Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The article was enough notable to be a standalone article but during the discussion, it was agreed that article can be moved to different article that has major scope. But first, article with the current name should be separately created and then article "Operation All Out and other mentioned article on talk page" should be merged with it. After closed discussion there is no such work done to upgrade the article according to its new move and its also lost its earlier version and can not be updated so on. Sumit Singh ^T 11:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put this in perspective, I closed the RM as consensus to move, and made fairly detailed comments at the time. सुमित सिंह (Sumit Singh) was the only dissenting voice, and in my view their !vote showed no understanding of the issues and was therefore discarded. I am not quite sure what they wish this MR to achieve, and note that they have made no attempt to discuss this with me. They did however notify me of this MR. Andrewa (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the close should have stated consensus to move [to what], noting the nomination proposed “?”. Not approached pre MRV? Comment at Wikipedia_talk:Move_review#Failure_to_attempt_to_discuss_the_matter_with_the_discussion_closer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it matters, a little. The RM discussion summary should include the result. I just corrected the RM link from here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Andrewa (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• That comment seems to be in reply to my post below, not sure what happened to the stringing. Andrewa (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree in hindsight that it would have been better to phrase the closing as you suggest. But that doesn't affect the validity of the close IMO, especially as I did say I think consensus on the new name is already clear in my closing comments. Happy to re-close in those terms if you really think it matters.
• I have commented there. But our current procedures explicitly require discussion first, see Step 1 of Wikipedia:Move review#Steps to list a new review request. It's a puzzle why they didn't do this, as they did do Step 3 exactly as described there, so presumably they'd read it. As in the RM discussion itself, there seems to be a general lack of understanding of policies and procedures here, and as a result I think it's still unclear what this MR seeks to achieve. Note also that in my closing I explicitly invited comments on my user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry for making my point little late, I have not discussed the matter on closer talk page because I mistakenly found it optional and realized later that it is must. Also the matter is already well discussed with closer and others participant on article talk page. I have notified closer and others so that we can discus matter here.Sumit Singh ^T 08:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel I must point out that this so-called discussion is just a single comment by Sumit Singh (the one dissenting voice in the RM, whose !vote I assessed as discardable in any case, and the requestor of this MR) in which they ping other participants but not me. Yes, as pointed out above they did follow step 3 of the procedure, to the letter, which is why I am here. Exactly why they regarded step 1 as optional is probably not worth asking. Let us instead move on. (Disclosure of involvement: I am of course the aforesaid "closer".) Andrewa (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A good close to a confusing article/situation. Do not allow another RM until the multiple merge proposals are thoroughly discussed, or the article scope has been thoroughly discussed and a consensus exists. Even more importantly, the sources is excessively based on primary sources (eg news reports), please refer to WP:PSTS, find more distant secondary sources, and use them for re-scoping the article and for reconsidering the best title for the topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Agree with SmokeyJoe, the merge proposals should close before another RM. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good call by closer. Discuss and resolve merge proposals before attempting to garner consensus for another title. Also note that while I understand the evident need to merge in the other articles, there seems to be no reason to start a whole new article with this title and then merge the moved title into it. That merge has been effectively performed by the page move. All that is needed is to adjust the newly titled article accordingly.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Yet to improve but current version is justifying with name. As the motive of MR was not to move the page but ensure its content according to its name. Moves and merges are required to improve the article but we need to ensure that it should not mislead the article for months of time. Sumit Singh ^T 07:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MR-443 Grach (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

During the discussion, it was stated that "The Latin-looking "МР" is actually the Cyrillic letters "М" (Em) and "Р" (Er)". However, in reality, the letters are in fact Latin, and not Cyrillic. They stood for "Mechanical Plant". This fact can be found on the Russian version of the page: "Буквы MP следует читать как латинские буквы, которые являются сокращением от Mechanical Plant (Механический завод)" (Machine Translated: The letters MP should be read as Latin letters, which are an abbreviation of the Mechanical Plant), with this page as its citation. Relevant paragraph from citation follows:

После долгих работ над возможными вариантами конструкции, многочисленных усовершенствований и доработок, готовый пистолет на ИЖМЕХ-е получил наименование MP-443, при чем MP следует читать как латинские буквы, которые являются сокращением от Mechanical Plant (Механический завод). Однако для официальных испытаний оружию был присвоен индекс 6П35. На научно-исследовательском полигоне Министерства обороны России пистолеты проходили испытания на ресурс, надежность функционирования в нормальных и затрудненных условиях (стрельба без смазки, при температуре – 50 до + 50 градусов по Цельсию, в условиях запыления, при дожде). Всего во время таких испытаний было произведено около 1500 выстрелов.

Machine translated:

After much work on possible variants of design, numerous improvements and revisions, the Ready pistol on Izhmeh-E got the name MP-443, at what MP should be read as Latin letters which are reduction from Mechanical Plant (mechanical Factory). However, for official tests the weapon was assigned the index 6p 35. At the research site of the Russian Ministry of Defense pistols were tested on the resource, reliability of functioning in normal and difficult conditions (shooting without lubrication, at a temperature of 50 to + 50 degrees Celsius, in conditions Dust, rain). In total during such tests about 1500 shots were fired.

The discussion simultaneously resulted in the renaming of MP-412 REX, MP-444 Bagira, MP-445 Varyag, MP-446 Viking, and MP-448 Skyph. These should all be reverted.

Postscript: I did not discuss with the closer before posting the above contents, and only became aware of the rule after I had posted. I now had sent the contents of the above post to the closer. Wuzh (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer comments. The discussion took place almost five months ago, and no one opposed the move. I did not perform the other moves that are mentioned here. There is no reason why a new (multi-)move discussion cannot take place now, and I would suggest pursuing that instead of a move review. While the above rationale appears to fulfill the second MR parameter, that "[closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM", the directions also state that "this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." The result of the old discussion was clear in this case. A new discussion might find a different consensus. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I note that a new move request has been opened. Dekimasuよ! 15:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close. The opening of a new multi-move renders this discussion moot. Additionally, there was no other way to close that discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isometric computer graphics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

At the time of the usual 7 days, all four involved in the discussion agreed this should be renamed, but there was no consensus as to what destination (2 vs 2). Moreover, the two editors that preferred Isometric video game expressed explicit concern that the alternate destination (Isometric computer graphics, where the closer chose to move it) would result in confusion. This RM should have been relisted to gather more input on the alternatives. This feels more like a WP:SUPERVOTE. The closer is aware of disagreement with his close, and has updated his closing statement, but did not reverse his decision. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The close, as updated, says a new RM can be initiated at any time. If there is consensus to move a page, but not consensus what title to move the page to, this is standard, right? I would suggest just opening a new move request if necessary (which would be at least the third, now). It's true that the move request wasn't open for an extended period, but the original period had expired, there had been no new comments for five days, and it had been opened the day after a move request that was open three weeks. Endorse the close per WP:THREEOUTCOMES. Dekimasuよ! 17:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy procedural close. The closer expanded the closing statement to include the guidance from the page movers' closing instructions, the guidance to allow a new RM at any time under these circumstances. That was done just before 2:00 PM. The nom brought this to MRV about 3 1/2 hours after that closing statement was clarified, and there is no reason to keep this MRV open. Just start a new RM like the closers' guide explicitly recommends and as the closer suggested!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems though that a new RM would be to the same destination as originally proposed in this RM. Firstly, without an explicit statement that there is no prejudice against that, then it would usually be bad form to propose the same move again. Second, even if allowed, some voters are often individually prejudiced against such a repeated move request. My objection stands that a relisting would have been, and still is, the better alternative. -- Netoholic @ 18:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse relisting. The closer claimed there was consensus to move away from the original title, but this is not quite the case. For instance, I prefer the original title to the current one (the new name is worse than the original name!), and the article was stable for several years under the old title. Further, telling people to start a third RM so close after the last two seems a lot like a prescription for edit warring, and I agree with Netoholic that there's a good chance of bias against another name change. However, I would support a new RM if it was made clear that a failure to reach consensus would cause the article to revert back to the original name (i.e. the name prior to July 24). SharkD  ☎  19:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also of note, the original target is now occupied by a dab page. Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note from closer: For one thing, I was not asked to reverse my decision, but would have been amenable to reopening for more feedback if someone had. This MR effectively makes that option impossible. Oh well, one more reason to think the MR process is faulty. I didn't relist originally because, as Dekimasu says, there hadn't been any comments for several days and there's a substantial RM backlog already. Closing the article pretty much required some move, as the consensus to move away from the previous title was unanimous. Two options were brought up, Isometric video games and Isometric computer graphics. Both had supporters and detractors, and in the end I judged the latter to be the better supported choice in terms of argument and what the article covers. I felt, and still feel, that this decision falls within reasonable administrator judgment. I did say that a new RM could be held at any time to determine a better title if one is identified; I think that would have been a more productive use of everyone's time than an MR that would only restore the article to a title literally no one wanted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Isometric computer graphics" is synonymous with Isometric projection. It also has a bigger and more important meaning outside of video games. I don't see how you could pick a title that will cause so much confusion. SharkD  ☎  19:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an interim rename. Closers, experienced closers, need to do this, to recognise a consensus to do something, albeit an unclear consensus as to exactly what. When there is a clear consensus opposing the status quo, and division as to the new best title, the closer, in their judgement and/or discretion, gets to choose the better. This is not a consensus support for the new title, but it is an improvement on the old title. What is needed next is a breath of fresh air, a cup of tea, and a carefully crafted fresh proposal. Unfortunately for some, the onus for crafting the new nomination is on those supporting a choice not chosen by the closer. Sometimes, life it not fair. It is more work for some, but in the end the result is easier to read than to relist the old discussion that is unfocused as the best new title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. RM is not a vote. Everyone agreed the original title was poor, and the one selected by the closer was the best of the available titles (and is still the best I've seen yet, since it covers the actual scope; anything that says "video game" in it will not do that, since the subject pertains to things that are not video games, too).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, close, and encourage a re-request. Years ago, WP:THREEOUTCOMES was written, which indicates that when there's no agreed-upon title in an RM but that there is a consensus against the current title:

There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place.

That text has stayed up for years and is clear consensus. Cúchullain followed it perfectly. If you want a different title, make a new request. Red Slash 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atmel AVR (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I have relisted the RM because I feel that it had insufficient consensus and would better require relisting. But Frayae prematurely closed the discussion anyway. I believe that the closure was incorrect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse insofar as this could have just been a procedural close. The target is occupied, and the request wasn't formatted as a multimove request, and there was basically no case to answer in terms of moving to simply "AVR" despite the other 17 entries on the disambiguation page. The close correctly picked up on this. The original seven-day period had expired, and there is no requirement that relisted discussions be left open for any particular length of time after relisting. That said, I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a subsequent, new request to move to a non-AVR title at any time if someone is interested in proposing it. In fact, simply doing that would be easier than going through a long move review here in order to get a relisting. Dekimasuよ! 20:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• At first glance, this looks like another case in which the closer wasn't contacted until the move review was filed. A clarification of the close stating that a new RM would be welcomed seems like it would be sufficient, and it's possible that could have been solicited through the closer's talk page. Dekimasuよ! 20:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I boldly moved the page to AVR microcontrollers, hopefully addressing the concerns from the original malformed proposal. I hope that it saves further procedural brouhaha. If it matters, I endorse the original close, but I hope my move makes the issue now moot. No such user (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It was a problem nomination. No such user seems to be on top of it. If further discussion is needed, it is better in a fresh RM under a better nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gjon Kastrioti (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Multiple editors who supported renaming presented numerous valid arguments based on vikipedia policies. I am sorry if I am wrong, but I did not see a single such arguement presented by the oppose party. I tried to discuss this issue (diff) with editor who closed this RM discusssion (BD2412). I asked them what arguments of the oppose party grounded in wikipedia policies they took into consideration before they closed this RM discussion. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions clearly says that arguments should be evaluated giving due weight to arguments as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. That is also request of the Wikipedia:Consensus which emphasizes that Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. Here is their reply (diff) which I think do not justify their closure nor it follows above mentioned policies. That is why I propose RM review. Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Had I closed this it would more likely have been "no consensus"; however, the outcome would have been the same save that a new RM with stronger arguments might happen sooner. Is the closer amenable to this, I wonder? Commendable that the nom first attempted to resolve this on the closer's talk page!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is generally a poor practice to follow up a proposal with a rehash of the same too quickly, I would not object to a renewed move discussion timed to begin a month or so after the closure of this move review, provided that all past participants are notified. bd2412 T 21:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It could have been a "no consensus" close with effectively the same result, but this was a reasonable use of administrator judgment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse, in that I too think should probably have been "no consensus", but it makes little difference other than likely tolerance of a re-RM being soon or just not quite as soon. I think both sides of this debate need to marshal their evidence better. They're both basically calling the other liars/cranks/PoVpushers, and altogether they don't present enough sources, without WP:OR editorializing, for people to evaluate them very well. The decision was definitely not going to favor the move, either way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Adjust to "NO CONSENSUS". I have more respect for User:BD2412 than I have hairs on my head, but I cannot endorse closing this as "consensus against moving". Too many people brought evidence into the request supporting a move. Red Slash 13:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to “no consensus to move”. “Not moved” is a poor choice of words to summarise a discussion. “clear absence of consensus” sounds like he meant “no consensus”, and I don’t see a “consensus to not move”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not moved" is not intended to summarize the discussion, but to state the outcome, which is a binary possibility: either a page is moved, or it is not moved. A page can be moved if there is just barely consensus to move the page, or if there is overwhelming consensus to move the page. A page can be "not moved" if it falls just short of a consensus to move, or if there is overwhelming opposition to the move. The summary of the discussion is the sentence following the outcome. I have been doing it this way for a while, and I don't see how people are reading it this way. Perhaps I should have two lines for the close, one for "outcome" and the other for "reason". bd2412 T 14:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It’s funny how jargons creep in sometimes. Intentions are not the question, but clarity of communication. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Make_"THREEOUTCOMES"_intuitive. I understood your close first time, stating the fact that results from your decision upfront in past tense, but I am used to that funny RM style of closing. Jargon create barriers, and there is enough barriers here that the real question of “consensus” or lack of is unclear on a simple reading. Was there a consensus? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Subtropical Storm Nicole (2004)

Subtropical Storm Nicole (2004) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007)

Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The opposing side doesn't seem familiar with the WPTC naming convention. When there is only one named storm of that intensity, we removed the year as we don't need disambiguation. Also, the suggested title "Subtropical Storm Alpha, 1972" from the opposing side doesn't meet the WPTC naming convention. B dash (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer comment. I was notified of this MR, but User:B dash made no move to discuss this with me before starting the move review. On my talk page, I had written to another editor, "I dislike preemptive disambiguation, but there was no consensus in favor of removing the years in these move discussions. The title guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones is not a naming convention with guideline status, and the editors opposing the move cited recognizability, which is one of the naming criteria in WP:AT policy.☆ Move requests are assumed to attract a general cross-section of the user base, so we should not assume that the move discussions represent a local consensus that is unrepresentative of the community. Rather, WP:C explains WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in terms of WikiProjects attempting to set rules without establishing consensus guidelines. Hopefully the result of the discussion might turn out differently in the future if the WikiProject's advice is elevated to guideline status, but on the basis of the discussions at hand it is not clear that they currently enjoy that support. ☆(Presumably they do not believe the distinction between Subtropical Storm Nicole and Tropical Storm Nicole, etc., is sufficient, which is borne out to some extent by the fact that Tropical Storm Nicole does not redirect to the only article called 'Tropical Storm Nicole'.) Dekimasuよ! 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)." That was upon the close about three weeks ago. The related discussions show that editors were aware of the WPTC guidance and had questioned its status before the close of the request. To reiterate, it is not a guideline. Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone please help the nominator here, B dash, with copy-editing their rationale, for English, and for clarity for the unencultured. WPTC? “doesn’t familiar”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WPTC: Wikipedia project tropical cyclone. --B dash (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. These closes were good calls based upon the arguments of the debates.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Call for a procedural speedy close. We have been a bit lax about MRVers not first discussing a closer's rationale before coming here to MRV. The more this breach is allowed, the more it happens, and many of these reviews can be avoided if editors first take their disagreement with the RM outcome to the closer's talk page for an initial discussion. This is not taking a hard line, since the MRV instructions are crystal clear: "Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page." That is in the lead at WP:MRV in bold and italics. The more editors are allowed to ignore that, the more we will see it being ignored.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Speedy close. Talking to the closer first is good manners, good Wikipedia:Etiquette, but it should not be a hard rule, we can look to the substance of his question. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very well then, let's feed the dead horse, (even though this, like many other previous MRVs, probably could have been resolved on the closer's talk page). We don't do editors any favors by condoning this!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note step one to every move review:

Before requesting a move review: Please attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer.

This is not just etiquette or good manners, this is a MRV required step.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, of course, but I’m looking at it as being in the MRV nominator’s interest to clarify the point(s) of disagreement. It helps to build a persuasive rationale. I oppose Speedy close per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and prefer to see it closed decisively. Once closed, it is too late for the nominator tonhave that conversation and then come back here and start again. Here, the nominator has completely failed to make a case, but MRV should not have barriers to nominator’s bringing issues, occasionally, this might be important. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that such barriers should not exist; however, in my estimation such barriers are minimal, and to have editors discuss RM outcomes informally can be so much better for all involved than to open a formal move review. Moreover, if this were to be closed "procedurally" and the nom speedily sent to the closer's talk page, there would be nothing to stop the nom from resubmitting here if the nom and the closer cannot work things out.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s true. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The standing of WP:WPTC was explicitly challenged in the discussion. There is no evidence of one side not understanding, just a difference of opinion. Disclosing that I was a major participant opposing in the poorly participated discussion, still, I think the nominator of the RMs failed to make the case. User:JHunterJ May like to make a fresh proposal soon, but a moratorium should apply to User:B_dash renominating. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Nothing faulty with the assessment. Actual RM discussion beats non-guideline WP:PROJPAGE material. Dekimasu's detailed explanation above is more than adequate. Side matter: The discuss-with-closer-first thing is kind of a waste of time. I can't recall ever seeing a case when the closer reversed their close on the basis of such a discussion (I'm sure it's happened, but it must be rare), and only a handful of times have I gotten a closer to either re-open or modify their close. Most of the time, closures tend to react with lack of understanding, defensiveness, hostility, or a mixture thereof. We have this venue for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reopened discussions when asked, several times. I'm under the impression that RMs you open are probably less likely to be reopened than most, because they tend to attract greater participation over the normal course of the discussion, making the outcome clearer by the end. With respect, I'd also guess that in your discussions with closers you'd be more likely than most to argue that the closer should have discarded particular responses–i.e., you are more likely than most editors to read consensus in a contested discussion. On the one hand it is probably true that more responses than at present could be explicitly discarded on policy/guideline grounds, and on the other hand explicitly discarding good-faith responses is just as likely to lead to an MR. Dekimasuよ! 22:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that when asked, especially if the asker has a fair argument, most page movers would reconsider their close. I also have reopened RMs on request many times, far more often than not. Yes, MRV is here for a reason; however, as mentioned before, there is a good chance that an inquiry on a page mover's talk page will resolve the issue a whole lot quicker than a MRV that could and does take weeks to get an answer. We have step one in the MRV opening process for a reason, as well.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]