Talk:1742 vote of no confidence against the government of Robert Walpole

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 28 September 2016[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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn per nominator (per WP:SNOW). Andrewa is clearly right; this move request could be misread as WP:POINTY, that of which I must stress was not the intention. I would have liked to welcome a broader debate with these articles, sure, but I do not want to appear disruptive, hence speedy closure. --Nevéselbert 00:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– Given the result of Talk:1979 vote of no confidence in the government of James Callaghan#Requested move 11 September 2016 and per WP:CONSISTENCY, it makes logical sense to have these pages moved as well. I decided not to move these pages myself in part due to the intriguing argument put forth by Andrewa. --Nevéselbert 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose all. No case has been made that consistency should overrule usage in these cases, nor that usage supports a move. Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

My initial reaction is that this should be closed immediately as pointy. Andrewa (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: That wasn't meant to be the intention, I just wanted to gauge a consensus around these article titles. If I may, would you care to enlighten me as to what should be done instead? Thanks.--Nevéselbert 02:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are several possible options, but this isn't a good one IMO. You could for a start confirm that I've correctly guessed below what my intriguing argument was, and then perhaps we can discuss it if you feel that it's so significant. Is my guess regarding consistency (below) also correct? Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My intriguing argument referred to above reads in full What I think is happening here is that English usage is changing, so reliable sources tend to use the more formal but now archaic "against" for older incidents. In any case, it's up to the proponents to demonstrate that the current usage is "against" for this particular incident, and they have not done so. Consistency does not come in to it as these titles are from reliable sources rather than our own natural language constructions. [1]

While that argument may or may not be accepted (the RM in question did close as consensus against that move, proposed of course by User:Neve-selbert), there is no attempt above to demonstrate... the current usage, so the claim that I have somehow motivated this RM is itself intriguing. I am guessing that my claim that consistency does not come in to it is what is being tested here. Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that no attempt has been made to answer this argument, I've now formally !voted oppose all, and still think a speedy close should be considered. Andrewa (talk) 15:23, 29 September 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.