This is the second time recently that I have seen this administrator close a move discussion as move, when there was in fact no consensus. I ask that this decision be overturned, or closed by an alternative admin. Jeni(talk)16:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the close was a fair assessment in line with WP:RMCI. However Jenks24, it may have been better to leave it open a bit longer to allow time for a response to my last comment on the RM. Re-listing on that basis alone would be waste of time, so I'm inclined to endorse the closure, even though as the original proposer of the RM I could be seen as favouring the wrong version.
Could you also clarify the situation with the other RM closure mentioned above? If that closure was improper, it may be relevant to this one.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. At first glance the other closure may have been problematic, and its possible you are giving undue weight to certain parts of the guidance (favouring disambiguation over naming convention). In one sense both RMs were the same, with the original titles ambiguous and naming conventions not giving a good alternative. However at Pomona there was much more discussion about both parts of that, while on Windermere the discussion was mostly about the naming convention. IMO the discussion gave policy-based reasons to ignore the naming convention which were not effectively countered, so I stand by my original assessment of the closure (though again, my opinion probably doesn't count for much here :) ).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
