- Riksdag(talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
this decission not to move the page back toparliament of Swedenis 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 throughtwosuccessive 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.--Cúchullaint/c23:58, 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 definitelynotany 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 andforum shoppingto 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.--Cúchullaint/c22:04, 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 theRiksdagitself), 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 thata userwith 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.--Cúchullaint/c14:16, 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 toendorseclosure 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.--Cúchullaint/c13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
