User talk:MrAussieGuy

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by .

Notice for editors visiting my talk page

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 12:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC).

Semi-wikibreak notice

I am taking a semi-wikibreak from Thursday 31 July to Saturday 15 November 2025 (AEST – UTC +10). Messages on this page will continue to automatically archive in my absence and your message will be answered (if required) after a potentially extended wait time. Thank you for your understanding.– MrAussieGuy (Talk) 10:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your closing of an RM at 2010 Knox County, Tennessee mayoral election

Hello MrAussieGuy.

I don't agree with your decision on how you closed the Talk:2010 Knox County, Tennessee mayoral election RM.

I think you failed in considering the Manual of Style (MoS). As I explained in the RM, many editors responding to previous similar RMs have used arguments like "silly" and "unnecessary", i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, either unaware of MOS:GEOCOMMA or simply ignoring it. This may include editors/admins who closed those discussions merely on the grounds that there was an apparent consensus against the proposed move. But – as WP:RMCOMMENT says – "The debate is not a vote".

One other bullet point in WP:RMCOMMENT is:

Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.

I think I went the extra mile in explaining how the move meets policy and guidelines.

This is my grounds for the RM:

Also include commas when the geographical element is used as a disambiguator:

Hantratty received a PhD from the University of California, Irvine, in 1977. (correct)
Hantratty received a PhD from the University of California, Irvine in 1977. (incorrect)

How can MoS be any clearer than this? What is "Tennessee" if it isn't a geographical element used as a disambiguator?

I think the reason so few editors have responded to this RM is my thorough explanation of MOS:GEOCOMMA. Editors who have previously opposed similar RMs have now come to realize that this is what MOS:GEOCOMMA prescribes, so they don't oppose (because they have no leg to stand on) – but they also don't support, because they DONTLIKEIT.

Now, some may think (or claim) that MOS:GEOCOMMA needs a clarification, but if it does, one would have to consider the nature of such a clarification, and what chances are that it would have in reaching a consensus.

A clarification in this case can only go two ways. Either it's clarified that the second (closing) comma should be there, as already prescribed by MoS. Or it's clarified that there is an exception. While there certainly would be a discussion, the chances for a consensus of the comma being there prevailing is (at least) good, but the chances for a consensus of the comma not being there prevailing are negligible.

Regardless, without a clarification, MOS:GEOCOMMA is the default, and unless and until an (unlikely) exception reaches a consensus, it is what goes.

So, respectfully, and per WP:IMR, I ask you to reconsider.

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HandsomeFella,

Thank you for reaching out regarding the close of the RM at Talk:2010 Knox County, Tennessee mayoral election § Requested move 6 July 2025 and apologies for the delay in responding. I would like to take this opportunity to further explain my rational for the closing result. Although MOS:GEOCOMMA prescribes the second comma (as you explained in the RM and here) the consensus – at this RM discussion, similar discussions (cited in this RM discussion), and an RfC started by you – is that is not rigidly applied in titling articles. This is not a case of editors or RM closers ignoring MOS:GEOCOMMA on the basis they don't like it but rather editors acknowledging that titles and full sentences are not always punctuated in the same manner and forming consensus to depart from what is explicitly written in policy (as allowed by WP:ADHERENCE).

I hope that clarifies my thinking for you. However, if you wish to continue with the move review (per WP:IMR) feel free to refer the matter to WP:MRV (bering in mind that MRV "is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." (WP:MRNOT). If you want me to further explain or clarify my rational in the meantime please let me know by replying here.– MrAussieGuy (Talk) 13:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for responding.

"Although MOS:GEOCOMMA prescribes the second comma [...] the consensus ... is that is not rigidly applied in titling articles"? Where is that consensus documented? I have not found it anywhere in Manual of Style. If there were such a consensus, it would surely be documented somewhere, since it would create an exception to a rule in the guideline.

Or are you possibly referring to consensuses on individual RMs, like this one and others? If so, that would indicate that your determination of consensus on the RM in question here came from vote-counting rather than observance of the guideline, which clearly states that "The debate is not a vote".

Your claim that "titles and full sentences are not punctuated in the same manner" seem to be anecdotal. I must ask again, is that documented somewhere? While article titles rarely consist of a full sentence, what they do consist of must of course follow the same spelling, grammar and (if present) punctuation rules. Why shouldn't they?

I will refer the matter to WP:MR. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my preceding reply, yes the consensus comes from those preceding RMs. In quoting me to ask that question you seemed to have replaced the answer to it with an ellipsis. Consensus isn’t always written in policy sometimes it’s in discussions (that being the point of WP:ADHERENCE). As for the title vs sentence differences it’s usually to keep the titles short. Note that the consensus from older RMs and punctuation between titles and full sentences aren’t by arguments they were presented by the other editors involved in the RM your currently seeking review of. As the uninvolved closer of this discussion (per WP:RMCI) I do not have an opinion on the title of these (or similar) articles and I’m very much aware that it’s not a ballot. I am simply acting to determine consensus (using RMCI). If believe the closing result is incorrect (after this explanation) please proceed with step 2 (and onwards) of WP:IMR.– MrAussieGuy (Talk) 21:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RM close at Richard Butler

Initiating WP:IMR as a result of your close. The reasoning offered for this MR seems to misinterpret a guideline (WP:NCDAB), which then in-turn ignores WP policy (WP:COMMONNAME). The explanation you provide insufficiently repeats the cited guideline with no other comprehensive explanation. There certainly does not appear to be consensus within the existing discussion, which raises further questions about this close, so before this goes any further I'd like to know why you might specifically see this MR as necessary in spite of the lack of consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DN I understand you oppose my close and as it was also opposed at WP:RM/TR I have decided it be relist the RM to allow for further discussion and a clear consensus to form. – MrAussieGuy (Talk) 00:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I think your close was fine per WP:DETCON Kowal2701 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]