269:
some less eloquent compatriots of mine holds such deeply held affection and preference for referring to the national legislature as a âparliamentâ, even when it is clearly established in the preceding discussions that the term âriksdagâ, as a noun, have frequently been used by
Anglophone writers (and the
700:
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
338:
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
318:
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
226:
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
661:
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
722:
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
268:
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
231:
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
250:
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
273:
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
292:
with 19 edits in 7 years somehow stumbled upon one of the most obscure processes in
Knowledge 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
723:
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. --
251:
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.--
915:- 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. --
208:
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
360:. 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.
323:
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.
596:) (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
851:
186:
is taken against the statistics shown in the discussion, against how articles on Knowledge about national parliaments are usually named and on what seems as purely personal opinions.
961:
227:
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
686:
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. --
374:
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. --
857:
869:
821:
509:
681:- Perhaps start another move proposal. The consensus was right; the closure was right; everything else was on the mark. To start another proposal:
37:
817:
766:
662:
consensus on this issue. I would suggest relisting to see if more attention to this move request would gain more input from other editors.
47:
629:
615:
637:
that he or she had not seen the previous move request and has withdrawn the move second request, adding a comment supporting the title
588:
515:
712:
705:
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.--
395:
300:
274:
superior choice, even in those rare cases when native terminology have been appropriated in English for certain limited purposes.
258:
216:
882:
157:
42:
204:. Enough's enough. There was nothing irregular or out of process in that close. It has been well established through
163:
651:
21:
579:
527:
479:
246:
Oh, nonsense. The only "strong personal opinions" I have here are against editors railroading the process and
902:
247:
647:
683:{{subst:requested move|?<!-- I'm not kidding; "?" is the best way to open up all possibilities. --: -->
937:
801:
745:
729:
459:
411:
107:
17:
709:
392:
340:
297:
255:
213:
183:
920:
784:
691:
667:
638:
561:
557:
556:). However, I humbly suggest that there is in fact some sort of consensus to move the article from
539:
475:
432:
379:
329:
90:
924:
907:
890:
790:
734:
717:
695:
671:
655:
448:
400:
383:
369:
352:
333:
305:
283:
263:
241:
221:
195:
96:
897:
886:
876:
There was a lack of consensus to move - several arguments against the move remained unaddressed.
896:
Which arguments remain unaddressed? You're the only one opposed while 5 editors supported it.
365:
237:
724:
625:
543:
538:
with the result "No consensus". I agree that there is no consensus to move the article from
348:
279:
191:
706:
389:
294:
252:
210:
770:â Speedy close; ongoing discussion, page not moved anywhere, thus no move the review. â
916:
776:
687:
663:
611:
597:
535:
375:
325:
82:
955:
877:
445:
570:
547:
441:
361:
289:
233:
175:
127:
701:
title will be more suitable I'd recommend a new RM rather than move review - and
344:
275:
187:
578:, changing the target of his move request), one explicit supporting !vote by
388:
It's been over 5 weeks, with no new comment for 3. Time to shut this down.--
614:
has not replied. Just one day after the previous move request was closed,
270:
123:
72:
319:
have been "no consensus". However, I have no choice except to
864:
844:
836:
828:
643:
633:
620:
607:
602:
593:
584:
575:
566:
552:
522:
502:
494:
486:
170:
150:
142:
134:
564:, with two implicit supporting !votes by myself (
605:) and another note at the move request itself (
8:
182:this decission not to move the page back to
800:The following is an archived debate of the
458:The following is an archived debate of the
106:The following is an archived debate of the
759:
425:
65:
546:(which was the title first suggested by
440:without any restriction on initiating a
962:Knowledge move review monthly listings
343:, which it had been moved to in 2007.
232:decission, and a narrow one as such.)
7:
818:Knowledge:Christian POV on Knowledge
767:Knowledge:Christian POV on Knowledge
940:of the page listed in the heading.
748:of the page listed in the heading.
534:The proposal to move was closed by
414:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
288:What's also interesting is that
936:The above is an archive of the
744:The above is an archive of the
410:The above is an archive of the
628:as the new name. The proposer
587:), and one "Neutral" !vote by
1:
925:03:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
908:02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
891:02:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
791:08:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
735:15:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
718:21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
696:15:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
672:22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
656:10:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
449:12:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
353:06:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
334:15:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
284:15:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
264:22:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
242:16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
222:23:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
196:18:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
30:
553:he started his move request
978:
401:13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
97:01:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
384:12:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
370:10:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
306:14:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
943:Please do not modify it.
807:Please do not modify it.
751:Please do not modify it.
610:) but as far as I know,
465:Please do not modify it.
417:Please do not modify it.
113:Please do not modify it.
339:the last stable title,
18:Knowledge:Move review
341:Parliament of Sweden
184:parliament of Sweden
43:Move review archives
804:of the page above.
639:Range of a function
634:has since commented
624:, again suggesting
580:The Evil IP address
562:Range of a function
558:Range (mathematics)
540:Range (mathematics)
476:Range (mathematics)
462:of the page above.
433:Range (mathematics)
110:of the page above.
76:â Close endorsed â
621:a new move request
950:
949:
758:
757:
733:
715:
424:
423:
398:
303:
261:
219:
56:
55:
969:
945:
905:
900:
867:
847:
839:
831:
809:
789:
787:
781:
780:
760:
753:
727:
713:
685:
684:|TYPE A REASON}}
648:Tobias Bergemann
645:
636:
626:Range (function)
623:
609:
604:
595:
586:
577:
568:
555:
544:Range (function)
525:
505:
497:
489:
467:
438:Closure endorsed
426:
419:
396:
301:
259:
217:
173:
153:
145:
137:
115:
95:
93:
87:
86:
66:
52:
36:
31:
977:
976:
972:
971:
970:
968:
967:
966:
952:
951:
941:
903:
898:
863:
862:
856:
850:
843:
842:
835:
834:
827:
826:
805:
785:
778:
777:
771:
749:
682:
642:
632:
619:
606:
601:
592:
583:
574:
565:
551:
521:
520:
514:
508:
501:
500:
493:
492:
485:
484:
463:
442:requested moves
415:
169:
168:
162:
156:
149:
148:
141:
140:
133:
132:
111:
91:
84:
83:
77:
64:
57:
50:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
975:
973:
965:
964:
954:
953:
948:
947:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
874:
873:
860:
854:
848:
840:
832:
824:
812:
811:
796:
795:
794:
793:
756:
755:
740:
739:
738:
737:
720:
698:
675:
674:
600:'s talk page (
532:
531:
518:
512:
506:
498:
490:
482:
470:
469:
454:
453:
452:
451:
444:discussion. â
422:
421:
406:
405:
404:
403:
386:
372:
355:
336:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
248:forum shopping
180:
179:
166:
160:
154:
146:
138:
130:
118:
117:
102:
101:
100:
99:
63:
58:
54:
53:
45:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
974:
963:
960:
959:
957:
946:
944:
939:
934:
933:
926:
922:
918:
914:
911:
910:
909:
906:
901:
899:Pass a Method
895:
894:
893:
892:
888:
884:
881:
880:
871:
866:
859:
853:
846:
838:
830:
823:
819:
816:
815:
814:
813:
810:
808:
803:
798:
797:
792:
788:
782:
774:
769:
768:
764:
763:
762:
761:
754:
752:
747:
742:
741:
736:
731:
726:
721:
719:
716:
710:
708:
704:
699:
697:
693:
689:
680:
677:
676:
673:
669:
665:
660:
659:
658:
657:
653:
649:
644:
640:
635:
631:
630:50.193.171.69
627:
622:
617:
616:50.193.171.69
613:
608:
603:
599:
594:
590:
585:
581:
576:
572:
567:
563:
559:
554:
549:
545:
541:
537:
529:
524:
517:
511:
504:
496:
488:
481:
477:
474:
473:
472:
471:
468:
466:
461:
456:
455:
450:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
430:
429:
428:
427:
420:
418:
413:
408:
407:
402:
399:
393:
391:
387:
385:
381:
377:
373:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
337:
335:
331:
327:
322:
317:
307:
304:
298:
296:
291:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
272:
267:
266:
265:
262:
256:
254:
249:
245:
244:
243:
239:
235:
230:
225:
224:
223:
220:
214:
212:
207:
203:
202:Endorse close
200:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
185:
177:
172:
165:
159:
152:
144:
136:
129:
125:
122:
121:
120:
119:
116:
114:
109:
104:
103:
98:
94:
88:
80:
75:
74:
70:
69:
68:
67:
62:
61:2013 February
59:
49:
46:
44:
41:
39:
33:
32:
23:
19:
942:
935:
912:
878:
875:
806:
799:
772:
765:
750:
743:
702:
678:
589:76.65.128.43
533:
464:
457:
437:
431:
416:
409:
357:
320:
228:
205:
201:
181:
112:
105:
78:
71:
60:
38:2013 January
938:move review
802:move review
746:move review
725:regentspark
460:move review
412:move review
293:activity.--
108:move review
779:Salvidrim!
707:CĂșchullain
390:CĂșchullain
295:CĂșchullain
253:CĂșchullain
211:CĂșchullain
85:Salvidrim!
48:2013 March
917:George Ho
688:George Ho
664:Tiggerjay
641:instead (
612:Tiggerjay
598:Tiggerjay
536:Tiggerjay
376:SmokeyJoe
326:George Ho
956:Category
446:Armbrust
20: |
913:Comment
858:archive
837:history
730:comment
679:Endorse
618:opened
571:Aurochs
548:Aurochs
516:archive
495:history
362:Jenks24
358:Endorse
321:endorse
271:Riksdag
234:-Johan-
164:archive
143:history
124:Riksdag
73:Riksdag
883:Anselm
703:please
569:) and
345:Apteva
290:a user
276:RicJac
188:891 mm
865:watch
852:links
550:when
523:watch
510:links
209:on.--
171:watch
158:links
51:: -->
16:<
921:talk
904:talk
887:talk
845:logs
829:edit
822:talk
692:talk
668:talk
652:talk
646:). â
503:logs
487:edit
480:talk
380:talk
366:talk
349:talk
330:talk
280:talk
238:talk
192:talk
151:logs
135:edit
128:talk
35:<
868:) (
560:to
542:to
526:) (
229:not
206:two
174:) (
22:Log
958::
923:)
889:)
879:St
870:RM
783:·
773::)
694:)
670:)
654:)
528:RM
436:â
382:)
368:)
351:)
332:)
324:--
282:)
240:)
194:)
176:RM
89:·
79::)
919:(
885:(
872:)
861:|
855:|
849:|
841:|
833:|
825:|
820:(
786:â
775:·
732:)
728:(
714:c
711:/
690:(
666:(
650:(
591:(
582:(
573:(
530:)
519:|
513:|
507:|
499:|
491:|
483:|
478:(
397:c
394:/
378:(
364:(
347:(
328:(
302:c
299:/
278:(
260:c
257:/
236:(
218:c
215:/
190:(
178:)
167:|
161:|
155:|
147:|
139:|
131:|
126:(
92:â
81:·
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.