The original discussion was proposed and supported by only the proposer, there were 2 others who did not support it. It was then somehow closed citing consensus to move. In the ;ast 2 days again the original proposer is the only one who sticks to the need to mvoe, while two editors agree there was no consensus on the first mve.
Lihaas (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin. Not the best RM, I agree – it would have been much better had there been more participation, but reading over it I stand by my closure. The nominator gives a very reasonable rationale for moving the article and in the month that the RM was open (three weeks longer than usual) no one offered a good counter argument (it was pretty much "someone will get around to it sometime"). The one person who actively opposed withdrew his opposition and the other editor to comment (Lihaas) said he would add prose within a week – by the time I closed it, almost a month later, that had not been done and I therefore found the nominator's argument compelling enough for there to be a consensus to move. I will add that I think, because the first RM had so little participation, there should be no prejudice against starting a new RM, but the article should not be moved back unless there is a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the same vein, it should not bbe moved with consensus either. Cause precedent changes need wider consensus in the first place.Lihaas (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as proposer of move. Obviously wider discussion would have been welcome, but if only one person can be seen to have opposed the move, and that person has yet to offer any reason why the phrase Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Paralympics better describes the article than the current title, then in retrospect I wonder whether it was unnecessarily cautious to even use the RM procedure for a potentially contentious change. I have no objection to re-listing for discussion, but would maintain vehemently that the precedent of similarly named articles (eg Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Olympics) is not justification for thus naming an article that echoes the layout, but not the prose content, of such articles. I repeat that I would happily support a return to the original name as soon as it can be seen that there is some concerted effort to make the article fit such a description. This is about the principle that an article title should not lead to expectations that are not fulfilled by the content. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/caveat: Kevin McE was the user actively involved in calling for the move. His endorsement here is thus biased in support of his view.
Which is why I posted my comment as "Endorse close as proposer of move". Accusation of duplicitousness is not appreciated. How on earth can anybody's vote not be biased in support of their own view? That is the nature of expressing opinion in a vote! Note that Lihaas does not identify himself as the only opposer of the move in the original discussion, nor does he acknowledge that it was he who reverted the move against the decision of the closing admin, and without using the accepted procedures. Kevin McE (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further the page does have prose that said user removed citing it as unlikely to be expanded and then he moved it. Its an arduous process and help was needed, which is better than removing and moving.Lihaas (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide your reasons for believing that the article, either as it currently stands, or as it has stood at any time in the past, fulfils the description of a chronological summary of the games. Kevin McE (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I didn't want it to be moved and hoped it would work as a Chronological Summary. I did some work in that direction and if Lihaas wishes to complete that I'd be happy. However it is correct that I withdrew my objection as it seemed the work needed to make it different than a list of event winners did not really happen. Maybe I gave up too easily, not sure. Still I guess I am saying the closure had some justification, even if it was disappointing, but that I'm not sure I precisely endorse it as I may have given up too fast. If titling "uncertain" is unacceptable I'll change it later.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no. "Uncertain" is a good vote for those who do not either support or oppose. Hopefully, this discussion should not be a rehash of RM. --George Ho (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Seems like the unfortunately logical close at the time. Seems like "Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Paralympics" would be a better article, but that is not what the article is right now. Probably should be moved back after it is improved in that direction. PaleAqua (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for now. Suggest a fresh RM for after when it is improved in the direction of chronology. It is important that titles are not misleading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
