Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 January
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
riksdag is a word, not a name. This move is a total misstake. The word is not even only used for the Parliament of SwedenRailie May (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I feel this move was rushed through without a full hearing. The move was open for a full week, but late in the week, an editor proposed a significant change to the proposed targets. There was also ongoing discussion which I was unable to continue because the discussion was closed very shortly afterward. Finally, I also feel there was no consensus for the given result; only one person other than the nominator commented in favor. It's possible the closer closed based on the merits of the arguments, but the only offered argument was "standardization", without explaining why that was desirable, and without entertaining arguments why it might not be in this particular case, even if it generally is. (I asked Mike Selinker about the close, and he explicitly suggested a review (deletion review, actually, but I got his point).) Powers T 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |