The RM was closed as "not moved" because according to the closer "participants have pointed out that the focus of this page is on the Paleochannel called Ghaggar-Hakra and not the present day Ghaggar river" but the article is indeed about the river, of which the paleochannel forms a part but not the entirety. The lead sentence of the article itself establishes this: "The Ghaggar-Hakra River is an intermittent river in India and Pakistan that flows only during the monsoon season." According to google ngrams, Ghaggar clearly emerges on top, far ahead of Hakra or Ghaggar-Hakra. If we were to treat them as separate topics, then the paleochannel will be subsumed under the river, not the other way round. A simple google search also reflects this, as "ghaggar" -"ghaggar-hakra" (i.e. results with ghaggar but without ghaggar-hakra) gives more than triple the hits than "ghaggar-hakra". In a google books search, "ghaggar river" gives about 5,630 results whereas "ghaggar-hakra paleochannel" gives only about 255 results ("ghaggar-hakra river" gives 2160 results). If we limit ourselves to scholarly publishers, then "ghaggar" -"ghaggar-hakra" (results with ghaggar but without ghaggar-hakra) give 913 results, again much more than "ghaggar-hakra" which gives 497 results ("ghaggar" alone, with or without "ghaggar-hakra", gives 1,380 results)
I have discussed the ngrams etc with the mover, and asked them to consider a relist, which they have denied. Since the RM was based on what the WP:COMMONNAME for the river is, not whether or not the article should primarily be about the paleochannel, or what the name for this paleochannel be, the RM should be relisted for more discussion in that regard. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"but the article is indeed about the river, of which the paleochannel forms a part but not the entirety" - I would like to point out that the page's overwhelming content is about the historical significance of the Paleochannel and not about the modern-day river. A line of thinking that all the Oppose votes in the RM have promoted.
I have pointed out to UnpetitproleX that closure is based on consensus and that at best, we can conclude that his proposal/ line of thinking doesn't align with the consensus on the topic. >>> Extorc.talk12:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that content about the historical significance is under the Identification with the Rigvedic Sarasvati River section, which is just content mostly from the main Saraswati River article. This is a whole different page largely about the historical significance of the Paleochannel. This article is about the river, of which the paleochannel is a part, whose identification with the Saraswati is covered under that lengthy section. That does not make the article about the paleochannel. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"That does not make the article about the paleochannel." The participants of the RM vehemently disagree with you, hence the closure in their favor. >>> Extorc.talk14:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that before the requester demanded the review, they suggested in a discussion that a relist is what in their opinion would be an appropriate step in the RM even though the RM received sufficient participation. >>> Extorc.talk14:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus should be used when there is neither a consensus to move nor a consensus to keep the current title. This may be because a discussion has fractured into several possible titles and none seem especially suitable, or simply because equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides, without any clear reason to move the page found in the discussion. Of course, as elsewhere on Wikipedia, this usually means that no action is to be taken at the present time."
The closer has closed the RM as "Not Moved" even though one participant (out of three total) suggested a move to "Ghaggar-Hakra river and paleochannel" and another suggested that "Ghaggar river" be created as a different article altogether. At the very least, the close should be "No consensus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnpetitproleX (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
