Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 February

< 2013 January	Move review archives	2013 March >

2013 February edit

Riksdag – Close endorsed – :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

this decission not to move the page back to parliament of Sweden is taken against the statistics shown in the discussion, against how articles on Wikipedia about national parliaments are usually named and on what seems as purely personal opinions.891 mm (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. Enough's enough. There was nothing irregular or out of process in that close. It has been well established through two successive RMs that the term "Riksdag" is a well established term in English sources for Sweden's parliament. The close was totally in line with the relevant policies as well as the local consensus. Time to move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting, I have not seen this before, but it seems Cuchullain especially has very strong personal opinions on this just because he closed the previous request. The last close was made due to a narrow margin majority built partly on people not logged in. I can't see that what he claims to be "well established" is very well established based on the statistics prestented, nor that it is absolutely in line with relevant policies. There is definitely not any form of consensus neither in the last discussion nor in the one before it, bu there was a consensus in the first request some years ago, a consensus which the last two discussions have overruled. (You shouldn't call anything a consensus when there clearly is no consensus. This was a majority decission, and a narrow one as such.) -Johan- (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, nonsense. The only "strong personal opinions" I have here are against editors railroading the process and forum shopping to get their way, which is what happened with that third RM and now this move review. The RM I closed is not at issue here, though FWIW I stand by my decision - the evidence unequivocally showed that "Riksdag" is well established in English (and was evidently comparably common to "Parliament of Sweden"), and the local consensus was strongly for the move. In the RM we're actually discussing, regentspark's close was totally in line with policy, and there's no way to read that consensus as supporting a move. There are no grounds to overturn it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that the whole process on the name for the Swedish legislature which started with a move request, initiated by myself in November 2012, have been surprisingly thorough, and the best arguments ultimately prevailed in the end. As a native speaker of Swedish I find it simply unfathomable why some less eloquent compatriots of mine holds such deeply held affection and preference for referring to the national legislature as a “parliament”, even when it is clearly established in the preceding discussions that the term “riksdag”, as a noun, have frequently been used by Anglophone writers (and the Riksdag itself), and have been used as such so for at least over a period spanning 150 years. Unfortunately it seems to be the ugly face of a minority complex of Swedish speakers toward English, with a rather strange twist: where non-native language terminology is, by default, always assumed to be the superior choice, even in those rare cases when native terminology have been appropriated in English for certain limited purposes.RicJac (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What's also interesting is that a user with 19 edits in 7 years somehow stumbled upon one of the most obscure processes in Wikipedia despite having "not seen this before". This series of discussions seems to have attracted a lot of input from mutually agreeing Swedish users with otherwise low levels of activity.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is not another move request (thank goodness), now is the time to review arguments and closure. The last review about this title was January, but I closed it as "procedural closure" since it was four days after another request was initiated. After reading every argument, the closure should have been "no consensus". However, I have no choice except to endorse closure as "not moved" because "Swedish parliament" is too ambiguous to refer to which. Also, supporters are using just mere numbers to justify their votes, but their research abilities must have rushed in. --George Ho (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute the close if it had not been a month. Clearly there was no consensus to move, but neither was there any consensus, so I would not have picked sides, closed it as no move, and suggested that it be revisited in a month or two. There is, though, a strong argument to return the article to the last stable title, Parliament of Sweden, which it had been moved to in 2007. Apteva (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I probably would have closed it as no consensus, but "not moved" was also a reasonable closure as there were some very strong arguments on that side. Certainly I don't believe there was a consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modify close from "not moved" to "no consensus to move". Reject this MR nomination because statistics don't trump reason, and arguments were well reasoned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over 5 weeks, with no new comment for 3. Time to shut this down.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Range (mathematics) – Closure endorsed without any restriction on initiating a requested moves discussion. – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The proposal to move was closed by Tiggerjay with the result "No consensus". I agree that there is no consensus to move the article from Range (mathematics) to Range (function) (which was the title first suggested by Aurochs when he started his move request). However, I humbly suggest that there is in fact some sort of consensus to move the article from Range (mathematics) to Range of a function, with two implicit supporting !votes by myself ([1]) and Aurochs ([2], changing the target of his move request), one explicit supporting !vote by The Evil IP address ([3]), and one "Neutral" !vote by 76.65.128.43 ([4]) (who was opposed to renaming the article to "Range (function)", assuming that the comments by the anonymous user with this IP address were in fact made by the same person). I had left a note at Tiggerjay's talk page ([5]) and another note at the move request itself ([6]) but as far as I know, Tiggerjay has not replied. Just one day after the previous move request was closed, 50.193.171.69 opened a new move request, again suggesting Range (function) as the new name. The proposer 50.193.171.69 has since commented that he or she had not seen the previous move request and has withdrawn the move second request, adding a comment supporting the title Range of a function instead ([7]). —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the closure, there had been no active discussion for about 2 weeks, and during that time there was only one support and one neutral, in addition to the requester. Since the prior rename was strongly opposed, and they only changed their !vote to neutral, left to question if there was consensus on this issue. I would suggest relisting to see if more attention to this move request would gain more input from other editors. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Perhaps start another move proposal. The consensus was right; the closure was right; everything else was on the mark. To start another proposal: {{subst:requested move|?|TYPE A REASON}} Why was move review suggested? "Move review" should not be a rehash of move requests. As for relisting it, perhaps starting another request is the way to go. --George Ho (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I endorse Tiggerjay's close as a totally reasonable conclusion to that discussion. You have to parse pretty closely to get a consensus out of that, and considering it's for a separate name than was originally requested, "no consensus" is a reasonable outcome. At this point, if you think another title will be more suitable I'd recommend a new RM rather than move review - and please don't open a move to "?". That's a huge waste of everyone's time; pick the title you think best before starting the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cuchullain. The close as 'no consensus' is reasonable. But, looking through the discussion, it does seem that the only strong oppose is not for range of a function but for range (function). The simplest thing to do is probably to start a new move request which clearly states that the previous two move requests show clear support for range of a function. While this may seem bureaucratic, the confusion arising from the changes to the first move request and the immediate opening of the second move request warrant that extra bit of overhead. --regentspark (comment) 15:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Christian POV on Wikipedia – Speedy close; ongoing discussion, page not moved anywhere, thus no move the review. – :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There was a lack of consensus to move - several arguments against the move remained unaddressed.St Anselm (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which arguments remain unaddressed? You're the only one opposed while 5 editors supported it. Pass a Method talk 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no closure on original discussion yet, so consensus is not yet official. Also, the move and revert-move should have never been made in the first place without uninvolved administrator. I was going for speedy close, but now I'm unsure. --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.