Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 February

2016 February
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #E2FFE2; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
 * Humour – endorsed. This is a slam dunk close, but because rationales have apparently been an issue with these discussions I will say that there is a clear consensus that Number 57's close was a valid reading of the consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

No reason was given for closing the move request. Rationale points were made by both sides of the move request, none of which were touched upon by the closer. While I am the nominator of the move request, I will support a no-movement decision if it is the community consensus, but there was no evidence against community consensus, or why legitimate policy concerns were not addressed. 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:95B4:F4A:9B7E:1497 (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I always think a line or two should be given in explanation when closing contested discussions, yes. Although kudos was given, Alex clearly did not inject sufficient humour for all involved.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse close Consensus seems pretty clear to me. Why does this issue keep being revisited? Surely more important concerns exist? Every time someone wastes community time with pointy move requests the result is the same. It's time to get over it and move on. The title is stable. AusLondonder (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse close - the consensus was crystal clear. And oppose votes are very clearly valid, as they were based on the policy WP:TITLECHANGES, which supports retention of long term stable titles in the absence of consensus to the contrary. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse close. Seriously, the conclusion was visible from outer space. If (perish the thought) I were to speculate on the closer's motivation for not spelling out the rationale, it would be that he had to bite his tongue to keep from yelling at people not to waste precious time bickering repeatedly over such a ludicrous issue. Favonian (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Although the WP:RETAIN issue is a compelling argument for returning to the American spelling, there were reasonable points on the other side, and this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the consensus.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)