User:ModernDayTrilobite/The case for RMNOMIN

Compared to the other consensus-building processes on Wikipedia, the requested move (RM) process has a feature that may strike editors as odd: the requested move closing instructions specify explicitly that no minimum participation is required before the closure of an RM. This means that, if no one has objected to an RM that has been open for the full seven days, and the request would not contravene naming conventions, a page mover is given discretion to close the discussion and move the page. This recommendation, anchored via the shortcut WP:RMNOMIN, can seem paradoxical at first glance. How can a consensus-building process come to a conclusion if few editors – potentially even none besides the nominator – have weighed in? The answer is that, on closer examination, RMNOMIN extends from principles laid out in some of Wikipedia's core policies. Specifically: It's not always the case that RMNOMIN closures will turn out to be correct in the long term. Perhaps an interested WikiProject was never made aware of the RM, or a user with relevant insights was on a wikibreak when the RM was open, causing information to be missed. However, this is a risk that comes into play with the closure of any discussion; in my experience, an RMNOMIN closure doesn't heighten that risk by any discernible degree. As long as the closer is careful and mindful of policy when they review the discussion, they should feel comfortable closing even thinly attended RMs.
 * 1) WP:BOLD. The RM process is used to discuss whether to move a page before the proposed move actually takes place; in this way, it essentially skips directly to the "discuss" stage of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. This is favorable, because moving pages can be a complicated process and require a fair amount of cleanup; if everyone boldly moved pages on a whim, controversial moves would deteriorate into tedious move wars. However, if an RM has been open for a week and received no pushback, it's highly likely that there isn't significant controversy over the title. With hindsight, it turns out that the nominator would have been safe to make a bold move in that instance—so it becomes productive to allow the nominator's boldness to take effect.
 * 2) WP:NOTBURO. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If there's no opposition to a proposed move, and you don't have anything to add to the discussion yourself, it's more useful to close and resolve the discussion than to wait around for other people to agree first. Improvements to the project will come about more efficiently if people proactively adopt proposals that are generally agreeable, rather than waiting for them to accrue some number of rubber stamps before action can be taken.