Talk:Sirgah

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Andy M. Wang in topic Requested move

Requested move edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus was reached after 3 weeks and a relisting. There was no follow-up from uninvolved editors about the proof that "the variant 'Seirgah' is more standard for enwiki transliteration standards. Per rm procedure, page is not moved. Consider adding also Romanized as Sīrgāh or Seīrgāh– in the lead as suggested by DerBorg. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply


SirgahSeirgah – I add the requested move in the standard form after Mapmeister requested it. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose - Per Carlossuarez46, the user who created the page and the related provincial navbox. Details for the reason of my vote are here, in which he explained the reasons of this transliteration. Anyway, at least, we can add the text –also Romanized as Sīrgāh or Seīrgāh– in the lead. Btw, if is proved that the variant "Seirgah" is more standard for enwiki transliteration standards, I could change my vote. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - Per my explanation, here, in which I respond to the comments. I do believe we should add the text –also Romanized as Sīrgāh– since it is already publicized that way, although incorrectly. Mapmeister (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.