means it's open to interpretation whether reliable sources regard... as really part of the album title or not. So if you accept that "Hours..." is the true name of the album, as Tbhotch and one or two others did, then that satisfiesWP:SMALLDETAILSandWP:NATURAL,and would be the correct title. However, if you instead consider that the name of the album is actually "Hours", and the term "hours..." is more of a styling thing, (albeit one copied by more than 50% of sources), then using the option "Hours..." fails the recognizability part ofWP:CRITERIA,and floutsMOS:TMregarding stylizations. Certainly it's true that a reader unfamiliar with the subject won't automatically know that the nameHours...refers to the album by Bowie. Rather than casting a supervote between these two interpretations, I went with the option that had more support in the debate. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)11:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.I supportedHours...perWP:NATURALDIS,but this close was a reasonable reading of the consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.The close perfectly reflects my!vote, and to my reading, the rough consensus of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe(talk)23:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly endorse.My primary motivation to restore to the title to the previous consensus (Hours...) was to remove the single-tick quotation marks, which was supported. I did not expect the ellipses to be as contentious to the move discussion. My investigation before starting the move discussion found that the most common expression of the title outside Wikipedia was indeedHours...,which is why I suggested this move. However the title without ellipses was common, particularly where the album name is used in paragraphs (it is awkward to useHours...in the middle of a sentence). So while the move was against my preference for the common name (Hours...), the titleHoursreads better when used within paragraphs, and is a worthy compromise. The readability was not previously discussed, but became apparent after fixing several links to the article after the article was moved.+mt00:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseThis RM was long listed as overdue and I had read the debate and considered closing this RM on a couple of occasions – would have closed it in exactly the same way as Amakuru. However, I could also foresee from the tone of the comments that the closure would almost certainly be contested by Tbhotch and didn't really have time to deal with the inevitable at the time.Number 5 7 15:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An admin commenting on the contributor and not on the contribution, I'll make a wish.©Tbhotch^™(en-2.5).20:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this still open. Since February it was pointed out why this discussion is incorrect.©Tbhotch^™(en-2.5).20:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.

43rd Canadian federal election–endorsed.There is a clear consensus that both of Cuchullain's closes at this talk page were correct.Jenks24(talk)07:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.

This move request operated in a very non-policy based fashion. Editors ignored the naming conventions and precedent. One editor stated that there was a possibility "that the naming convention is the problem".WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendumswhich specifically and unambiguously states: "For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election". Also,WP:COMMONNAMEdemonstrates Next should be used, as search volumes and results aresignificantly greaterfor next as opposed to 43rd. Naming conventions are clear. Next is easier for regular readers to find, as few would know the exact number of federal elections Canada has held. All other election articles I could find follow the naming conventions. Also, I believe the closing admin was wrong to state "It appears that more!voters than not are satisfied that the present title better suits the spirit of WP:NC-GAL and the practice at related articles"OverturnAusLondonder(talk)05:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closeThere's been lots of discussion already, nominator isn't listening and justrepeating the same argumentsstressing the letter of the law rather thanthe spirit.Ribbet32(talk)05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't, really. I think what I'm proposing, namelyNext Canadian federal electionis absolutely in the spirit of the convention, and every single other election article.AusLondonder(talk)05:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close.Consensus is clear.Calidum ¤05:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calidum- How is that a valid reason to ignore the wider project-wide consensus surroundingWP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums?AusLondonder(talk)05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EndorseTalk:43rd_Canadian_federal_election#Requested_move_16_January_2016as a "no consensus" close. Encourage the closer to give some very brief commentary reflecting the fact that participants did not largely agree with the nomination. The nominator appears to believe that the closer makes an expert ruling, whereas instead the closer is constrained to close in a way that reflects the discussion.

EndorsetheTalk:43rd_Canadian_federal_election#Requested move 9 February 2016speedy close, as it was an unjustified immediate repeat of the previous. I have proposed the writing of some long unwritten rules for repeat nominations that clearly editors like this nominator require to be written, atWikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Default_moratoria_on_repeat_RMs.--SmokeyJoe(talk)06:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy closeNom should readWP:Dead horse.Too many editors take the "My way or the highway approach" to title changes. This is RFC territory now and will require broad consensus to overcome. More RMs are not wise. --Mike Cline(talk)14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment.Move reviews aren't meant to re-argue the discussion, but to determine whether the close itself was a reasonable. This case is complicated by the fact that there were two discussions:hereandhere.My closing statement can be found with the second one.

In the initial request, most participants were clearly against the proposed move. I found that they made compelling points on policy and practice in favor of the present title, arguing that it'smore common(clearly not all sources for "Next Canadian federal election" are actually talking about the one that's currently "next" ), clearly moreWP:PRECISE,and moreconsistentwith related articles on Canadian elections.

The second RM was identical to the first and opened only two weeks later with no new arguments or information. There was unanimous disapproval, and the nominator proceeded tobludgeon the discussionby arguing with every comment. As such, I closed it to head off disruption. I believe both closes were reasonable actions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, surely something should be done with the nom to prevent any further clearly unnecessary debates.<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>>(talk)15:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below; the nom is trying to prevent any action that would forestall them persisting in this pattern. — SMcCandlish☺☏¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. Just wanted a discussion on that. Seems funny to unilaterally change a policy without community input. Seems a shame some want to punish a editor in good standing for holding a different view. I checked before second move request. Nothing suggested it wasn't alkowed.AusLondonder(talk)15:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse:Nothing is wrong with the close at all. The nom is really obviously misinterpreting the guideline. I'veclarified the wordingthere, but nom reverted with aWP:STONEWALLedit summary[8].I opened a thread about it atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Handling of "Next...". — SMcCandlish☺☏¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to take a formal position one way or the other, because I was a participant in the discussions and explicitly supported a speedy close at the time. But I do want to take a moment to address a couple of logical fallacies in the rationale given forthislisting.
Firstly, even independently of any dispute about recent wording changes the NC for elections articles saiduse a formsimilar to"Next",and didnotsay that the word "next" itself wasmandatory.Secondly, the nominator kept hammering on Google search statistics to prove that "next" was the more common name for this topic — but hefailedto recognize the fact that asignificantnumber of those "next" hits wereoldhits using "next" to refer to the elections of, frex, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011 or 2015, andnottothisone: his stats weredistortedbyoldusages, but he refused to acknowledge or address that fact at all and just kept throwing up thesamedistorted stats over and over again (even here, he'sstillleaning on the same search results, stillnotadjusted to exclude hits in which "next" didnotmean#43,as evidence.) And thirdly, readers arenotgoing to fail to find this article because it's located at "43rd" instead of "next", because "next"isin place as aredirectto it: which means a reader who doesn't know the number, and just tries "next" instead, will still get to the right place. So the title isnotpreventinganybodyfrom finding it. And finally, he kept misrepresenting NCGAL as a bindingpolicythat people aren'tallowedto disagree with, when in fact it's aguideline— but guidelinesdoallow for exceptions, andcanbe revised if there are compelling reasons to revise them, so disagreeing with NCGAL for genuinely substantive reasons isnotan automatically invalid position to take.
As I said in the just-closed discussion: you're allowed to have a different opinion, and that's why we debate and discuss these things — but the nominator showed no willingness todiscussanything, or even to adjust his argument when the flaws in it were pointed out. No matter what anybody said in the discussion, if he responded at all it was either to repost the same Google hit stats that had already been debunked, or to point the person he was responding to back to the NC again as if that person hadn't already seen it. That is not a productive or collaborative debate — it'swikilawyering.Bearcat(talk)19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.