Talk:Huai'an County

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Huai'an County, Hebei → Huai'an County — "Huai'an County, Jiangsu" is really today's Chuzhou District of Huai'an City, Jiangsu. Current names for entities should take precedent over former ones, as outlined by WP:TITLECHANGES: "WP describes current usage..." Relisted again, see below. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Relisted. --JaGa^talk 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC) -- HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The rationale above, based on WP:TITLECHANGES, misinterprets the guideline. The guideline refers to current usage, which may (and often does) differ from the current official name. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a move of "Nanshi District, Baoding" to "Nanshi District" with the same rationale, but as the Nanshi District of SH is important historically, Kauffner utilised the results of a Google Books search as evidence to oppose it. Searching "Nanshi District, Shanghai" produced 90 times more results than "Nanshi District, Baoding" (with or without the comma) did. However, the results of the books search for this case favour my proposal. Searching for the "Huai'an County" of Hebei and Jiangsu, with or without (wrong) the apostrophe, gives a combined 13,610 and 2,194 results, respectively. In any case, Pengyanan's mass moves are confusing because they were unexplained. Heaven forbid I find another case like this, especially one where the two candidates for primary topic are written differently in Chinese, as is the case here. If there is no real, evidence-supported opposition, then this will be moved anyway. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Nanshi District, Baoding. Note that the closing admin (not me) specifically spoke of exactly the same misinterpretation of the guidelines as appears above.

Note also the reference in the previous discussion to WP:NPA and WP:OWN. What do you mean by real, qualified opposition (your emphasis)? Andrewa (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well hopefully that was an instruction to observers of this discussion...I had already participated in the move request there. Not to sound like I am attempting to use excuses, but when I had been opposed in every single nomination at that point, however ridiculous or merit-bearing the opinions may have been, I was bound to be upset. This is not to mention the busy work regarding administrative divisions that I have been asked to do.

In this case, "qualified" would only have to cite statistics. In an RFD, I really prefer adequate knowledge on language and/or geography, as I have been hampered several times by quite bluntly, unqualified, bureaucratic-based opinions/reasons. See the RFD's that I nominated from 26 and 4 March to see what I am talking about. I in fact welcome you to participate in those two, but obviously would prefer you do so only after you have carefully considered the facts, not policy, presented. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide links to the RFDs if they are relevant? I looked for the latest [1] but it's not obvious to me.

I try hard to consider both facts and policy. I very strongly suggest you do the same. But take heart, one of the core policies is after all WP:IAR, the fifth of the five pillars. I can't imagine a real bureaucracy (in the negative sense you mean) having such a policy, can you? See also WP:BURO.

But frankly, a good read or reread of WP:consensus would do you no harm at all IMO. You might also find user:andrewa/creed helpful, I'm not sure. Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.