Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 November

< 2012 October	Move review archives	2012 December >

2012 November 19[edit]

Comet Hale–Bopp – Closure endorsed. – ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Four reasons. As below, a pejorative should never be used in a close, a closing admin needs to be unbiased, and clearly JhunterJ is not - if someone feels they need to use a pejorative in a close, they should not be doing the close, Snow can not be used when the vote is 4:2, nor can it be used in an uphill battle which might not be won, and finally, even a speedy close should not be done in less than 19 hours over the weekend, when Wikipedia traditionally has less traffic. Comets, of the four ways that MOS advocates have been inappropriately applying endashes, is the most inappropriate, because there is actually a naming authority that names comets the same way they name planets - with only spaces and hyphens (after a name is given). In these move requests we always have a half a dozen or so MOS editors who want to enforce their view of how things should be spelled, regardless of common sense. While they made a perfectly logical decision, they came to a completely illogical conclusion. It happens. Someone simply needs to point that out. There is no reason for a few editors to think they have any right to tell all of the rest of us how to spell things. Apteva (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion has been going on since October 11 while you disruptively forum-shop for anyone who agrees with you. You are absolutely right, there is no reason for a single editor to think he or she has any right to tell all of the rest of Wikipedia how to spell things. Since you have been unable to get consensus for your preferred treatment of dashes and hyphens at the manual of style, kindly stop pursuing moves contrary to that consensus. That an unbiased admin came to the discussion and found your approach to be disruptive does not magically bias that admin. Noting that a disruptive request is being closed as disruptive is not evidence of a problem in the close, but of a problem in the request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A separate discussion was opened on 9 October, and withdrawn on 11 October based on the information that I had at the time, which turned out to be erroneous. It was opened on 18 November after this had been fully discussed at MOS, with the last information prevailing that a hyphen should be used. There being no challenge to that for two weeks it seemed clear that this RM would proceed without challenge. There is a severe disruption to Wikipedia, and I am not it. The disruption is thinking that Mexican American War should be spelled with an endash instead of a hyphen, even though that clearly is not the case, and applying that false information to comets, bridges and airports. That is the disruption - changing hundreds to thousands of articles to inappropriate titles by using endashes where hyphens should be used, and I take strong offense to the word disruption being used in connection with someone who is obviously simply correcting an obvious error in Wikipedia. Disruption is not a word that should be thrown out in such a casual manner. There are disruptions to Wikipedia, what I am doing is not one of them, and even if ten people vote that someone is being disruptive in proposing say that France should be moved to F'*&ing Fyz, the closer should be level headed enough to use the closing argument "no consensus", or something, because of the pejorative context of the word "disruptive". As I said before, if someone thinks they need to use the word disruptive in a closing remark, they should not be doing the close. Admins are required to remain level headed, and when they can not do that, they need to recuse themself. Apteva (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close per JHunter. ( Note I was involved in the most recent discussion. ) PaleAqua (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Endorse close. I think this can be resolved with Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Not_part_of_the_encyclopedia:

Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more.

The policies, guidelines, and process pages themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper. Consequently, they do not generally need to conform with the content standards. It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources to verify Wikipedia's administrative pages, or to phrase Wikipedia procedures or principles in a neutral manner, or to cite an outside authority in determining Wikipedia's editorial practices. Instead, the content of these pages is controlled by community-wide consensus, and the style should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors.

The MOS doesn't have to follow the most common usage. There is no "wrong" answer to this style question so there's no need to fix all of these "wrong" titles. If there were, it'd be best to get a consensus on the MOS rather than doing this serially article-by-article.AgnosticAphid talk 01:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a consensus on this at WP:MOS, based on the discussion there. But to say that how we do things does not have to conform to what we do sounds pretty strange. Suppose we all decide to use commas at the end of sentences instead of periods, would that be acceptable? Would it help or hurt the credibility of the encyclopedia? Using dashes where hyphens should be used is no different than using commas instead of periods at the end of sentences - in principle. If anyone wants everyone to follow the MOS we need to have it follow common usage. Otherwise we create a conflict between policy and guideline, and in that case, policy always wins. Apteva (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Suppose we all decide to use commas at the end of sentences..." is a straw man, since no one uses commas as period-substitutes just because their keyboard lacks an easy way to enter periods. It is not the same in principle or practice. If you want to help, get consensus for a new MOS guidelines on endashes and hyphens before making more of the disruptive move requests. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Wikipedia never chooses something that no one else does. To say that we can is ridiculous - as ridiculous as commas at the end of sentences. I am certainly pursuing the issue at the MOS but the MOS reflects what is current practice, it does not dictate practice, so if someone wants to change the MOS, the first step is to change the articles that are affected, and then change the MOS to reflect that change.

I will remind everyone that "disruptive" is a pejorative, a word used to degrade, denounce, or discredit, and it is simply not appropriate in a discussion. To make it simpler to understand, it is used as an attack word to attack the editor, and I believe there is a policy against WP:Attacks. Plus it is never disruptive to correct an error. Sure it takes time to address, but that is why Wikipedia is a wiki, so that anyone can suggest changes. To define certain changes (when they are correct) as not permitted is absurd. We do need to discuss the endash/hyphen issue, but not at the expense of putting endashes into articles that do not use endashes. Apteva (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about this as well. "Disruptive" is not a pejorative, and I am not using it to degrade. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and if you still feel that it has no place in a discussion, see if you can get that page (as well as Wikipedia:Disruptive user) deleted; once they are deleted, I will stop using them in discussions about the behaviors described there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing clearly does not apply. The first sentence ends "disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia". It is clearly an improvement to the encyclopedia to use hyphens where hyphens are appropriate and endashes where endashes are appropriate. What is disruptive is doing the opposite. This is an example of being wrong and accusing those who are right of being wrong. Apteva (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is disruptive per WP:IDHT is just repeatedly overlooking the difference between a substantive error in encyclopedic content and stylistic choices made for consistency's sake based on Wikipedia's in-house manual of style. It is antithetical to the point of having a manual of style in the first place to go around making article-by-article exceptions to the manual based on common usage. This isn't the encyclopedia of Comet Hale–Bopp (or Comet Hale-Bopp), it's the encyclopedia of everything. I am certainly not the first person to state this, yet you repeatedly open move discussions in all sorts of places based on your views about what is and isn't the common usage of dashes and hyphens in particular circumstances. AgnosticAphid talk 06:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting way off topic, but what appears to be a stylistic choice for consistency case makes no sense for two reasons. The choice of punctuation is definitely not a stylistic choice, and wikipedia will never nor should ever attempt, to maintain a uniform, consistent style. Even Featured Articles have half a dozen equally valid choices, if not even hundreds. What is patently absurd is I am trying to get people to end sentences with periods and capitalize the first words in sentences, and there are two or three editors running around insisting on misspelling comets. Obviously there is nothing wrong with fixing them as I am attempting, and obviously it is inappropriate to shut off discussion by pretending there is a consensus to misspell anything. There are three obvious errors in WP:MOS - fix those and all of this goes away. One is misspelling Hale-Bopp and using it as an example of using an endash, and that is currently under discussion there. Apteva (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, build the new consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style first before trying to make WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the articles that would change if you could get a new consensus. Going after the local consensuses first is disruptive, and simple repetition of your claim that "endash = misspelling" does not make it true. Also, you keep using the word "obviously" to apply to things that are obviously not obvious, as the extensive conversations at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style prove. Perhaps you could focus more on the consensuses you agree with, such as ending sentences with periods and capitalizing the first words in sentences. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the MOS is clearly being pursued, but there is a) a very toxic atmosphere there that makes normal discussion difficult, and b) no reason to misspell things in the meantime. The MOS follows what articles does, not the other way around, so changing articles first is more meaningful than changing the MOS first. Apteva (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's this "no reason not to go ahead on the assumption that my consensus has already been reached" approach that is disruptive. Yes, the MOS follows what the articles do, but the articles follow the current consensus. Current consensus does not agree with you that using an endash on Wikipedia where IAU uses a hyphen is "misspelling". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried getting a consensus in WP:MOS, but I get stonewalled all the time..... There is an on-going discussion right now. Which someone has tried to "fix" with a poll, after a few editors failed to support the arguments against the change. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone" being Apteva, after a few editors failed to form a new consensus for the change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rule number one in building consensus is to discuss the issue, not the person or persons involved in the discussion. Apteva (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a review of moves you initiated. The on-going discussion over there is the one in which this issue should be discussed. Good advice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a review of moves one person initiated. It is a review of the closes that were made by an admin who should have had the sense to recuse themself from closing them. The issue is not who did what but what was done, and was it reasonable. When the issue becomes who did what then there can be no discussion of what is reasonable. Yes the issue will be discussed here there and anywhere else it comes up. Comets do not use endashes. Apteva (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, comets do not use English. The IAU does not use endashes. Wikipedia is not the IAU. Also, please take your own advice about not focusing on the person. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comets are spelled with hyphens and spaces. Is that better? Sorry, but this discussion is about the actions of the admin who closed the RMs. Apteva (talk) 20:27, 22 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.

Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport – Closure endorsed. – ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. 4:1 certainly can not be cited as Snow, nor does Snow apply to an uphill battle which might not succeed, not should a pejorative be used in reference to the close. The airport is clearly and obviously misspelled, and it is absurd for a few people at MOS who know nothing about airports to decide how airports should be spelled. The admin is not able to form an unbiased opinion and should have recused themself in favor of any one of the 800 other active admins. Apteva (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose all admins who would also close contrary to your preference should also recuse themselves? Please note that everyone who disagrees with you is not biased. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. But do you really expect anyone to believe that this was an impartial assessment of the RM? Apteva (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that even if a vote is 20:1 we do not allow someone who participated in a discussion to close the discussion so that that one person can not complain about the close not being done impartially. Obviously if you close the discussion I can validly claim that it was a biased close. Let someone else do the close and that goes away. Apteva (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Only the requester supported the move based on other similar move requests WP:Snow seems to be the right call here. ( Note I was involved in the most recent discussion. ) PaleAqua (talk) 23:22, 19 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.

Seattle–Tacoma International Airport – Closure endorsed. Closing early a move request opened shortly after another was closed—especially when it doesn't seem to be getting any traction—is probably reasonable. I don't see compelling evidence here or any consensus for the idea that the closing admin was biased. – ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

As with Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, 4:1 certainly can not be cited as Snow, nor does Snow apply to an uphill battle which might not succeed, not should a pejorative be used in reference to the close. The airport is clearly and obviously misspelled, and it is absurd for a few people at MOS who know nothing about airports to decide how airports should be spelled. The admin is not able to form an unbiased opinion and should have recused themself in favor of any one of the 800 other active admins. Apteva (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close Only the requester supported the move based on other similar move requests WP:Snow seems to be the right call here. Also the time between this move request and the previous failed one seemed to be too short. (I was involved in the 2nd move request, and the move review of the first move request, but not in the 1st move request itself. It was the first move review that brought my attention to this issue. ) PaleAqua (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Snow, in particular the part WP:Snow#What the snowball clause is not. Obviously airports are spelled with hyphens. There are over 9,000 airports around the world, many of which are spelled with hyphens, but none which are spelled with endashes. This is obvious to anyone who knows very much about airports, and those who are guessing should not be stating opinions instead of facts. The reason this was opened immediately is because the previous MRV was closed as no consensus, with the only admin voting having voted to overturn the close. Apteva (talk) 00:35, 20 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.

Aspen–Pitkin County Airport – Closure endorsed. – ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three reasons. First Snow does not apply when the vote is 2:1. Second Snow does not apply when fighting an uphill battle which might not succeed. Third, the use of the word disruptive in the close is a pejorative that is totally unwarranted as the airport clearly and obviously to anyone who knows anything about airports is misnamed and needs to be returned to its original name. Pejoratives have no place in Wikipedia. We always need to be fair and unbiased and always assume good faith. The closing admin, should this pattern persist, should be removed of their adminship. The closing admin was not capable of forming an unbiased opinion clearly having an ax to grind against the editor opening the RM, and should have had the wisdom to recuse themself from performing the close. There are about 800 active admins, so why would the one and only admin who has an ax to grind against this editor be the one who felt compelled to be the one and only admin to close this RM? Apteva (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close Only the requester supported the move based on other similar move requests WP:Snow seems to be the right call here. If you consider the comments it was actually 4:1 as two of the discussion comments that did not vote were both against the move. One calling for the moves request to be considered as a single request, the other calling for a speedy close for disruption. Note that WP:AGF does not state that we must always assume good faith. AGP does have it limits. That said though, I believe that you truly believe what you are doing is good for the encyclopedia. That does not mean though that your attempts are not boarding on disruptive even if you don't intend it to be. Also not that while you site AGP, you are assuming bad faith on the part of the closing admin. (Note I involved in the discussion. ) PaleAqua (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating that the closing admin should not be closing discussions which they are involved in, and that due to the recent interaction with this editor are clearly not able act responsibly. Why would this one admin out of 800 be the one to do the close? This is not a coincidence. Reopen the RM, and let an uninvolved admin close it in a week. That is the proper procedure. Apteva (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in the discussions I closed. Please do not resort to lies in your arguments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the decision could be made in an impartial manner because of prior involvement with the editor proposing the move. Apteva (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So no admin who has ever disagreed with you can ever disagree with you again? No, I don't think it works that way. An admin who has impartially disagreed with you before can indeed impartially reach another decision, and might even be able to do so more efficiently. Regardless, refrain from saying I was involved in these discussions, since that is a lie. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on the issue, not the individual. If someone has been involved with an editor or an issue, simply let cooler minds prevail. Otherwise it simply comes across as being vindictive. Wikipedia has enough drama trying to get things right without introducing more by introducing personal vendettas. There are 800 other active admins who can close these RM's. Do the right thing by reverting the closes, and let one of them close them whenever and if they think a close is appropriate. Apteva (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you will stop trying to focus this discussion on me, I will stop pointing out that you are wrong to do so, and the drama will end naturally. You do not get to select the admins who can or cannot close your proposals, and you do not get to restrict it to the group of admins you believe will agree with you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting silly. Revert the closes and let someone else close them. Is there seriously a problem with that? Apteva (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is silly. Withdraw your requests for review, since the closes were impartial. Is there seriously a problem with that? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they were impartial than I would expect that you would have no problem with reverting them. If they were not impartial I would expect an objection to reverting them. Which is it? Apteva (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false dichotomy. By that supposed logic, you could ask every closer who claimed to be impartial to revert until you found a closer who closed in your favor. While certainly self-serving, it's logically bankrupt. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even remotely possible. All I am asking for is one admin who I believe to clearly be not impartial to allow someone who is far more likely to be impartial to perform the close. A refusal to allow that simply reinforces my supposition that the close was not done impartially. Reverting the closes and allowing another admin to step in removes that issue from the equation. Apteva (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refusal to allow you to admin shop is not evidence of partiality, although I am not surprised to see it spun that way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Group of en-dash closes brought by Apteva

Before we get a bunch more repeated responses like PaleAqua's, can I propose that we treat these four as one, since they were are brought by the same guy, for essentially the same reason, and all closed by the same closer? Can we just discuss in this section instead of above? Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. They all have separate issues, and it would not be reasonable to expect the same result for all of them. Apteva (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closes – as one of the particpants against many of Apteva's anti-en-dash efforts, I'm clearly not unbiased here, but I do think that JHunterJ did the right thing in recognizing the WP:SNOW and disruption situation here, and calling a spade a spade. The early close was called for by several respondents, and was clearly justified. JHunterJ was perhaps the admin most familiar with the history, so it was obvious to him what needed to be done. Apteva has found approximately zero support for what he is trying to do, and his continuing repetitive efforts are certainly disruptive to people trying to do normal edits and improvements in line with the guidelines such as the MOS. I had warned him (before these closes) that if he opens any more such RMs I will take him to AN/I and seek a block; yes, it has gone that far, in 3 months of continuing disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is he or she thank you. This section is meaningless. Each close is being discussed separately, and it is not meaningful to combine them. Apteva (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my comment applies to some of the closes and not to others, you are free to express that here. I thought it is was best not to repeat the comment in four places. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 25 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.

2012 November 5[edit]

Yikatong – Procedural closure. This similar reasoning is used for new requested move in the article talk page right now. – George Ho (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yikatong (一卡通, literally all-purpose card or multi-purpose card) is used in many situations, such as credit cards, mobile phone cards and so on. Therefore I think we should move it back to the long but accurate name. Makecat _Talk 11:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Move review is no place for new requests. Also, the requested move was two years old, and arguing over titles is no longer fun. --George Ho (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opened RM. Feel free to close this now. Apteva (talk) 05:18, 14 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.

2012 November 3[edit]

Event winners at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Closure endorsed. – Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 08:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.