The discussion did not lead to an acceptable outcome, and the current title is very bad and was discussed previously. Dl.thinker (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had closed this move discussion. Dl.thinker are acting in good-faith here, but I still stand by my closure. When saying "... discussed previously", I think Dl.thinker are referring to Talk:R. Charleroi S.C.#Requested move 20 January 2021 for "R. Charleroi S.C. → Royal Charleroi S.C." Current move discussion does not have a clear consensus. I am not sure what exactly Dl.thinker is expecting as output from this move review. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A relisting would have surely been decisive. When we discuss, we are expected to get responses, and this is what those who opposed the move did not want. Dl.thinker (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I note that the RM nomination was poor. Next time, make the nomination more comprehensive. Address the points that previously caused people to oppose. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly endorse (uninvolved), as there's no problems with closing the move as no consensus by policy, but with no prejudice against renomination with a stronger nomination statement. 2-3 months should not be a hard and fast rule; WP:RMCI only brings it up as a recommendation as most successful re-requests after a no consensus close take place after that length, but I think this could gain consensus with a stronger nomination statement. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved, except that I relisted the RM earlier). No consensus is a reasonable reading of the RM. Regarding what else the nominator can try, I'd say that another possible option is to take up the idea of starting a more broadly scoped discussion about Belgian clubs (even if you don't necessarily agree with other editors' reasons for why they wanted that kind of a discussion). No guarantee whether it would ultimately reach a clearer consensus, of course, but might be worth a try. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as involved. It's frustrating that it was no consensus considering if you look at the two move discussions as a whole, it's clear there's consensus (and, in my opinion, clear evidence) the current title is incorrect. That doesn't mean there's consensus the new title is better. I'll start a more comprehensive move discussion when this move review is closed and suggest an alternative title. SportingFlyerT·C 15:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). As Skarmory suggests above, I think a future RM with a stronger nomination statement has a strong chance of achieving consensus; however, I don't see any consensus as having emerged in the discussion that did occur. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
