Cute (Japanese band) – The NAC was procedurally inappropriate, but reached the appropriate substantive decision. – Decision endorsed – MBisanztalk 15:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Appeal of a WP:NAC who mistakenly applied WP:MOS-TM based on one editor's argument and upholding a 2 year old consensus from very little input and then another NAC (done by an IP in that instance); MOS-TM should be applied in this case, but not in the way that the non-admin close went, as evidence was provided that "Cute" fails the primary criterion that "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)" such that it is not used by reliable sources to refer to the subject of the page. —Ryulong (琉竜) 00:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment by closer) When reading through the points, I felt that consensus was in this, and other cases, for keeping the title how it is. Mdann52 (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:MOS-TM says that a name should follow "the standard rules of punctuation", which "°C-ute" and "C-ute" don't. I've already shown that "キュート" has also been used in Japanese. The Hepburn romanization of "キュート" is "Cute". (Here's one more example of "キュート" being used: [1]. The first time the article mentions the group, it says 「℃－ｕｔｅ（キュート）」 (like this, in brackets). Then it starts referring to it as simply "キュート".) --Moscowconnection (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please Do Not Rehash The RM
This is a formal Move Review and NOT a Requested Move Discussion. The purpose of this review is to assess the closure of the RM and not rehash the merits or details of the RM discussion. Please restrict your comments to addressing this question: Did the RM closer follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the RM?.
Endorse Recalling that Move Review "is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion," so we say, the closure adequately gauged consensus (although to be fair, oppose votes were only a slight majority) and adhered to MOS guidelines. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that Mdann52 shouldn't have closed the discussion himself, should have left it for an admin to decide. Also, there were some very strong opinions in favor of the move, and a closing person should have been more considerate of them, not just said that WP:MOS-TM says so. But I personally think that Mdann52's closing statement itself is correct. --Moscowconnection (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. The more relevant page is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure. The first, third, and fourth criteria there were certainly met. Whether "consensus or lack of consensus [was] clear" is up for debate (specifically, here). And discussion was open a bit longer than a week. It's not a situation where I would've performed an NAC (assuming I hadn't participated in discussion), but that doesn't mean it was wrong. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously there aren't enough admins to close these discussions. We need non-admin closures to get this stuff done in a sensible timeframe. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
