Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 December

Prayagraj (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

The city, known historically as Allahabad, had its name changed to 'Prayagraj' by a Hindu nationalist government in 2018. The RM was a request to change the article's name back to Allahabad. The majority of editors in the discussion supported the requested move. In the move discussion, a lot of evidence was provided which showed that the old name had continued to be the WP:COMMONNAME in scholarly and academic sources, and that the usage of the old name had not decreased relative to that of the new name. Some editors noted that the new name's usage prevailed was in news sources, which the closer reiterated in the close, however other editors noted WP:SOURCETYPES, according to which scholarly and and academic sources generally prevail over news sources, yet this was not taken into consideration in the close. When there is such a discrepancy between news sources and scholarly sources, shouldn't the latter be given precedence? The discussion regarding the closure at the closer's talk page also simply ended with an "I guess I just don't agree with your analysis" by the closer. It is clear that moving the article back to Allahabad is more in line with WP:PG. (Also, apologies for opening this review so late. I had gotten busy with stuff irl) — EarthDude (Talk) 07:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

That conversation is at User talk:Beland#Regarding your closure of Talk:Prayagraj#Requested move 28 October 2025. I still disagree with this analysis. Academic sources are generally preferred, but as I mentioned in the close, the stats on academic sources appear to be contaminated by the names of other entities, especially the university.-- Beland (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse given the amount of discussion on what this particular city should be titled over the past couple years, even with the move request breaking slightly to the supports in number, I think the closer made a very commendable close, and pointed out the difficulty in the methodology (ngrams ends at 2022, the overall source table was not limited to recent articles, and NAMECHANGE is involved). (It is not relevant to my endorse, but I would also disagree that scholarly sources should be given precedence over news sources when determining the COMMONNAME, as that is not mentioned anywhere in SOURCETYPES.) Given this is a very contentious editing area, I'd also agree that we should wait as a community for another RM. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - Sometimes I don't understand what seems to be the intensity of the concern at Move Reviews. The issue is usually which of two titles should be primary and which should be a redirect to the article. Why does it make that much difference? I understand the intensity of some participants in Deletion Review, which really is about whether an article should be in the encyclopedia, but does it matter that much what its primary title is if readers can find it with both titles? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

  In this case, it does - the official name change of this city was politically controversial, and there have been a number of RfCs and move discussions that need to be taken into account. SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Overturn to Move - It appears that the stronger case has been made that the old name is the common name. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. The question of which name was the COMMONNAME was hotly debated in the RM, but I think the closer correctly analyzed the strength of argument between the two sides; in particular, the first paragraph of their close is very similar to my own impression after reading over the RM just now. I'm also unconvinced by the argument (in the MRV nomination) that we should necessarily privilege scholarly sources over news media for the question of "what is the COMMONNAME of a present-day city"; this topic is of general interest (contra e.g. the title of an obscure historical topic or scientific concept), and so I think pulling from a broad base of sources will lead to a better read on the COMMONNAME here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Independent politician (Ireland) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

The article now known as "Independent politician (Ireland)" was formerly named "Independent politicians in Ireland" but was moved by Iveagh Gardens and also proposed by the same user, which is a conflict of interest per WP:RMCOI. That undermines the integrity of our system of consensus. Just because there was no opposition, that doesn't mean you shouldn't seek a further opinion by relisting the discussion or notifying a WikiProject per WP:RMRELIST.
This article should continue to be titled "Independent politicians in Ireland" as it was previously known to be consistent with the international precedent: "Independent politicians in Australia" per WP:CONSISTENT (or a more detailed essay at WP:TITLECON), plus it sounds more WP:NATURAL.
I haven't gotten much response from Iveagh Gardens on the message they posted on WikiProject Ireland or their talk page.
I did not know about this article so I was not able to comment on the proposal at the time. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the case for reverting the move is overstated, referring to one other article as an international precedent. Consistency in article titles between similar pages isn't an ironclad rule, as I've been pointed to myself in proposals I made (see the diversity of article title formats in Category:17th-century rebellions, or when I proposed standardising the format for censuses). That said, the difference here isn't because of how one or other article subject is named in sources. One can argue that it's reasonable for the current title to follow titles like Labour Party (Ireland) or Green Party (Ireland); on the other hand, Qwerty123M may be right that "Independent politicians in __" is a more natural disambiguation for something that is by its nature not an official title.

My justification for moving in 2023 was a practical one. It is an article that is much more likely to be linked in a piped format, so that it's more convenient for circumstances where someone is writing "Catherine Connolly is an [[Independent politician (Ireland)|]]", which will then appear as "Catherine Connolly is an Independent politician". In practical usage, although only slightly shorter, I've also found the disambiguation in brackets more convenient for tables and election results than the natural disambiguation, which is where it's most often used. As the article is now linked regularly by those contributing to pages on Irish politics, there should be some input from those at WP:IE as to which is better, or if it's worth the move.

As to process, it's unfair to say that there hasn't been much response from me. As the message on my talk page was at such a heightened level (e.g., "blatant disregard"), I thought it better to move the discussion to WT:IE, where I posted an outline of the issue as soon as I returned from a holiday. I am always happy to engage with other editors on different approaches to determine consensus. If there's consensus that Independent politicians in Ireland is a better title, even if not my preference, that's fine!

I recall considering in 2023 whether to simply move the page without a discussion (as if often done on Wikipedia, uncontroversially, if perhaps boldly), and decided to post a discussion on the move just in case, out of caution given its extensive use. Had I been acting out of an abundance of caution, it's true that I would have reposted the discussion and sought the views of WT:IE at that stage, rather than considering that the lack of comments showed it was uncontroversial. Since then, it has been linked on many more pages by a range of editors, now with 2081 direct links. I'd argue that before considering reverting the move, there should be consideration of the best article title in its own right, and not based on the precedent of one other article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Endorse move. The title is fine. The article has been at that current location for nearly three years without anybody objecting! Qwerty123M is giving the impression that Iveagh Gardens closed an active discussion in which he tried and failed to get a consensus; but the fact is he closed it because nobody at all responded (link). To say that that "undermines the integrity of our system of consensus" is just silly. Scolaire (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

• Just start a new move request. Absolutely nothing wrong happened here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• Question - Is this another hibernating review request that has been awakened by the wild bells ringing out the old? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have actually had that article on my mind to change the title of for a while now but I only made the move review on 29 December 2025 as I had not realised how to get this process started.

  I saw issues with the way that page move was handled so I am seeking community consensus for a proposed rectification. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

• Question - Should the MR be closed to allow the RM to run? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: To the first question, no. The proposer first discovered the article, and hence the RM, in early December, and argued the toss on the mover's talk page until the 29th. To the second question, yes. Closing this would be a good idea. Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

    Is it even possible for me to prematurely close this discussion? I think this discussion is still a part of the consensus-building process. I thought that a withdrawal was only possible for certain types of discussions and not others. The possibility of a withdrawal is not mentioned on the main page of move review, I take that to mean I just can't withdraw a review of this type. I can see that there is not much point in keeping this discussion active. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

    Generally withdrawal is accepted when no other editor supported overturning or relisting. There have been past move reviews which were withdrawn. I think the new RM which was opened after SportingFlyer's suggestion is a good way to proceed. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

• Request closure WP:MRNOT provides that "move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed". Since Qwerty123M posted on my talk page in early December, on each occasion they've argued by casting aspersions on my intentions, alleging blantant disregard, and so on, posting this dispute from numerous angles. This has now gone to a RM, so the MR should close. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Nine days after the move was closed, I found that the article was moved to the proposal with the least number of supports, and the closer improperly moved the page against the proposal I made that was supported by a narrow majority of participants.

• Consitutional Declaration of Syria - 3 support
• Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic - no data
• 2025 interim constitution of Syria - 1 support
• Unspecified/No clarification - 1

Despite the results, there should have been more time for other users to comment and voice their opinion, but unsurprisingly, Asianeditorz WP:BOLDLY moved the article to the proposal with zero supports without checking the opinions that users supported. Furthermore, there were a high number of comments made by the move initiator, possibly to WP:BLUDGEON the process. When I boldly moved the article to the title that was supported by the majority of participants, the move initiator and one of the users who supported the third entry objected to my move and further called my move "anti-consensus". I will respect whatever outcome this results in. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved). Interested parties are invited to read the RM discussion on the article's Talk page and also the follow-up discussion that occurred after the complainant tried to overrule the outcome of the RM with a bold move 9 days later. It is incorrect to describe the RM closer as BOLDLY moving the article to a proposal with "zero votes". Two people in the discussion supported the title that the closer used and explained in detail why, with commentary that was not rebutted. The opening statement of the RM offered two alternative new titles, and the title chosen by the closer was one of them. Another editor later commented that this title "would be much better" than the title that Freedoxm prefers, saying they were opposed to Freedoxm's suggested title "in the strongest possible sense" for P&G-based reasons that were explained. I have already explained to Freedoxm, with several supporting links, that the process is WP:NOTAVOTE. Readers are also invited to see for themselves whether bludgeoning occurred. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  "Two people in the discussion supported the title that the closer used" not exactly, one user said "Support '2025 interim constituon of Syria'. There is a mix of lowercase and uppercase capitalization". However, the user said that they were opposed to my suggestion and that they would prefer Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic over my suggestion. The other simply said "Support" with no clarification. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 07:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  I was counting myself as one of the two people. The title used by the closer was one of the alternatives I provided in the opening statement. The other person I was counting was Katzrockso. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  +1 The other two supporting my suggestion had opinions, strong statements, and facts to secure a consensus. An example would be that one of the people supporting my suggestion noted consistency with the title of the US Constitution, stating that they support Constitutional Declaration of Syria "which is capitalized in the majority of sources that reference it (similar to the U.S. Constitution)." Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

  But please note that the statement being quoted was discredited in the conversation. There were several later unrebutted remarks saying "Constitutional Declaration of Syria" was found in only a very small number of relatively obscure and generally lower quality sources (less than 10 English language sources and not independent of each other), and most of those used lowercase. A request for listing some examples to support the assertion was not answered. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Endorse close (involved) as an accurate reading of consensus. The closer didn't really have an option other than to downweight/discount all of the !votes for the "of Syria" option, as the argument that that title was a 'common name' was rebutted and not supported by evidence. This leaves the !votes for that option in the RM unsupported by P&G and the closer adequately teased out a consensus for the "of the Syrian Arab Republic" option.

To clarify, an accurate read of my !vote was a first preference for all lowercase and a second preference for the option the RM was closed as (the "of the Syrian Arab Republic" form). Katzrockso (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge it was rebutted, but it does not fully counterweight the statement made by one of the users who supported my suggestion (see above). Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). Admittedly this isn't a textbook close here - @Asianeditorz: for future reference, when closing a move request where several options are suggested, you need to clearly say which one is chosen. You also (unless it's completely obvious) need to give some explanation as to why you closed the way you did. Please read WP:RMCI and make sure you're following best practice going forward. Having said that though, it's hard to find fault with the closing decision to move the article to Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic. That was one of the options presented by the nominator, so was hardly out of left field, and it was demonstrated that it was the actual proper name title of the declaration. Several editors did l suggest having this same title but with of Syria instead, but this was clearly refuted as not being found in sources, especially in its capitalised form, and that by taking the title away from the actual proper name to an alternative title in caps, we would be making it look like a proper name when it isn't. As such, of the available options which actually comply with WP:AT and MOS:CAPS, the one chosen was the one with consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Shetland dialect (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I was surprised to see the request to move Shetland dialect closed without moving the page to Shetland (language). The alternative proposal appears not to have been considered. By my count, support was as follows:

• Shaetlan: 4 support, 4 oppose, 3 no data
• Shetland (language): 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 no data
• Shetland language: 4 support, 1 oppose, 5 no data

Shetland (language) received the strongest support. AjaxSmack’s argument was cited as a basis for not moving the page, yet AjaxSmack explicitly supported the Shetland (language) option. May I request the closure be reconsidered in light of the vote distribution and full content of the discussion (particularly the alternative proposal)? — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 15:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Move to Shetland (language). This was a very confusing discussion to read through because it was forked in the middle, and required a close reading - while there wasn't a consensus for the original move, there is clearly consensus for Shetland (language), even if weakly for a few users, and only a couple users specifically don't support Shetland (language). Furthermore AjaxSmack, whose opposition was mentioned by the closer, did not oppose the second proposal after a mis-reading. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I also don't understand why people are suggesting a moratorium on moves here. If whoever closes this decides to endorse the decision, the fact that there was consensus for a decision that wasn't the initial proposal means that there shouldn't be any reason why a second discussion can't take place immediately, to determine the clarity of the consensus for the secondary page. I wouldn't re-open this discussion, though, it's confusing enough as it is. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It's easy to miss what the closer saw and what I see. You stated, "the fact that there was consensus for a decision that wasn't the initial proposal..." Another look will yield that, technically, there were 2 clear consensuses in the alt proposal, one for Shetland (language) and one for Shetland language. Editors need time to sort that out, or else if another RM is opened too soon, there will likely be a no-consensus outcome between those two popular title dabs, "language" and "(language)". The latter might be the best title; however, editors should voluntarily take enough time to ensure viability and success of one of those two title dabs. At least, that was my take. Do you see it differently, editor SportingFlyer? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course! The clearest consensus is for Shetland (language), while others didn't comment on Shetland language. The process I would initiate wouldn't be a moratorium on any discussion, but to move the page to Shetland (language) (the one with the most consensus, and with more consensus than the current title) and allow anyone to open a new move discussion to see if Shetland language has more consensus than the new title. "There's consensus it should be moved, but we're not sure whether to put part of the title in parentheses, so it can stay at its old title" is worse than picking the option with the greatest consensus and allowing an option for a new consensus to form, especially if we "enforce" an arbitrary time period. Even if this move review is endorsed or there's no consensus, there should be an immediate allowance to gain a consensus for title other than Shaetlan. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

"Clearest consensus"? Please explain, because I don't understand how the parenthetical dab is the clearest consensus over the natural dab. To me they appear as equally clear consensuses, which have to be further discussed informally before another formal RM is attempted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Almost everyone supported the parenthetical consensus, while only half of participants discussed the natural dab consensus. There is consensus to move this page. It's possible more participants support the natural dab to the parenthetical dab, but that can easily be solved through another RM which stays on topic, not through any informal discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

So we agree to disagree. Is this the first time ever? !>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I think I remember trying to convince you on another move review recently as well! :) SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I also tend toward renaming per the arguments reviewed in the alternative proposal; however, The closer is an experienced editor and page mover. We must hear more details about the thinking which led to the overall decision not to move at all before we can render an objective review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC) – 06:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

PS Should also mention that the nom requested closure of this RM at WP:CR. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. « uninvolved » I think the comments made below coupled with the closer's explanation warrants endorsement of this RM closure. And I think any new ideas of another move request should await the standard period, so that editors can utilize the time to strengthen their rationales. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

If this is the final decision, what is the "standard period"? — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 15:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

6 months is typical. Editors can workshop the proposal in the meantime; this can include a discussion of optimal timing. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

In the past the recommended standard waiting period after a "moved" or "not moved" decision has been at least one full year. This figure has been bandied about quite a lot, because there has never been a firm figure given in P&G (not for lack of trying). The bottom line ambiguous phrase is "the longer the better"; we can assume it's because the longer one waits, the more time one has to strengthen their argument and to find new args, plus(!!!) the longer one waits, the less likely one will anger editors who have been worn out by a previous rename attempt(s). (In other words, you wait as long as you possibly can. You wait so that you may have the best possible chance of success.) Thank you for your question! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I largely agree. Paine Ellsworth is an experienced RM closer with a lot of insight into how these things typically play out. While I think there can be good reasons to re-present an RM sooner, it is often detrimental to the cause, resulting in a second failed RM which creates a higher bar for subsequent proposals to clear. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I don't like how User:Griceylipper went straight to WP:DRV here without waiting for an answer from the closer. It's quite likely that User:Celia Homeford has not seen the message yet; the account shows no activity since it was posted. A good-faith discussion with the closer should always be the first step. See also WP:DEADLINE. 162 etc. (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  @162 etc. The WP:MR advice is to "give [the closer] a few days to respond", which I did. I left a message on their talk page on 3 December as soon as I saw the outcome to not move the article, and I created the move review on 6 December. When it comes to disagreements, I would point to WP:DONTPOSTPONE in the same essay you link to.

  I would also like to point out that I started the discussion to move the article in question on 16 October, nearly two months ago. It is frustrating to wait as long as this only to have the discussion misread and moved in a way I don't think reflects the wishes of the users who contributed to the discussion. If I have been unfair at any point in the move request process, please point out to me where. I have not assumed bad faith with the closer, I just want to ensure the outcome accurately reflects the discussion, and have this sorted. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I've been away. I did not count supports or opposes, instead looking specifically for evidence demonstrating the common or most recognisable name. In the Alternative proposal section, the data presented did not support use of 'Shetland' alone or 'Shetland language' for Shaetlan. The term was shown to be uncommon and ambiguous. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Can I ask why Myceteae's call for WP:NATDIS (or WP:PARENDIS which they were also open to) is invalid here? If "Shetland dialect" is valid, I see no reason why either "Shetland language" or "Shetland (language)" shouldn't be considered perfectly reasonable in light of new scientific classification.

  I think it is disingenuous to say these terms were shown to be uncommon and ambiguous - rather, they are more difficult to prove with ngrams. As a native speaker of this language, I can tell you it is extremely common to hear both "Shaetlan" (the autonym) and "Shetland" and "the Shetland language" being to used to the language (I probably hear some variant of all these every day!) But unless someone wants to sift through the contexts of all the ngram references it will be difficult to prove this textually.

  Is it unreasonable for other users to assume my own good faith in this regard?

  Otherwise, we are going to have to start doing silly things like renaming Koala to "Koala Bear" as it's a very common name, even though they're not bears at all. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 10:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove that this terminology is used in reliable sources. You made little or no attempt to do this while the RM was going on. "I'm a Shetlander and I hear it all the time" isn't going to cut it. Zacwill (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I can assure you I did try to find a reasonable method of looking up sources but I was struggling. I don't know why I didn't think of this before, would archive.org hits count for anything:

"Shetland language"

"speak Shetland" — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 09:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

• Vacate the close and start a new Requested Move, listing each of the proposed names and asking the community to vote Yes or No on each. The options were not all listed initially in the RM in question, so that the voters were shooting at a moving target. List all the options at the outset of the new RM, and advertise it at the appropriate WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  I would prefer not to have to go through all this again. If I structured the discussion poorly, I apologise, I tried my best under the circumstances. But I don't think relisting the discussion will change the outcome of votes as above, I think it will only delay the same general intention from users again. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 10:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it was structured poorly. At least, I don't think you committed any error nor are primarily responsible for how things unfolded, but the structure and direction the discussion ultimately took did present some difficulty. Alternative proposals emerged during the course of the discussion, as is often the case. This can make the discussion hard to follow and with hindsight sometimes one wishes the initial proposal had been different, but such is life. If another RM is opened in the future, I don't think it is necessary to list all alternatives unless the nominator. That is certainly an option, but so is presenting a fresh proposal for a specific title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved). No reliable sources were provided to support "Shetland", which is not an ideal name anyway since it is ambiguous. I am not sure that is the more common name. A new RM discussion can be started, as long as the proposed title is in line with policy and supported by reliable sources in English. For my money, that might very well be the original proposal "Shaetlan", which I have seen being used elsewhere. Vpab15 (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to 'no consensus - not moved'. « involved » The closing statement and the additional comments here reflect an improper assessment of the RM discussion. I agree that consensus is not about counting !votes but closers should not ignore the shared conclusion of a majority of discussion participants without strong justification. The closer cited one editor's arguments but failed to engage with that same editor's subsequent support of an alternative proposal. To rely so heavily on a single editor's arguments while ignoring their subsequent support, as well as arguments made by others, looks like a supervote or a misread of consensus. That said, this was a complex discussion and I think other reasonable closers would have reached the same conclusion or 'no consensus', while others would have moved the page to Shetland (language). Although many editors, myself included, !voted full 'support' for the alt. proposal, some of those read more like 'weak support' and overall 'support' !votes had less clearly articulated rationales. Reopening the discussion at this time is not likely to be productive. It would be better to wait at least 6 months since the close of the RM and present a fresh proposal. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. <uninvolved> I think there was very clearly not a consensus in favor of the current title, but I can't quite agree with SportingFlyer's conclusion since there was no answer to the important question that Vpab15 asked (Any English reliable source that uses "Shetland" to refer to the language?). That said, I think there's a good chance that a discussion that focuses on one proposal and pays more attention to the sources (some of which have been newly identified here) could get us to an actionable consensus in the short term, so I don't see a need for a six-month wait. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)