Talk:Michałowo

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was not moved. Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 07:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Michałowo, Podlaskie Voivodeship →  —(Discuss)— Michałowo is now a town; all the other Michałowos are small villages, so the town should be the primary topic. — Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Michałowo is a dab page with 7 entries; it's highly unlikely that this town meets the requirements for a primary topic. Best to leave the dab page where it is. Parsecboy (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's been made a town indicates its greater significance over the other villages (this is a de facto standard for Polish place names - towns are always treated as primary over villages unless there's a particularly significant village, which I don't think there is in this case). I'll ask at the Polish discussion page to make sure though. (The other villages aren't even municipality seats, since there is only one Gmina Michałowo.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose No evidence that this page meets the requirements for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Tassedethe (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, I don't know why everyone's making such a fuss about this, but try Googling: Michałowo "województwo podlaskie" (61,000 hits), Michałowo "powiat włocławski" (<1000 hits, and similar results for all the other Michałowos we know about). In any case, is it not obvious that a town is of far greater probable interest than villages that are not even the seats of their gminas? --Kotniski (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Copied from User talk:Aervanath:

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. Why did you close this without making the move? The only objection had been (I assume) satisfactorily answered.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to move the page according to consensus. As you were the only editor supporting the move, and two editors opposed it, consensus is clearly not present.  If you can convince Parsecboy and Tassedethe to continue the discussion and come around to your point of view, then I will move the page. Until then, consensus is clearly against the move.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know you're supposed to look at the arguments, not count votes? The only oppose "vote" was in fact a request for evidence, which was supplied and not disputed by anyone, including the opposer. So there aren't really any outstanding arguments against the move, or anyone actively opposing the move (Parsec's apparent opposition was answered similarly). I have left notes with Tassedthe and Parsecboy, but this is starting to seem like procedure for procedure's sake.--Kotniski (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To me it seemed that this was merely an administrative promotion i.e the local government of whatever region had upgraded this place from a village to a town. That seemed a poor reason to move this page to the primary topic. You write "is it not obvious that a town is of far greater probable interest". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC deals with actual interest. If the town is not significantly more popular (within Wikipedia not just Google) then the disambiguation page should stay. Saying all that, if the WP:WikiProject Poland has a de facto standard for Polish place names (which you mention but don't link) then I wouldn't stand in the way of a move on those grounds. Tassedethe (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a real opinion one way or the other in regards to if the page is moved or not, I was mainly asking for evidence that this town is the primary topic as Wikipedia defines it. So, in general, I agree with Tassedethe's comment above. Also, if there is a standard system for towns vs. villages at WP:Poland, then it's fine by me. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a de facto standard, probably not written down anywhere (I would have added it to the Poland section on WP:Naming conventions (settlements) when I edited that recently, but wanted to wait till this discussion concluded). Anyway, I have a complete list: out of c. 900 Polish towns, of which probably about half have identically named villages, the only one that has a dab tag to distinguish it from a Polish village is Koziegłowy, Silesian Voivodeship (that's because there's a particularly large village of that name, much larger than the town).--Kotniski (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, the "evaluate the arguments, not the votes" rule is for when there are arguments based on standing Wikipedia policies and guidelines to consider. As the policies represent overriding Wikipedia consensus, those take precedence over votes.  However, as the above discussion shows, there has (until now) been no overriding convention to follow on this topic.  Thanks for getting Parsecboy and Tassedethe to comment.  Now that they have, it is clear that they are not objecting to the move anymore, and I will perform the move later today.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 02:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 05:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michałowo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303193337/http://isip.sejm.gov.pl/servlet/Search?todo=open&id=WDU20081370860 to http://isip.sejm.gov.pl/servlet/Search?todo=open&id=WDU20081370860

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)