====
- List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
The closer (1) did not consider the requested move of 2 March alongside that of 13 March 2017, choosing to ignore the declarations in the first move; (2) claimed that the previous move was not based in policy when the first sentence of the opening comment in the previous requested move explicitly cites a policy; and (3) moved the article after closing the discussion to a title that was not discussed during the discussion. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) I did consider the old RM (even mentioning it in my close) and so did the participants in the new RM; 2) My statement reflected multiple other editors' comments that it was based on "shaky logic" (said by Amakuru and Ebonelm); 3) The title I moved to was suggested by Amakuru and apparently supported by TonyBallioni. Best, Laurdecl talk 07:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. (Disclaimer: I supported the target to which the article was moved). As noted by others in the move request, and here by the closer, the previous RM wasn't ignored, and everyone participating in the new one was aware of it. There is no requirement to count the votes of a previous RM as contributing to supports/opposes in the new one, and in this case there was a clear consensus to support moving away from the title, using consistency as the grounds, consistency in two dimensions, across both UK government topics and worldwide articles on the same subject as this one. And although conciseness was indeed mentioned in the previous RM, the consistency question was not brought up at all, which means that the new RM was a more thorough examination of the case for all of the WP:CRITERIA, not just one. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse almost didn't comment because of the ping, but I likely would have commented anyway, so here goes: I would personally relisted another time bedside of the other recent RM, but I consider this reading of the consensus to be fine. Both sides kept to policy and the closer was well within their judgement to close as moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, it was rude to not ask or even notify the closer of the previous RM before starting another so quickly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: This is something for User:Neve-selbert to consider. I can't really see that it has anything to do with my close. Laurdecl talk 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it required you to look at the previous close. Your implied serious criticism of the previous closer, normally a very respected admin RM closer, makes me uncomfortable every time I look at it. If it were me, I'd have contacted him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't criticise the previous closer and I apologise if it came across that way. The support was unanimous and the burden rests on the participants to properly consider policy, not on the closer to override them. I would have done the same, in his place. Laurdecl talk 06:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: Just to clarify the above: In the previous RM, it would have seemed obvious to any closer that there was a consensus to move the article, especially seeing that no objection was raised. It became obvious in the following RM that the participants did not consider WP:CONSISTENCY. My remark was not directed to the closer per se.Laurdecl talk 06:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, User:Laurdecl. While, as is my point, the repeated RM doesn't feel quite right, and I can sympathise with DrKay, and I don't find the closer's rationale impressive, I think the close should stand. We need to get that basically agreed 6-month default moratoria written into WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record SmokeyJoe, I regret any impropriety on my part in opening the new move. In retrospect, indeed I should have notified the closer of the last one. Jenks24, I sincerely apologise if I in any way undermined your close. Rudeness on my part was most certainly unintentional.--Nevé–selbert 12:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: (Disclaimer: I supported the target to which the article was moved). I'll deal with each of DrKay's points in turn. Regarding point (1), DrKay has ignored that closer made it clear during their close (and subsequently on this page) that they did read the comments made on the previous move. Of the three comments on the previous move only one was grounded in policy, one made no justification for their support at all, and the third makes a statement which actually suggested that the office of 'prime minister' needed to be removed from the article in its entirety. Hardly a ringing endorsement. There is no obligation on a closer to treat the declarations made in previous move requests as !votes. Regarding point (2) first it should be noted that DrKay's argument is so flawed that they appear to have failed to notice that points (1) and (2) of their argument contradict one another! The closer did not state that the previous close was "not based in policy" but rather that "the last RM was not very policy-based", the first move request was actually very controversial as it suggested that WP:CONCISE overrides WP:CONSISTENCY, an issue which was not raised at all (because the quality of the comments in the first move were so poor). Mentioning a policy is not the same thing as having a debate on policy! Regarding point (3) the general outcome of the debate in this close was that the previous move request, a few days prior, was incorrect. Whether we have "List of" at the front of this article or not it not massively pressing and it is rather ridiculous to suggest that this would have changed the outcome. If DrKay wishes to start the third move request on this article to move the title from 'List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom' to 'Coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom' then they are more than welcome. As a general comment the first move on this page which the move being discussed here reversed was a clear attempt to eventually move all of the articles relating to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom found here by using what Yes, Prime Minister would term 'salami tactics'. Ebonelm (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Points (1) and (2) are not self-contradictory. They're both about the previous requested move not being given due consideration. DrKay (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they are. You cannot claim that "the closer (1) did not consider the requested move of 2 March alongside that of 13 March 2017" and then proceed to state that the closer "(2) claimed that the previous move was not based in policy". Either you think that the closer did consider the requested move of 2 March as well as that of 13 March or you don't, it's a binary. Ebonelm (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The closer claimed incorrectly that the previous move was not based in policy, thus demonstrating that he had not considered it. If he had considered it, he would not have made such an error. Moving the page to a title that was opposed in the first discussion and not the focus of the second discussion also indicates that the discussions were not read thoroughly. DrKay (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No the closer claimed that there had not been any discussion regarding how different and contrasting policies should be weighted, something which obviously should have occurred in a situation in which an attempt to make one article more concise made it inconsistent with all of the other articles relating to that topic! That you mentioned a policy in your nominator statement on 2 March does not mean that the subsequent 2 March discussion considered policy at all. Considered does not mean blindly accepting what was said, that the closer referred to the lack (note I use 'lack' not 'absence') of policy discussion in the 2 March move when closing the 13 March move demonstrates that they considered the move of 2 March in their close and found the 2 March content to be sub-par. As such your statement i.e. your point (1), that the closer did not consider the 2 March move, is false. Regarding the decision to revert to the pre-2 March title this was discussed, as you are interested in the "focus" of the discussion the entire debate revolved around objections to the change from "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" to "British prime ministers". The latter being firmly rejected. As I have already stated if you want to start a third move request, to move the title from 'List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom' to 'Coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom' then you are more than welcome. Ebonelm (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Typically after a requested move that results in a finding of consensus there is a de facto moratorium on new RMs. That said this RM was over a different choice, still it should have been discussed with the closer of the previous RM first. The new close appears to over value consistency and there reasonable arguments for weighing the other factors. I don't see any counter made to the argument that first several British Prime Ministers that predate the United Kingdom. PaleAqua (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My close was a reversion of the previous RM, in which the participants implied that WP:CONCISE was more important than WP:CONSISTENCY. Laurdecl talk 06:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments were also about why consistency did not apply in this case.The lists contains British prime ministers that predated the United Kingdom. Con district and concise are both important but so is accuracy. I did not see any arguments in favor of consistency that addressed that issue. PaleAqua (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
