User talk:FOARP

Talk:Prince Karl Anton of Hohenzollern (born 1868)

In your close, you wrote that the move was acceptable to the Nom, but I nowhere agreed to it. I am not asking you to undo the close, but to strike this comment from your rationale, since Necrothesp is under the mistaken impression that title agreed at RM. In fact, nobody agreed about anything. Srnec (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of those "split the difference" closes where it was either close as no consensus or see where people appeared to agree with each other. This appeared to be acceptable to you and since you are not asking for the close to be reversed I assume is still not unacceptable to you, However, I've struck the comment as asked. FOARP (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is "acceptable" to me, but I want to be clear that I did not "agree" to it over and against alternatives. In fact, I think disambiguating deceased persons by birth dates alone is silly. It is unfortunate that that is the guideline. I have been opposed to it for as long as I remember. Full date ranges make the most sense. Thank you for striking. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may think it's silly. I happen to disagree, as do many others (which is why DOB disambiguation generally has consensus at RM). But, in fact, you didn't move them to full date ranges anyway. You moved them from DOB to DOD, knowing very well that this was neither the closure decision at RM nor (as you have just admitted) standard disambiguation. So I'm really not sure why you made the decision to move them. It seems a bit weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong that I knew very well that this was [not] standard disambiguation. I made a BOLD move after the closure to switch from birth dates to death dates. You reverted. I was about to open a new RM when I checked the guideline and learned that birth dates are usually preferred. I work mainly in per-modern areas where such dates are often unknown. Death dates are the norm in my area. Community consensus is strongly against full date ranges and that is what I have long opposed. Srnec (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But FOARP had already closed as a move to DOB and then moved them as such. In those circumstances, you really had no good reason to move them again unless you had failed to read both the RM debate and the page history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp - agree. This is not a move allowable under WP:BOLDMOVE since we already just had an RM, and @Srnec (who is saying that the RM move was acceptable to them) should not have done it even if they didn't know about the consensus in favour of DOB. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves and broken redirects

Hello, FOARP,

I been seeing a lot of broken redirects, like right here, because you do not leave redirects when you move article talk pages (or any talk pages). Please do so as in this case, another editor had to recreate the missing pages in order to fix all of the broken redirects that then occurred so they would not be deleted. I'm not sure why Page Movers often omit leaving behind a redirect when they move articles and talk pages but it seems to be common behavior and frequently results in broken redirects.

If you don't want to leave a redirect when you move a Talk page then please check "What links here" and correct all of the existing redirects that have become broken. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Liz, will try harder to cover this. There is a very large backlog at RM and I'm trying to handle it. FOARP (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Hi FOARP, I wanted to say that I concur with the gist of your comments in the deletion review on lists of airline destinations.

Regarding your comments on airline fandom, I do have to say that the only thing that matters is the arguments, not editors' background. I went too far in the British Airways AfD by trying to be "objective" and reviewing people's contribution histories... You can see what happened in the AfD, and I know what I did was wrong.

It's true, though, that this AfD attracted more attention from the people who actually edit these lists and value them. Naturally it's more likely that they !vote Keep, which is completely fine, but they need to provide strong arguments. I agree with you there that their and other Keep !voters' arguments were weak. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think it was a mistake bringing an AFD against all of those articles in one go, at least without a statement about what the articles shared and a review to ensure they all shared those characteristics. There's a reluctance to even look at the sourcing for these articles - the fandom wants the discussion to be about how useful the articles supposedly are, or about the bounds of what is encyclopedic, but not about the real content of the articles - but this can be overturned by grouping articles with similar sourcing and pointing out that all of them fail even just on pure sourcing grounds.

Instead the discussion has again become about why Wikipedia should host fan content, which is a discussion that is bound to be fruitless. FOARP (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my rationale I essentially wrote that all the lists I was nominating were no different from converting the airline's April 2024 route map into the format of a list. I went into more detail about referencing in the United/Lufthansa/American and Aeroflot AfDs but wanted to be more concise this time. Anyway, the Aeroflot AfD was closed as Keep...

I know that the AN discussion left us with this method of doing multiple AfDs, but given that there is no fundamental difference between any of the lists, whether they're stand-alone or embedded within the parent articles, I don't think this strategy made sense. I'm starting to support the idea of having another RfC that notifies all interested parties as OwenX said. An all-or-nothing RfC. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it important for the people who wish to overturn the existing RFC consensus to bring a new one. An AFD cannot overturn an RFC. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, people are now inclined to dismiss the 2018 RfC because of its age and limited participation. Actually people had already dismissed it in this February 2018 deletion review. The outcome was summarized in the AfD record: "overturned at review on the basis that a consensus at VPP could not over-ride one at AFD". Sunnya343 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that an RFC consensus is worthless so long as enough fans turn up to cast "I like this" votes at AFD. If so, what is the point of a further RFC if we are simply going to ignore CONLEVEL? FOARP (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that an RFC consensus is worthless so long as enough fans turn up to cast "I like this" votes at AFD. I agree with you, and that's what I tried to demonstrate in the deletion review. Nevertheless, as long as we continue to point to that 2018 RfC, people will continue to highlight its limited participation, especially from the people who actually maintain the lists. I think the key is to have a widely-notified, well-attended discussion on all of these lists – stand-alone lists, the ones in airline articles, and the ones in airport articles* – and to demonstrate clearly how they undermine our first pillar (not that we haven't done so already...).

*Earlier you'd said that you think the lists in airport articles are different. Do you still feel that way? Consider John F. Kennedy International Airport § Airlines and destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think bringing a much bigger issue into this (and the fans of that issue...) before this issue is even resolved is misguided and unwise. I also think it is unlikely that any RFC is going to change anyone's mind of this since, being fans of this subject matter, they are simply not going to at any point acknowledge that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia - at most, if they engage with any RFC outcome at all, they will simply dismiss it as "Wikilawyering" as they already did immediately after the 2018 RFC. FOARP (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think bringing a much bigger issue into this (and the fans of that issue...) before this issue is even resolved is misguided and unwise. You may be right. But perhaps there could be an RfC like this:

What action should we take regarding A) the lists of airline destinations in or split from airline articles, and B) the lists of airline destinations in airport articles?

Option 1: Keep A and B
Option 2: Delete A only
Option 3: Delete B only
Option 4: Delete A and B

This format doesn't leave room for people who think "case by case", though. "Case by case" doesn't make sense since these are all just compilations of flight-schedule data, but people may argue that differences exist.

Anyway, that's just an idea. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested about another RfC: "Having a new RFC that no-one can claim they didn't know about will both deal with these articles and any future issues." Sunnya343 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as an RFC that no-one will claim they didn’t know about. We had people accusing us of hiding the AFDs and we literally posted them to CENT!

I also think we are likely to run in to the typical response to RFCs on questions where policy is already clear: if policy is already clear, why is the RFC even needed? Let the people who want to overturn our existing policies against product-catalogues bring the RFC and let them deal with that response.

Don’t feel that you have to be the one who brings the RFC. In fact, it is better if it is not you since people will simply try to make you out to be a “deletionist troublemaker” - let someone else do it, preferably someone who wants to restore the already-deleted articles. FOARP (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if policy is already clear, why is the RFC even needed? I agree. I respect the people who maintain the lists; I myself have made hundreds of edits to the ones in airport articles. But we have to be honest: our list of current British Airways destinations is just this map in list format. This is what we've had so many debates about since 2007.

let someone else do it, preferably someone who wants to restore the already-deleted articles You're probably right. You don't know how many discussions I've started over the years about the lists in airport articles... Sunnya343 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is how the RfC question would be worded. If it's not worded properly, people will dismiss it for that reason. This happened in the RfC that I started last year. I also wanted to ask what you think of the comment Thryduulf made in that RfC that starts with There are, at a basic level. In my view, the comment vastly overcomplicates the matter to the point that no discussion of it would be possible. And who is going to create a list in the style of Comprehensive, including most but not necessarily all – "Here's a list of most of the cities that British Airways flies to as of April 2024". Or, "Here's a bunch of lists of the airline's destinations from each decade of its existence". What? Thryduulf appears to be addressing problems that don't exist.

I bring this up because I imagine that he would make the same argument in an RfC limited to the "type A" lists I mentioned above. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid any such RFC wording and let the people who want to restore the already-deleted articles bring the RFC. Don’t try to create a “solve-everything” RFC. The point is the community already approved deleting the majority of these articles and they didn’t only do it based on the 2018 RFC. The onus is on the people who want product-catalogue articles sourced (if they are sourced at all) ultimately to the company that sells those products to justify the existence of those articles. FOARP (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they didn’t only do it based on the 2018 RFC – Good point. I actually said something similar in the AfD: "It's not necessarily the case that I seek to enforce the RfC. Yes, I believe the RfC closure should be taken into account, as well as the subsequent AfDs. However, the outcome of this AfD should also rest on the argument I made at the top of this page, which is my own argument and is not identical to the closure of the RfC or the rationales of previous nominators."

This makes me think that it would be easier to omit any mention of the 2018 RfC in a future AfD. That way people don't spend time debating whether the RfC consensus is valid; they just focus on the arguments. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think the AFD did somehow cancel out the RFC... how could it when it closed as no consensus? But I understand that others may not share that view. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's confusing. I feel like if the RfC had received the same attention that this AfD did, the outcome would likely have been different, as it was a "solve-everything" RfC that attempted to delete two (former) featured lists, ones with prose, etc. So I agree with you and Rosbif73 about proceeding with bundled AfDs. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had one more question. Is there anything to be done about the lists that have been recreated in the parent articles, e.g. airBaltic § Destinations? I don't edit airline articles much so it's not a big concern of mine, but I wanted to ask. I can already imagine the sequence of events: I delete the list, someone reverts me, I go to the talk page and cite the relevant AfD, they bring up the RfC (even though the AfD wasn't solely based on it), maybe we go to DRN... I don't have the energy for that, and I doubt the wider community does either after all the discussions I've started. Sunnya343 (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lists within airline articles at this stage just aren’t a big issue. FOARP (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did say in the Air Midwest AfD that It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. I’ve got one more list of another ~100 poorly-sourced articles to go nominate after this one, but then we really should just mass-delete the remaining ~200! My intention isn't to say "gotcha!" though. As you know I agree with your point-of-view on these lists. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do it in the end, since I think without a full analysis of the sourcing of each article it is hard to do. FOARP (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. I'm just unsure about doing another 20+ AfDs. I feel like the first step should be to move past the 2018 RfC. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunnya343 - Just to revisit this discussion, we're now approaching ~12 AFDs this month, of which so far all that have been closed have been closed as delete or merge. I'm thinking that if we're re-running the 2018 RFC, the smartest thing to do is just re-run the exact same question that Beeblebrox posted because it's short and to the point, and the question really is whether the 2018 RFC still stands. Any explanation can be written in the first !vote to avoid it becoming part of the question and leading to TL;DR answers.

I might run one more bundled AFD of any remaining cargo airlines just before posting the question though, just to drive home that these articles really do not survive AFD if there isn't an "it's useful" or "I like it" or "I've heard of this" component to it. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. Being concise is important. I would just say a few things:
I'm concerned about the word "should" in the question. When I used that word in the airport list RfC, it led to confusion; see Trovatore's comments. No one seemed to be confused by the wording of the 2018 RfC question, but perhaps we should modify the wording just to be safe?
We'd have to make clear which airline destination lists we're talking about, since in my last RfC attempt some people thought I was referring to the lists in airport articles. Others seemed to think the airport and airline lists were basically the same. Ideally we'd address both types, but I know you and others feel that that would be unwise.
I believe the RfC would have to be focused on the lists themselves as opposed to articles, otherwise people will rightly argue that RfCs are not a deletion venue. That was a big reason for the uproar after the 2018 RfC. True, most of the standalone lists are just composed of lists, but people shouldn't think that the RfC will directly result in the deletion of articles.
Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking. I think I've just become anxious about the whole process after my prior RfC experiences. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of an RfC with the question you proposed at WT:AIRLINES ("Does List of Royal Jordanian destinations fail WP:NOT?")? We could choose a more emblematic list like List of British Airways destinations § List and link specifically to the list (not the whole article) so it's clear that this RfC isn't being used to delete articles. I like the clarity of this question. I feel like an RfC would be better than AfDs since in the latter it's mostly the same small number of people participating. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IDK. To be honest I’m beginning to think resting the matter for a bit longer might be a good idea. The response to the last proposed RFC, which was withdrawn, makes me think people have just seen too much of this issue lately. In that context, it won’t matter what the question is: the response will be knee-jerk responses to questions not in the RFC. FOARP (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's sensible. Hopefully a future discussion will attract a larger number of editors with fresh eyes. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you've got mail

Hello, FOARP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Email....

I have received an email which was clearly intended for someone else. I can probably guess!

Good luck. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah apologies, a dumb mistake on my part! FOARP (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IrAero

Was this edit a mistake? It looks like you meant to put the AFD tag on List of IrAero destinations, not the airline article. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bundled AFD - the IrAero article is also nominated there (see last para of the nom). FOARP (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Those should probably be split into different AFDs as the reasoning for each of those is completely different and it will turn into a hot mess at AFD because people are going to be confused as to which article is being targeted by which comment. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There at least connected, in my view, by WP:NCORP failure. Open to un-bundling them if a train-wreck starts developing though. FOARP (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW

We may agree on more than you think. I don't really think these short "X is a moth. It is from Africa" stubs add much utility to the database, compared to their maintenance burden, and I was expecting that I would come charging into the mass creation RFC a few years ago on the side of locking things down. It's hard to express in policy terms, but I feel like you shouldn't be writing an article on "x" if you can't describe in coherent terms what "x" is, as opposed to naming a few random properties associated with it. What wound up altering my opinions was Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 194#Mass creation of pages on fish species, which made it clear that some editors were willing to try to use their interpretation of NOT, the GNG, etc. to force the deletion or upmerger of substantive, accurate, and useful articles.

I know what you've been through trying to deal with the geostubs and the community's lack of interest in getting straight-up untruths out of the encyclopedia. I'm not posting things with the hopes of changing your opinion; I'm gambling that protecting the efforts of the few editors who can create good articles about species from rules-lawyering will be more beneficial to the encyclopedia than cracking down on existing levels of species stub creation, but that's a very individual judgment and I wouldn't expect everyone to concur. (Incidentally, I spend a lot of free time helping update off-Wikipedia taxonomic databases for my taxonomic group of interest, so I'm fashioning a scourge for my own back if we get flooded with inaccurate stubs.) But I know you've been through a lot and, as with many of these discussions, you probably feel like you're shouting into the void; I am listening and even if I come to a different judgment, I do appreciate you bringing to the table your experience with mass-creation and SNGs. I hope that lessens the frustration a bit. Choess (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines list of destinations

Why are you now also nominating airlines list of destinations articles to be deleted?These articles are very important and they need to stay,it was already a big mistake that before we already had some deleted, including List of destinations of Lufthansa, United Airlines and American Airlines, we can't afford to lose more.. Metrosfan (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metrofan. I am nominating them for deletion because I do not think they are suitable content for an encyclopaedia. We defined what wasn’t suitable content for an encyclopaedia in WP:NOT, and these lists are, in my view, an example of a catalogue/database. Other editors tend to agree on that, which is why the nominations are being approved with the articles being deleted/redirected/merged.

My honest opinion is that the best solution is to move these lists off of Wikipedia. Something similar was done with plot-summaries. FOARP (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

theres no other websites that shows these information, the website of airlines do not show terminated destinations,we should have atleast put those information into the airline itself's article before deleting the list of airlines destinations articles, some of these articles were only deleted because it was slightly not really fair, it happened right during midnight and there was no notice about the deletion review made, which makes not many people aware about it. Metrosfan (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that there is a community of fans of this topic. However, it’s possible to set up a Wiki of your own to cover it. Information deleted from Wikipedia is never lost - you can ask an admin for copies of the deleted pages, and use them to set up an airline destination wiki. FOARP (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Thanks for taking the time to close this lengthy move request. I wanted to point out that consensus is not reached in a numerical way but rather on the merits of the arguments presented. Can you please elaborate on this aspect? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting in touch. For a consensus to be reflected in strength of argumentation alone, I would expect to see at least a strong, unrebutted argument on one side. That does not appear present where, as I said in the close, the argumentation appears to centre around questions of accuracy/conciseness which appear reasonably argued on both sides. Certainly neither side appeared to score the kind of knock-out blow that I would expect to see for the discussion to be closed in favour of one side or the other where votes are essentially even.

It is of course true that consensus cannot be assessed by numbers alone, but it is also incorrect to say that numbers have no bearing at all: realistically, of course they do. For example, generally speaking, for a ten-to-one discussion to be decided in favour of the position held by the one, the argument would have to be overwhelming on the side of the one and practically non-existent on the side of the ten.

All that said, this close is without prejudice to any subsequent discussion, and there is an RFC open seeking to address the same topic that another closer might find a consensus in. FOARP (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move is to expand the title to both Arab and Palestinian citizens of Israel as the latter term is used widely in RS. So can you elaborate further on how this was not a good enough argument for the move? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That argument didn't achieve a consensus, particularly due to accuracy/conciseness concerns. I'm sorry that this close was not what you wanted, but I can only close a discussion (barring some over-riding PAGs issue, which isn't present here) based on what's said in the discussion. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern trains move closure

This move closure. Not sure if you also looked at closure requests but I did say that the bold move at feb 2024 should also be reverted for (un)stability reasons. There were no objections to moving it back to its pre-Feb 2024 name and that's now my intention but cannot do so because of the fact that the history of the redirect page prevented a move over redirect. JuniperChill (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were at least two !votes against the proposed move on stability grounds. To close as moved to a particular target not supported by any other !voter, when there were at least two "ain't broke, don't fix it" !votes, would not have been appropriate. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]