Talk:Louis XV style

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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. JPG-GR (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Louis Quinze → Louis XV style — More common in English, I believe, and consistent with Henry II style, Henry IV style, and Louis XIII style. —Srnec (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose consistent, but not as common. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Awareness of Louis Quinze is far more widespread than for example Henry IV style, and consequently there's a common name known to many non-specialists. We should use this name, in accordance with WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you two know? Google doesn't back you up (though I don't trust Google), and neither does Britannica (which carries some weight). Srnec (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I get 3360 hits for LQ in Google books and 750 for Louis XV style. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I said I didn't trust Google, and here's why: if we restrict the search to English books and to the post-War period (1945–present), as seems reasonable, we get only 663 hits for "Louis Quinze". In that instance, the first hit is a false positive, since it is not the art style that is being referred to. All the rest are good on the first page. The same search for "Louis XV style" yields 638 hits with no false positives on the first page. If we were to restrict the subject to art, which is not necessary, we get 97 hits for LQ and 110 for LXVS. As you can see, the discrepancy is not significant, as Britannica would have led one to believe. I also prefer "Louis XV style" b/c I think many will recognise "Louis XV" as an art historical adjective before they will recognise the name spelled out (en français). "Louis XV" is of course read as "Louis Quinze". Note also fr:Style Louis XV. (And don't worry: I am not one of those WP:UE crusaders who can't read a single word in another tongue.) Srnec (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

WP:!

Below is a comment I left on the talkpage of the admin who closed the move request above. It is now in his archive. He did not respond to it either at his talkpage or at mine nor has he taken any action to remedy what I think is a problem:

You closed the requested move at Talk:Louis Quinze after five days and three opinions because no consensus was reached. But a requested move "is not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented." I presented evidence and reasons for my proposal and showed the only evidence presented by the opposition to be indeterminate at best. No other argument was presented by the other parties. In short, your closing of the request and decision not to move were wrong.

Srnec (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No consensus = indeterminate result. If you want to try to start the discussion again, you can start it again. If the arguments presented are strong, they will generally engender a consensus response in favor of the proposal. It is your opinion that your argument was better; their opinion was that their argument was better; the administrator who closed the discussion did not really choose between the two of you, but elected to maintain the status quo as there was not widespread agreement (via discussion) as to the strength of the arguments. This seems fair to me. 17.255.252.10 (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was insufficient discussion for that assessment to be reasonably made, in my opinion. And I doubt any such assessment was made, but that's just my low opinion of Wikipedian administratorship. Srnec (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)