![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:1833 UK Election Map.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
United Kingdom general election, 1832 → United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 – Voting in this election ended in 1833. See United States presidential election, 1788–89 for precedent. -- Neve: selbert 17:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This should be moved back to the old name. Google returns 81 results for "1832 general election" versus 31 results for "1832-33 general election" (all of those results are Wikipedia articles that have been edited to include the changed title) and 47 results for "general election of 1832" versus 1 result for "general election of 1832-33" (which is a typo in the Google result). The standard reference works for this period (e.g. the New Oxford History of England) describe this as the "1832 election" or the "election of 1832". There is no evidence that the common name of this election includes 1833.-- Britannicus ( talk) 21:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus is to move all the pages/subpages as proposed. The only oppose presented in the discussion is regarding use of subpages in article, which is currently being discussed at Talk:List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832#Use of subpages. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
– the current titles were adopted at a
RM discussion in February 2018. That renaming from "1832" to "1832–33" was based on
original research by the nominator, rather than on the name used in
reliable sources, per policy at
WP:COMMONNAME. As noted above by others since the close of that discussion, and evidenced as in the table below, reliable sources overwhelmingly support using the single year 1832 as the date of this election. Particular weight should be attached to the evidence below of usage in the extensive scholarly and authoritative work of
The History of Parliament Trust.
The balance of numbers in the previous discussion supported the move, but
WP:NOTVOTE, and the only !vote founded in policy was the lone oppose which correctly invoked
WP:COMMONNAME. The non-admin closure by @
Usernamekiran appears to have just made a headcount, and as such did not follow the closing instructions at
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining_consensus. The previous closure was manifestly flawed, but rather than take it to
WP:MOVEREVIEW, it seems simpler to just open a new move discussion to seek a positive consensus on the substantive issue.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources, I searched Google Books rather than doing a general google web search. Since Google News is unlike to be helpful in searching a 186-year-old topic, I searched Google Scholar instead. I also searched JSTOR, which consists solely of scholarly journals and books.
Source | "1832 general election" | "1832-33 general election" | "1832–33 general election" | "1832-1833 general election" | "1832–1833 general election" |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The History of Parliament | 255 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Google Books | 184 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
Google Scholar | 54 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
JSTOR | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopediais disallowed, which this does. If you want to change that guideline, go ahead and raise it there, but there is absolutely no reason for a WP:local consensus discussion. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
(currently) uninvolved comment when I closed the discussion last time, I didnt agree with the request/consensus because of
WP:DATERANGE. But the consensus was to move the article. As
BrownHairedGirl pointed out correctly, the only argument which was backed by a policy was ironically an oppose. I did weigh it, but it was the a lone vote. Last time (another move discussion), when I closed the discussion based on rational arguments, and policies provided; I was said to biased view/OR, and imposed my own thoughts/view on the close. Hence I closed previous request in discussion the way I did. In the hindsight, I should have relisted the discussion with a comment. Looking back at the discussion (which was from my early/inexperienced days as page mover), makes me feel I should have relisted it. I apologise for my mistake, which lead to the current discussion consuming everybody's time. Sorry again. —usernamekiran
(talk)
19:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:1833 UK Election Map.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
United Kingdom general election, 1832 → United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 – Voting in this election ended in 1833. See United States presidential election, 1788–89 for precedent. -- Neve: selbert 17:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This should be moved back to the old name. Google returns 81 results for "1832 general election" versus 31 results for "1832-33 general election" (all of those results are Wikipedia articles that have been edited to include the changed title) and 47 results for "general election of 1832" versus 1 result for "general election of 1832-33" (which is a typo in the Google result). The standard reference works for this period (e.g. the New Oxford History of England) describe this as the "1832 election" or the "election of 1832". There is no evidence that the common name of this election includes 1833.-- Britannicus ( talk) 21:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus is to move all the pages/subpages as proposed. The only oppose presented in the discussion is regarding use of subpages in article, which is currently being discussed at Talk:List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832#Use of subpages. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
– the current titles were adopted at a
RM discussion in February 2018. That renaming from "1832" to "1832–33" was based on
original research by the nominator, rather than on the name used in
reliable sources, per policy at
WP:COMMONNAME. As noted above by others since the close of that discussion, and evidenced as in the table below, reliable sources overwhelmingly support using the single year 1832 as the date of this election. Particular weight should be attached to the evidence below of usage in the extensive scholarly and authoritative work of
The History of Parliament Trust.
The balance of numbers in the previous discussion supported the move, but
WP:NOTVOTE, and the only !vote founded in policy was the lone oppose which correctly invoked
WP:COMMONNAME. The non-admin closure by @
Usernamekiran appears to have just made a headcount, and as such did not follow the closing instructions at
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining_consensus. The previous closure was manifestly flawed, but rather than take it to
WP:MOVEREVIEW, it seems simpler to just open a new move discussion to seek a positive consensus on the substantive issue.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources, I searched Google Books rather than doing a general google web search. Since Google News is unlike to be helpful in searching a 186-year-old topic, I searched Google Scholar instead. I also searched JSTOR, which consists solely of scholarly journals and books.
Source | "1832 general election" | "1832-33 general election" | "1832–33 general election" | "1832-1833 general election" | "1832–1833 general election" |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The History of Parliament | 255 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Google Books | 184 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
Google Scholar | 54 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
JSTOR | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopediais disallowed, which this does. If you want to change that guideline, go ahead and raise it there, but there is absolutely no reason for a WP:local consensus discussion. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
(currently) uninvolved comment when I closed the discussion last time, I didnt agree with the request/consensus because of
WP:DATERANGE. But the consensus was to move the article. As
BrownHairedGirl pointed out correctly, the only argument which was backed by a policy was ironically an oppose. I did weigh it, but it was the a lone vote. Last time (another move discussion), when I closed the discussion based on rational arguments, and policies provided; I was said to biased view/OR, and imposed my own thoughts/view on the close. Hence I closed previous request in discussion the way I did. In the hindsight, I should have relisted the discussion with a comment. Looking back at the discussion (which was from my early/inexperienced days as page mover), makes me feel I should have relisted it. I apologise for my mistake, which lead to the current discussion consuming everybody's time. Sorry again. —usernamekiran
(talk)
19:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)