- Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
With 12 !votes in favor and 10 against (without including the nominator), the options had a very narrow difference margin and the result is closer to "No consensus" (Guayana Esequiba → Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute). Issues mentioned in the closing statements, such as WP:NDESC, can be solved with further expansion of the article. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per nominator. JM (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement from closer. Not much to add other than the close itself - which went into some detail, I think - and the discussion with closer. To be crystal clear, the discussion was not closed by raw !vote counting (especially considering there were some !voters with fairly shallow edit histories on both sides, muddying such a count), but even if it was, 13 support to 10 oppose is not an unreasonable threshold for a move - that just makes it borderline. As mentioned in the close and on the discussion, one of the main arguments by opposers was that the article was "really" on the region, while the nominator and supporters suggested "territorial dispute" was both precise to the article content, and consistent with other articles on similar topics. An inspection of the article at time of close shows that the move supporters had the better case. The Colonial history, 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century sections overwhelmingly focus on things like which country claimed the region, surveyors marking the boundary, diplomatic crises, and arbitration attempts. That's not a history of the region-in-general, but clearly a discussion of who owns the territory, on what grounds, and how they pressed their case. To be sure, there are a few short sections on the region-in-general, but "Demographics" and "Political divisions" are all of three sentences between them, and basically background for the dispute. To be sure, as the close noted, I do think that there are some policy-backed reasons to favor the original title, such as concision. But Guayana Esequiba merely being an acceptable title doesn't mean it has to be the title; the new title is also acceptable as well, and clearly the move supporters felt it helped maintain neutrality better. That preference for Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, which clearly gained substantial support, seems to have gained the consensus of the community in my reading. SnowFire (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. <uninvolved> While a close call and tough decision, that is a reasonable closure. Good closing statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. (uninvolved) The close was reasonable and within discretion as in my opinion the supporters have the stronger argument that the previous title has NPOV issues. Lightoil (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
