1065:. Vastly most of the tough decisions I've made at RM and in other situations have not needed the light of day of a move nor any other type of review. When I see a decision might be tough, I do as much research as possible before I make it. And I'm not so sure that others here at MR do a whole lot of research before they choose to overturn. What we have here is a 3:1 !vote to support, with supporters having the superior arguments. Nothing more, nothing less, with the exception of a single objector who just won't accept that there was consensus to rename the article. And all this for going from one common spelling of a given name to another. I will continue to stand by my close as the right thing to have been done.
765:
opposer cited no policy nor guideline in their initial rationale, but only later as more of an afterthought in response to a supporter. In my opinion the supporters had the stronger arguments in favor of the page move. When I came to this discussion it was the oldest requested move in a long list of backlogged proposals. After my analysis I made my best call to close the old request in a manner consistent with
Knowledge's closing instructions, so I stand by my decision. Thank you for your consideration in this.
367:: while it is clear that the only commentator appears to have thought this was an articles for deletion discussion, because only one person commented on this move request so it would be wrong to say that there is consensus for the move. The discussion should have been relisted given that it had only been up for seven days and only had one single off-topic comment. That being said, despite knowing very little about this topic, it only took me a couple of seconds to come up with a number of objections to this move,
1447:. Perhaps that gives you the idea that there ought be a general RfC somewhere to decide the language versus dialect issues for all these subunits of Western Punjabi? I certainly agree. I also assume that most of the IPs participating in these discussions are socks, so if I have occasion to close one of these again, I might be tempted to listen to the IP arguments but not to give their opinions any weight in the close. In any event, I would argue that my No Consensus verdict for the proposed move of
803:(which, according to its page header doesn't even have the status of guideline yet). When it was relisted there was a request for more analysis and harder evidence that the move was justified. Given that there wasn't much further discussion (other than the long essay at the bottom), and the common name issue, raised by two commenters, was never really refuted properly, I don't think there was enough consensus before or after the relist for this to be moved.  —
949:. No clear consensus, a complex argument with too few participants and a disturbing false-policy argument reference to the MOS, underexplained at a minimum. Also comment again that non admins are supposed to be more conservative in calling a consensus. That was not a consensus. Calling a rough consensus so as to make a decision for editors to move on to other things is a privilege of administrators. --
540:, although your comment in the RM still clearly talks about a deletion, and it wouldn't really be clear to a requested move closer that the above was the case. I am aware that names are sometimes retired and sometimes not, but that's not really the question we're asking when deciding whether to remove the year. We do'nt include the year just because the name hasn't yet been retired, instead we apply the
1753:"Every single reference"? I have read several of the references in question, and there are those that list Saraiki as part of the Lahnda continuum of Punjabi dialects. I've read them myself and have listed what I've read elsewhere. How could you possibly say "every single reference???" You're beginning to sound as if you have trouble being objective about these dialects.
967:. As long as an editor is experienced and trusted to make good decisions by admins and non-admins alike, I see no harm in them taking on the tougher decisions to leave other admin-only decisions to admins. If page movers aren't here to ease the load on admins and help clear the backlogs, which are usually the tougher decisions, then what are we here for?
842:
the kind I like to tackle, I went to it, researched it, and made the best decision. Where were you? Why didn't you just close it? You left it for me to close, and now you actually side with the single opposer who had an easily refutable rationale late in the game? Why do you seem to make it so very hard to take on the tough decisions, Amakuru?
873:, for removing your comment and for your recognition that closing old arguments is not the easiest job for page movers nor admins. If the job I did was "lousy" then it was lousy; however, in my humble opinion you have done a magnificent job of pulling the wool over everyone's eyes by using COMMONNAME when it may apply both ways, and by using
1030:
it, often just by ticking a few rudimentary sanity check boxes. This does not currently match the rigour of an RfA bid, in terms of earning the trust of the community. As I said above, I would never discourage a non-admin closer, and I've done loads of them myself, but the really controversial line calls are better left for admins.  —
472:
the absence of any minimum requirement for a closer, it is really up to every individual to self-police in this regard. Andy is a very experienced editor, so I'm sure he's well capable of determining consensus and understands WP policies/guidelines, it just needs a bit more care and attention in this case. Thanks  —
1628:
culture, diaspora, alphabet and cuisine. If the former, that ship has sailed, and until you or someone garners a consensus at a centralized RfC that would better define how
Knowledge handles languages and dialects, then you're just bangin' your head against the wall, Uanfala. Build a case, a consensus, perhaps at
1627:
Please be more explicit, as it is not clear whether you are talking about "Saraiki", the language vs. dialect challenge or "Saraiki", the ambiguous vs. unambiguous page title. If the latter, there is much more competition than with the Hindko title, for there are the dialect, the people, literature,
1578:
Perhaps, and yet several have disagreed with you, including me. Most sources, whether reliable linguistic sources or otherwise, seem unsure themselves if "language" (or "dialect") is the primary topic, which is precisely that to which the quote from the naming convention refers. So it's clear to me
929:
and not actually assessed the strengths and merits of the various arguments put forward. The 'discussion' section was actually just one long comment from another user who actually makes points both for and against the move, ultimately concluding that we should use reliable sources. A large ammount of
375:
are redirects to dab pages, it appears that naming conventions for naming tropical storms and typhoons have recently changed, meaning that all of these storms/typhoons actually do have predecessors with the same name, its just that name is spelled slightly differently, and that there are likely to be
1793:
Yes there are those sources, which makes your "every single reference" sound very one-sided and ill-conceived. It doesn't really matter how numerous or not numerous the view supporting sources may be. What matters is that they exist, and some of them have already been linked and discussed in other
1778:
Of course there are sources (if not numerous) out there in the world that do support this view. It's just that the ones I've seen in the discussions so far have failed verification. This is explained in the two links above. It's possible that I might have made a mistake or missed anything, so if you
1608:
This is the case for Hindko, but there is much less of this ambiguity in the case of
Saraiki. Yes, several editors have disagreed with me on that one, but as far as I remember not a single one of them has backed up their claim with a source that has stood up to scrutiny – not that it would have been
1508:
Where a name is shared between a language and the corresponding ethnic or national group, as is the case with most such names in
English, experience shows that a search for which of these has "primary" status is most often futile. Therefore, barring exceptional circumstances, a pair of disambiguated
1105:
What is unfortunate is that you obviously don't see that you have here some very heavyweight support in your bid to have my decision revoked. So you don't have to resort to even more unfortunate suggestions. All you and I have to do is to do our best to agree to disagree. I promise you this, that
1029:
Exactly this. Page mover is a *technical* privelege, which of course helps non-admins reduce the backlog because there are many even straightforward closes that previously required admin assistance to carry out. The bar for gaining the privelege is very low, however - just one admin needs to approve
841:
The so-called "long" essay at the bottom takes less than a minute to read, and was full of the evidence required to make the call and go with the consensus, the strong consensus, to move the page. I can't believe this. This was the oldest move request in a long list of backlogged requests. Just
741:
To start with, the discussion should not have been closed by a non-admin, and it is unfortunate that the closer instead of just conplying with the policy and unclosing the discussion instead insists they are experienced enough and that the case should be taken here. Next, they say the consensus is
471:
for failing to read the discussion properly, and therefore not realising the oppose was based on a misunderstanding. We absolutely categorically need non-admin closers, they are essential to keeping the RM backlog down, (and I used to be one myself for several years before getting the mop). But in
348:
This was a non-admin closure, and the closing editor is currently unavailable. The discussion was closed as no consensus. However, the only oppose !vote was made against deletion of the articles, indicating that that commenter probably misunderstood the point of the discussion. That comment should
764:
as closer. The single opposer above, in a very old proposal that also had three supporters including the proposer, was kind enough to bring their disagreement to my talk page. I explained that IMO consensus was clear to change the spelling of the subject's given name from "Oleg" to "Oleh". The
1685:
and a case can be made for Hindko and
Saraiki as "distinct but mutually intelligible varieties" of Punjabi. We can only do the best we can with the tools Knowledge has, and we cannot give in to every speaker of every dialect who wants to read "language" after the name of their tongue. Maybe we
1006:
The problem here is not that it was a "tough call", as in requiring incisiveness, expert knowledge of policy, and of precedent, but that this call contained arbitrariness. Arbitrary in calling and end to the discussion (I reckon it could have benefited from more time), arbitrariness in calling
544:
rules as we usually would; that means there may be a consensus that a particular storm merits primary status even if it hasn't been retired yet. Similarly, the first storm to use a name would not need a year even if the name was not retired, because there would be no ambiguity. However, in this
511:
First of all I am really sorry I did not reply immediately plus I made the opposition and my reasoning unclear. Ok so because you guys aren't really familiar with tropical cyclones, I opposed, because the names did not get retired or they are not a significant storm. The (anon) user requested a
1526:
This endorsement is suggested to be without prejudice toward a centralized discussion/RfC to garner consensus as to when a dialect should finally (if ever) be considered officially as a language on
Knowledge – "officially" meaning that an article may be moved from "(Named) dialect" to "(Named)
1090:
This is unfortunate you continue to defend your bad decision and to make ad hnominem arguments even in the situation when you were told by everybody who commented that (i) the decision is bad and (ii) you should not have been the person to take it. What you write about the situation is just a
1895:. Yes, a complex case, very easily defendable as "no consensus" and very very easily within admin discretion. A future RM should ideally be opened with a comprehensive and persuasive nomination statement. A consensus to move will be most evident by your ability to get others to agree. --
746:, and I refuted it), and one more support which is lengthy and looks like very detailed, but if you read it it is also not much policy-based but reads more like "I need to have the page moved period". The closure should be undone and ideally reclosed as no consensus - not moved.
1632:
that will support the manner in which you think all this should be handled. The controversial subjects discussed in the recent past might serve as rungs on this ladder. Who knows? A more community-oriented, centralized discussion might just surprise us all.
742:
move, whereas in fact there is no consensus. They do not even care to discuss the arguments. Third, as far as the discussion goes, there is one oppose (mine), one comment which reads as an oppose, one support which is not policy based (it does not address
520:). But for this case, these names were used for the first time, though they were not retired and significant, therefore, those names will get recycled until we get to the season where we might use those names again. I hope that makes sense now.
832:
other editors whose rationales in my opinion were superior to the single opposers late COMMONNAME argument. When I did the research on this month-old request I found that COMMONNAME could apply to either spelling of the given name, "Oleg" or
1823:
Well, everything I've seen discussed so far has failed verification (and that has also been discussed – I've linked to two relevant threads above). But I'm genuinely interested to hear which sources you have in mind: I've been working on the
1196:
to no consensus. I can understand how this can be read a few ways and it is a fairly close call. I don't think it's an egregious error, but rather a simple overturn. I would consider relisting it, but that has already been done once already.
1401:
currently states it is a 'macro language' consisting of a series of dialects spoken in
Pakistani Punjab... It says "The emerging languages of this dialect area are Saraiki, Hindko and Pothohari". Later it says: "Sindhi, Lahnda, Punjabi and
1513:
This would have made a "Not moved" decision within the discretion of the closer, let alone a "No consensus" decision. Therefore, this particular page move close should be endorsed, and "Hindko" should be converted from a redirect into a
1609:
difficult, there do exist sources (if less numerous) that refer to it as a "dialect". Otherwise, I absolutely agree with you that we should adhere to our policies, but I don't think I see which policy in this case trumps the one on
376:
future storms/typhoons bearing the same name with the same spelling. Whether that is enough of an objection to prevent the move I don't know, but it is the kind of thing that should have been discussed in the original move request.
1060:
I certainly agree with all that you and SmokeyJoe have said; however, part of the problem seems to be that, while I have developed the balls to handle tough decisions, and have done so pretty regularly, my balls aren't made of
463:
also a tropical storm, after all). Neither the nominator nor the opposer addressed that point at all, and as such, a discerning closer should request clarification on primary topic and relist. I would also like to respectfully
1106:
no matter how this MR turns out, I will weigh your comments against all the positive ones I have received over the years, and I will continue to do the best job I can to improve this encyclopedia. And I expect you will too.
1680:
I think that we follow the policy and guideline as well as they can be followed in these cases. The policy requires verifiability, but in some of these cases either language or dialect is verifiable. The guideline says
1579:
that 1) Hindko is an ambiguous, imprecise page title, and 2) until consensus is formed otherwise, our best calls will be made by adhering to present a) policies, b) guidelines and c) reliable linguistic sources
1943:
and leave as is currently named. While it could be argued that even a 'not moved' would be appropriate based on the reasoning provided by the closer, so a 'no-consensus' is even more easy to support/endorse.
1828:
article and I don't really want to be missing something important. This conversation of ours has long been off-topic, but if you don't want to make it even more so, please write on my talk page. Cheers. –
1731:; that's obvious by itself and I only mentioned it as in the case of Saraiki, every single reference that has been adduced by the proponents of the "dialect" view has failed verification (see for example
925:
and no justificaton was provided by these editors citing it as to why it should override the form of the name more commonly found in
English language sources. The closer appears to have fallen prey to
1007:
consensus (I think reasonable people could read "no consensus", I do for sure). The baptism of fire of RfA, and extra accountability of admins comes with a right to call "admin discretion". Yes,
564:
The closure was confused and from the discussion above, there is obviously a need for further discussion. I would have closed this MR myself, but I am unable to figure out the template syntax.
512:
rename, or to take out the "year", stating that it is because it was the only name(s) used so far. So for naming typhoon/TC pages, we do not keep the year if the storm is significant (eg:
1214:- In other words, revert back to the original title. IIO's arguments have been weak as often; this is no exception. Two arguments are mixed and strong, but no sources have been provided.
837:...there was a request for more analysis and harder evidence that the move was justified. Given that there wasn't much further discussion (other than the long essay at the bottom),
1358:
930:
the debate was centred on how the name was spelt on other langauge versions of
Knowledge and only ended up demonstrating that different languages have chosen different names.
149:
1382:
Given the article's move history, it would be helpful if participants endorsing the "no consensus" close could indicate what the article's title should default to. –
1988:
1003:"2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator."
409:
Withdraw that, Amakuru's point, which I failed to look at, that a target is a DAB page, with multiple entries, implies that there is ambiguity at the base name. --
323:
1015:. In the end, hindsight is clear, if your close sees the matter come to WP:Move review, you did not ease a load or clear a backlog. Why are you not an admin? --
1629:
545:
particular case, I think more discussion is needed because there are other contenders for this name, and those weren't realloy mentioned in the RM. Thanks .  —
207:
265:
877:
when it doesn't apply at all. Contgratulations for making a very tough job even harder for those of us who love to stab away at those backlogs.
391:
Overturn and rename all as proposed. The proposal to rename was non-controversial, would have been appropriate to boldly move. The objection by
47:
1658:
Sorry, I was referring to
Saraiki: the language vs. dialect question. I think there's fair consensus about what general rules to follow: there's
1455:
was within discretion and that relisting just this single move is unlikely to come up with a better answer. I have no objection to a wider RfC.
395:
confuses the removal of unnecessary paranthetical disambiguation with deletion. There was thus no objection to a routine rename per policy. --
37:
155:
1811:
1766:
1703:
1666:, but I just don't see them being followed. At any rate, yes, this isn't the place for me to air my grievances about previous discussions. –
1646:
1596:
1540:
1119:
1078:
980:
890:
855:
778:
329:
1470:
1332:
213:
1719:), or how close or distant the language varieties are (trying to evaluate that ourselves and coming up with a judgement would go against
996:, although it requires gentle generalisation to read it as applying to WP:RM closes. The spirit is exactly the same. Look especially at
1913:. I was wondering if you had any thoughts which title should "no consensus" default to, given the article's turbulent move history. –
1877:
716:
271:
1471:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Languages#Language vs. dialect in South Asia: can we choose a single authority to apply across the board?
1583:. And we should continue to make those best calls in good faith, as did EdJohnston, the closer of this requested move proposal.
1183:
598:- Just one vote and "no consensus" for one week? Maybe we should have non-admins be more careful with closures in the future. --
341:
283:
225:
167:
119:
1338:
293:
722:
42:
177:
1008:
999:
993:
1498:, where there is no doubt that the subject is a language. "Hindko" may also be applied to people, and in this the
913:: no clear consensus. While only one editor formally opposed, two editors actually contend that 'Oleg' is the more
455:- there is an issue here, namely the fact that the target is currently a dab page, and that other articles such as
115:
72:
1801:
1756:
1693:
1636:
1586:
1530:
1109:
1068:
970:
880:
845:
768:
430:. I disagree with "relist"/"reopen" because I think fresh, better, RM proposals would be greatly beneficial. --
289:
235:
21:
918:
800:
173:
1881:
541:
1922:
First non-stub version is the fairest to non-game-playing editors. I haven't worked out what that was. --
1964:
1440:
1282:
1234:
1091:
misrepresentation. If your other closures are similar to that one you should stop closing discussions.--
666:
618:
569:
528:
99:
17:
1436:
1873:
1808:
1763:
1736:
1732:
1700:
1643:
1593:
1557:
1537:
1460:
1432:
1416:
1362:
1180:
1116:
1075:
977:
914:
887:
852:
819:
796:
775:
743:
456:
231:
1683:
The term dialect should only be used for distinct but mutually intelligible varieties of a language,
1397:
Hindko seems to be one of the dialects that is part of the Western Punjabi language. Our article on
1949:
1927:
1900:
1350:
1302:
1219:
1202:
1173:
1138:
1096:
1020:
954:
795:
this is a fairly close one, but I don't see a consensus to move myself. The opposers make a strong
751:
603:
586:
435:
414:
400:
368:
1953:
1931:
1917:
1904:
1885:
1838:
1817:
1788:
1772:
1748:
1709:
1675:
1652:
1622:
1602:
1573:
1546:
1482:
1464:
1391:
1374:
1271:
1223:
1206:
1188:
1142:
1125:
1100:
1084:
1039:
1024:
986:
958:
939:
896:
861:
812:
784:
755:
655:
607:
590:
581:
as per the discussion above, clearly a more thorough discussion should take place before closing.
573:
554:
531:
481:
439:
418:
404:
385:
358:
88:
963:
Respectfully, I would love to see where that is written in policy, guideline or even essay form,
354:
1914:
1834:
1784:
1744:
1671:
1618:
1569:
1515:
1478:
1407:
1387:
1370:
1035:
1011:
might be a missing essay, but it is a very well used and understood term of art on Knowledge;
935:
808:
734:
686:
550:
477:
468:
381:
1663:
1428:
565:
537:
521:
392:
1825:
1687:
1456:
1444:
1424:
1403:
1398:
1177:
926:
517:
465:
1794:
debates, so it would be off-topic to continue with that here where only the close of the
1945:
1923:
1910:
1896:
1716:
1448:
1298:
1255:
1215:
1198:
1134:
1092:
1016:
964:
950:
870:
747:
599:
582:
513:
506:
431:
410:
396:
1982:
1499:
1420:
1268:
1264:
874:
652:
648:
372:
350:
85:
81:
1830:
1780:
1740:
1724:
1720:
1667:
1614:
1565:
1561:
1553:
1474:
1383:
1366:
1361:, while the closer of the discussion, for all their otherwise thoughtful comments,
1169:
1062:
1031:
931:
804:
682:
639:
546:
499:
492:
473:
452:
377:
1779:
point me in the direction of a ref that you've verified, that would be helpful. –
1728:
1659:
1610:
1870:
Hindko is an ambiguous, imprecise page title. Let title remain Hindko Dialect.
1552:
Well, there is one very simple criterion for deciding that – usage in relevant
1686:
should just rename all the language and dialect articles to "(Name) tongue"? (
1509:
article titles of the format "X language"/"X people" is generally recommended.
1168:
to no consensus, unfortunately. I just don't see a consensus to move here. As
799:
argument, which as a policy should usually trump any local guidelines such as
1357:
Of the five participants in the discussion, two (Yoyi ling and 39.50.84.196)
917:
in English sources. The two editors in supports argument is purely based on
349:
have been discounted, and the request treated as being without opposition.
1564:, and one made possible only by a lack of familiarity with linguistics. –
1133:
Sorry, you still did not get the point. Fine, let us leave it like this.--
1556:. Attempting to ignore that (as happened throughout the discussions at
1495:
1452:
1494:
The suggested title was too ambiguous to use alone as is done with
459:
are legitimate contenders for the base title (a typhoon is
1415:
A similar issue recently occurred in a move discussion at
1363:
appears to have misunderstood the arguments for the move
1013:
a Knowledge / Wikipedia_talk search for it has many hits
1345:
1325:
1317:
1309:
1012:
729:
709:
701:
693:
336:
316:
308:
300:
278:
258:
250:
242:
220:
200:
192:
184:
162:
142:
134:
126:
1560:) and trying to come up with our own criteria is pure
1417:
Talk:Saraiki dialect#Requested move 21 September 2016
1176:
argument is compelling and wasn't really countered.--
1000:Knowledge:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures
828:The opposer (singular, who opposed the support of
1735:and some of the following threads there, like
1441:Knowledge:Move review#Saraiki dialect (closed)
8:
1431:. The request was closed as No consensus by
1281:The following is an archived debate of the
665:The following is an archived debate of the
98:The following is an archived debate of the
1871:
1733:Talk:Saraiki dialect#Further bogus sources
1248:
632:
65:
1723:). It's about the terms used in relevant
1715:It's not about what speakers want (per
1989:Knowledge move review monthly listings
1682:
1507:
836:
817:
428:Overturn and allow resubmission of RMs
1423:was asking for it to be changed from
7:
1967:of the page listed in the heading.
1237:of the page listed in the heading.
621:of the page listed in the heading.
1469:There is one specific proposal at
1439:, but the closure was endorsed at
28:
1630:WT:Naming conventions (languages)
1009:Knowledge:Aministrator discretion
1727:. And the latter fact has to be
1963:The above is an archive of the
1435:. This was appealed at MRV, by
1233:The above is an archive of the
617:The above is an archive of the
516:) or the name was retired (eg:
1410:with no clear-cut boundaries."
1:
1954:21:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
1886:16:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
1839:19:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
1818:17:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
1798:requested move is on-topic.
1789:08:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
1773:06:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
1749:15:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
1710:14:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
1676:13:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1653:13:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1623:12:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1603:12:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1574:11:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1547:09:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1483:11:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1465:03:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1392:16:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
1375:16:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
1272:03:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
1224:05:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
1207:22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
940:17:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
897:17:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
862:14:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
813:15:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
785:14:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
756:14:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
656:03:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
608:05:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
591:22:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
440:01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
386:09:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
359:04:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
89:03:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
30:
1932:12:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
1918:12:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
1909:Thank you for your comment,
1905:11:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
1189:18:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
1143:19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
1126:19:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
1101:19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
1085:18:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
1040:09:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
1025:23:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
987:22:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
959:11:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
574:00:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
555:11:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
532:07:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
482:13:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
419:09:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
405:11:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
1359:turn out to have been socks
994:Knowledge:Non-admin closure
818:The opposers make a strong
2005:
947:Overturn (to no consensus)
116:Tropical Storm Jebi (2013)
73:Tropical Storm Jebi (2013)
645:Overturn to no consensus.
290:Tropical Storm Rai (2016)
1970:Please do not modify it.
1288:Please do not modify it.
1240:Please do not modify it.
1212:Overturn to no consensus
793:Overturn to no consensus
672:Please do not modify it.
624:Please do not modify it.
105:Please do not modify it.
174:Typhoon Son-Tinh (2012)
1005:
997:
18:Knowledge:Move review
1558:Talk:Saraiki dialect
1433:User:Paine Ellsworth
457:Typhoon Chebi (2006)
232:Typhoon Sanba (2012)
43:Move review archives
1516:disambiguation page
1285:of the page above.
669:of the page above.
369:Tropical Storm Jebi
102:of the page above.
921:, which is only a
562:Reopen and relist.
78:Reopen and relist.
1977:
1976:
1888:
1876:comment added by
1820:
1814:
1775:
1769:
1712:
1706:
1655:
1649:
1605:
1599:
1549:
1543:
1525:
1500:naming convention
1437:User: 39.37.36.15
1408:dialect continuum
1247:
1246:
1186:
1128:
1122:
1087:
1081:
989:
983:
919:WP:UKRAINIANNAMES
899:
893:
864:
858:
801:WP:UKRAINIANNAMES
787:
781:
631:
630:
596:Reopen and relist
579:Reopen and relist
365:Reopen and relist
56:
55:
1996:
1972:
1816:
1812:
1804:
1771:
1767:
1759:
1725:reliable sources
1708:
1704:
1696:
1651:
1647:
1639:
1601:
1597:
1589:
1554:reliable sources
1545:
1541:
1533:
1521:
1429:Saraiki language
1348:
1328:
1320:
1312:
1290:
1261:Closure endorsed
1249:
1242:
1184:
1124:
1120:
1112:
1083:
1079:
1071:
992:The essay is at
985:
981:
973:
895:
891:
883:
860:
856:
848:
783:
779:
771:
732:
712:
704:
696:
674:
633:
626:
526:
510:
503:
496:
393:User:Typhoon2013
339:
319:
311:
303:
281:
261:
253:
245:
223:
203:
195:
187:
165:
145:
137:
129:
107:
66:
52:
36:
31:
2004:
2003:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1979:
1978:
1968:
1826:Saraiki dialect
1802:
1757:
1694:
1637:
1587:
1531:
1445:User:Salvidrim!
1425:Saraiki dialect
1419:. In that case
1404:Western Punjabi
1399:Western Punjabi
1344:
1343:
1337:
1331:
1324:
1323:
1316:
1315:
1308:
1307:
1286:
1238:
1111:Paine Ellsworth
1110:
1070:Paine Ellsworth
1069:
972:Paine Ellsworth
971:
923:proposed policy
882:Paine Ellsworth
881:
847:Paine Ellsworth
846:
770:Paine Ellsworth
769:
728:
727:
721:
715:
708:
707:
700:
699:
692:
691:
670:
622:
542:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
522:
518:Typhoon Vicente
504:
497:
490:
335:
334:
328:
322:
315:
314:
307:
306:
299:
298:
277:
276:
270:
264:
257:
256:
249:
248:
241:
240:
219:
218:
212:
206:
199:
198:
191:
190:
183:
182:
161:
160:
154:
148:
141:
140:
133:
132:
125:
124:
103:
64:
57:
50:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2002:
2000:
1992:
1991:
1981:
1980:
1975:
1974:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1915:Uanfala (talk)
1890:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1796:Hindko dialect
1519:
1511:
1504:
1503:
1502:is very clear:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1449:Hindko dialect
1412:
1411:
1355:
1354:
1341:
1335:
1329:
1321:
1313:
1305:
1299:Hindko dialect
1293:
1292:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1256:Hindko dialect
1245:
1244:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1209:
1191:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1002:
943:
942:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
839:
834:
825:
824:
789:
788:
739:
738:
725:
719:
713:
705:
697:
689:
677:
676:
661:
660:
659:
658:
629:
628:
613:
612:
611:
610:
593:
576:
559:
558:
557:
514:Typhoon Haiyan
484:
445:
444:
443:
442:
422:
421:
408:
388:
346:
345:
332:
326:
320:
312:
304:
296:
287:
274:
268:
262:
254:
246:
238:
229:
216:
210:
204:
196:
188:
180:
171:
158:
152:
146:
138:
130:
122:
110:
109:
94:
93:
92:
91:
63:
58:
54:
53:
45:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2001:
1990:
1987:
1986:
1984:
1973:
1971:
1966:
1961:
1960:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1942:
1939:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1878:39.50.86.210
1875:
1869:
1866:
1865:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1827:
1822:
1821:
1819:
1815:
1809:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1797:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1777:
1776:
1774:
1770:
1764:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1713:
1711:
1707:
1701:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1689:
1684:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1656:
1654:
1650:
1644:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1631:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1611:verifiability
1607:
1606:
1604:
1600:
1594:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1582:
1581:in that order
1577:
1576:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1550:
1548:
1544:
1538:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1512:
1510:
1506:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1490:
1489:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:User:Smsarmad
1418:
1414:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1352:
1347:
1340:
1334:
1327:
1319:
1311:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1284:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1243:
1241:
1236:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1192:
1190:
1187:
1181:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1127:
1123:
1117:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1076:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1064:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1004:
1001:
995:
991:
990:
988:
984:
978:
976:
975:
974:
966:
962:
961:
960:
956:
952:
948:
945:
944:
941:
937:
933:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:WP:COMMONNAME
912:
909:
908:
898:
894:
888:
886:
885:
884:
876:
872:
868:
867:
866:
865:
863:
859:
853:
851:
850:
849:
840:
838:
835:
831:
827:
826:
823:
821:
820:WP:COMMONNAME
816:
815:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
797:WP:COMMONNAME
794:
791:
790:
786:
782:
776:
774:
773:
772:
763:
760:
759:
758:
757:
753:
749:
745:
744:WP:COMMONNAME
736:
731:
724:
718:
711:
703:
695:
688:
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
673:
668:
663:
662:
657:
654:
650:
646:
642:
641:
637:
636:
635:
634:
627:
625:
620:
615:
614:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
556:
552:
548:
543:
539:
536:Fair enough,
535:
534:
533:
530:
527:
525:
519:
515:
508:
501:
494:
488:
485:
483:
479:
475:
470:
467:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
446:
441:
437:
433:
429:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
402:
398:
394:
389:
387:
383:
379:
374:
373:Typhoon Sanba
370:
366:
363:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
343:
338:
331:
325:
318:
310:
302:
295:
291:
288:
285:
280:
273:
267:
260:
252:
244:
237:
233:
230:
227:
222:
215:
209:
202:
194:
186:
179:
175:
172:
169:
164:
157:
151:
144:
136:
128:
121:
117:
114:
113:
112:
111:
108:
106:
101:
96:
95:
90:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
70:
69:
68:
67:
62:
61:2016 November
59:
49:
48:2016 December
46:
44:
41:
39:
33:
32:
23:
19:
1969:
1962:
1940:
1892:
1872:— Preceding
1867:
1800:
1799:
1795:
1755:
1754:
1692:
1691:
1635:
1634:
1585:
1584:
1580:
1529:
1528:
1527:language".
1522:
1491:
1379:
1378:
1356:
1287:
1280:
1260:
1254:
1239:
1232:
1211:
1193:
1174:WP:COMMONAME
1165:
1108:
1107:
1067:
1066:
998:
969:
968:
946:
922:
910:
879:
878:
844:
843:
829:
792:
767:
766:
761:
740:
683:Oleh Sentsov
671:
664:
644:
640:Oleh Sentsov
638:
623:
616:
595:
578:
561:
523:
486:
469:Andy M. Wang
460:
448:
427:
390:
364:
347:
104:
97:
77:
71:
60:
38:2016 October
1965:move review
1283:move review
1235:move review
869:Thank you,
667:move review
619:move review
566:Newyorkbrad
538:Typhoon2013
524:Typhoon2013
100:move review
1729:verifiable
1457:EdJohnston
1178:CĂşchullain
1172:says, the
461:ipso facto
1946:Tiggerjay
1924:SmokeyJoe
1911:SmokeyJoe
1897:SmokeyJoe
1664:WP:NCLANG
1406:" form a
1216:George Ho
1199:Tiggerjay
1135:Ymblanter
1093:Ymblanter
1017:SmokeyJoe
965:SmokeyJoe
951:SmokeyJoe
871:Ymblanter
748:Ymblanter
600:George Ho
583:Tiggerjay
507:SmokeyJoe
432:SmokeyJoe
411:SmokeyJoe
397:SmokeyJoe
1983:Category
1874:unsigned
1868:Endorse.
1737:this one
1662:and the
1523:Opinion.
1492:Endorse.
1269:Armbrust
1194:Overturn
1166:Overturn
927:WP:!VOTE
911:Overturn
822:argument
653:Armbrust
466:WP:TROUT
351:Paul_012
86:Armbrust
20: |
1941:Endorse
1893:Endorse
1831:Uanfala
1781:Uanfala
1741:Uanfala
1717:WP:NPOV
1668:Uanfala
1615:Uanfala
1566:Uanfala
1475:Uanfala
1384:Uanfala
1367:Uanfala
1339:archive
1318:history
1170:Amakuru
1063:crystal
1032:Amakuru
932:Ebonelm
833:"Oleh".
805:Amakuru
762:Endorse
723:archive
702:history
547:Amakuru
500:Ebonelm
493:Amakuru
487:Comment
474:Amakuru
453:Ebonelm
378:Ebonelm
330:archive
309:history
272:archive
251:history
214:archive
193:history
156:archive
135:history
1496:Arabic
1453:Hindko
875:WP:NAC
529:(talk)
449:Relist
1803:Paine
1758:Paine
1739:). –
1721:WP:OR
1695:Paine
1638:Paine
1588:Paine
1562:WP:OR
1532:Paine
1365:. –
1346:watch
1333:links
830:three
730:watch
717:links
337:watch
324:links
279:watch
266:links
221:watch
208:links
163:watch
150:links
51:: -->
16:<
1950:talk
1928:talk
1901:talk
1882:talk
1835:talk
1785:talk
1745:talk
1672:talk
1660:WP:V
1619:talk
1613:. –
1570:talk
1479:talk
1473:. –
1461:talk
1388:talk
1380:Note
1371:talk
1326:logs
1310:edit
1303:talk
1220:talk
1203:talk
1139:talk
1097:talk
1036:talk
1021:talk
955:talk
936:talk
809:talk
752:talk
710:logs
694:edit
687:talk
604:talk
587:talk
570:talk
551:talk
478:talk
451:per
436:talk
415:talk
401:talk
382:talk
371:and
355:talk
317:logs
301:edit
294:talk
259:logs
243:edit
236:talk
201:logs
185:edit
178:talk
143:logs
127:edit
120:talk
35:<
1690:)
1688:TIC
1451:to
1443:by
1427:to
1349:) (
1265:NAC
1263:. (
733:) (
649:NAC
340:) (
282:) (
224:) (
166:) (
82:NAC
22:Log
1985::
1952:)
1930:)
1903:)
1884:)
1837:)
1787:)
1747:)
1674:)
1621:)
1572:)
1481:)
1463:)
1390:)
1373:)
1351:RM
1267:)
1259:–
1222:)
1205:)
1141:)
1099:)
1038:)
1023:)
957:)
938:)
811:)
754:)
735:RM
651:)
643:–
606:)
589:)
572:)
553:)
489:-
480:)
438:)
417:)
403:)
384:)
357:)
342:RM
284:RM
226:RM
168:RM
84:)
76:–
1948:(
1926:(
1899:(
1889:‎
1880:(
1833:(
1813:c
1810:/
1783:(
1768:c
1765:/
1743:(
1705:c
1702:/
1670:(
1648:c
1645:/
1617:(
1598:c
1595:/
1568:(
1542:c
1539:/
1518:.
1477:(
1459:(
1386:(
1369:(
1353:)
1342:|
1336:|
1330:|
1322:|
1314:|
1306:|
1301:(
1218:(
1201:(
1185:c
1182:/
1137:(
1121:c
1118:/
1095:(
1080:c
1077:/
1034:(
1019:(
982:c
979:/
953:(
934:(
892:c
889:/
857:c
854:/
807:(
780:c
777:/
750:(
737:)
726:|
720:|
714:|
706:|
698:|
690:|
685:(
647:(
602:(
585:(
568:(
549:(
509::
505:@
502::
498:@
495::
491:@
476:(
434:(
413:(
399:(
380:(
353:(
344:)
333:|
327:|
321:|
313:|
305:|
297:|
292:(
286:)
275:|
269:|
263:|
255:|
247:|
239:|
234:(
228:)
217:|
211:|
205:|
197:|
189:|
181:|
176:(
170:)
159:|
153:|
147:|
139:|
131:|
123:|
118:(
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.