, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the claim is that this is to a large extent about precedence and enforcement of policies, then it may be better to not paint this as a polarized debate between two fractions. Granted, I believe there are two vocal parties on opposite sides of this debate, but  is right that there are intermediate positions as well. However, I'd like to stress again that this is not about which moves should be carried out. I don't think the ArbCom would ever consider deciding on which articles should be renamed. Rather, this is about what steps the community can take to ensure that global decisions (naming conventions) arrived at by consensus are not blocked locally (when deciding what title to use for a specific article), or what to do when local decisions run counter to more encompassing principles. For illustrating this particular kind of problem, it's sufficient to have two parties that disagree. The precise nature and extent of the disagreement is not really that important.  13:53