Contents

User talk:StraussInTheHouse

Shouldn't the page have been moved to Middelburg, Zeeland instead? Since I noted that there is also Middelburg, South Holland and possibly another. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HiCrouch, Swale, oops, my apologies, done. I presume pointing Middelburg, Netherlands to the DAB's Europe section will suffice? Thanks, SITH (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes the title should indeed probably point to the DAB, also note that the Dutch Wikipedia and Wikivoyage use "Zeeland" as the qualifier. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts but I think you erred in your close at Talk:First_ladies_and_partners_of_California#Requested_move_1_February_2021 by favoring a comtroversial guideline (MOS:JOBTITLES) over broadly accepted policy (COMMONNAME). As I noted in my comment, which you did not acknowledge in your close and may have missed, usage in books clearly favors the established title, in plural form. That's COMMONNAME, a policy. In addition, there was no consenus among the participants favoring the move given the equal number of Opposes as Supports. This makes the close look like a super vote, especially since "no consensus" is the default action. For these reasons I request you recognize there was no consensus and reverse your close (close anew as no consensus), or at least revert the close to let an admin close; either would avoid having us spend community resources at a move review. Thanks! --В²C ☎ 08:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) yes, I would second that. MOS:JOBTITLES is an incredibly contentious and argued-over part of the style guide, and whenever this comes up in RMs or discussions on main page usage, there simply isn't a community-wide consensus that Wikipedia's preference for decapping should override real-world usage, in cases where the subject under discussion genuinely is a job title. Which it is, of course, plural or otherwise. "List of First Ladies of the Philippines" is simply forming a list of the holders of that office known as "First Lady of the Philippines". See also here for a similar discussion regarding "modified" job titles, in which moves wee rejected. Given the failure of participants in the discussion to persuade their peers of the merits of the move, and the genuine evidenced reasons given by those opposing, no consensus appears the only way to close this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• HiBorn2cycle and Amakuru, hope you’re both doing well. I must have missed your !vote, perhaps because it was below the incorrect withdrawal. You make a good point which, on reviewing the whole discussion again (and not missing out any tail-end !votes), was hitherto unconsidered. This changes the picture as there is a legitimately applicable policy-versus-guideline debate. As such, I’m willing to compromise on giving it another relist, I don’t feel that a no consensus closure at this point would be appropriate considering the potential for further input. As an aside, I’m all for non-admins, page movers and admins alike closing discussions as long as they are adept at assessing consensus but I accept the overlooked !vote puts an entirely different spin on it. I am on tablet at the moment and my computer is updating, I can either undo the moves myself and re-open and relist the discussion in the morning or, if you’d prefer it to be done this evening, please feel free and just pop this diff in the edit summary. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the computer's back in action now, I'm on it, will update here when done. Just for clarity for my above reply, the extended closing statement was meant to summarise the discussion for ease of viewing consensus, not intended as a supervote, however, I appreciate that given the policy-based argument which I missed that it might have come across that way. I tend to only close RMs for which I have no horse in the race but the length and depth of my closing statement varies wildly! Cheers, SITH (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]