Talk:Scanian dialects/Requested move

Requested moved
Skånska &rarr; Scanian dialect – Current title not in English —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The current title of the article is in Swedish or Scanian or something. It ought to be in English. It was formerly known as Scanian (linguistics), but that sounds like there's a thing, in linguistics, called scanian, like a phone or an allophone. I think Scanian dialect better parallels Swedish language. An alternative would be Scanian Swedish or, of course, Scanian (linguistics). At any rate, anything's better in English than in other languages with diacritics.

Regarding the comment that "Skånska" is better because it's more consistent, I'd argue against that. Not all dialects have English names, so the English name is the same as the foreign one (probably minus diacritics); if that's not the case, then they should be moved to the English term. Also, it's not necessarily the case that the country name and the language name are the same: Consider French vs France or Denmark versus Danish.

—Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Approval voting
 * Add #Support followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * The name should remain Skånska
 * This appears to be an argument in favor of Scanian (linguistics), which is not where the article now is. Is it meaningfully an Oppose? (I could accept, but do not prefer, that alternative; see below. 18:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I would recommend to keep the current Skånska version.  Gryffindor  01:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. It's not the English name, which is a drawback, but it's NPOV, which is in its favor. I'm not in favor of it, but I won't cry if it stays at the current name. --Angr/undefined 17:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *Oppose: use English names where one exists. CDThieme 02:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Before I noticed this on WP:RM I knew perfectly well what Skånska is but had never heard it called Scanian. I think this will be the most familiar option for most people who care about the thing or want to read about it. I do note, however, that those few who happen across this article for some reason or another and don't have a rudimentary knowledge of the Scandinavian languages may find the title somewhat opaque. That's why I support the name Skåne Swedish or Scanian Swedish if Scania really is more familiar to people than Skåne, which I doubt. This doesn't seem to me to take a definitive stand on the language/dialect issue (though I admit it implies it is a dialect of Swedish). A sentence starting "Skåne Swedish is a language spoken by..." doesn't sound too bad to me. In any case it is a dialect of Swedish and I don't have a problem with Wikipedia taking tiny "stands" like that in article titles and categorization (see an excruciatingly long discussion on this in the mailing list archives). - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Propose moved to Scanian dialect
 * 1) Support move. Scanian dialect is probably best, since it can be used unpiped; although alternatives are certainly acceptable. More below.Septentrionalis 17:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Article titles on the English Wikipedia should be in English. The line between a language and a dialect is a fuzzy continuum. Jonathunder 23:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, with reservations (see below)  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c) 05:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. But whether to Scanian (language) or Scanian (dialect) (with or without brackets) I don't care. Arbor 09:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) * Support. —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC) You're probably right about it being POV. —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 04:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) * Oppose, calling it a dialect is POV. --Angr/undefined 17:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) * Strongly opposed. As long as SIL and a minority of Scanian regionalists consider it a language, it can't be moved to Scanian dialect without violating NPOV. / Peter Isotalo 18:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak support. My comments above notwithstanding I'd prefer to avoid the term 'dialect' in article titles. That said this is at least much clearer a title than "Scanian (linguistics)". Stop telling us what it ain't, tell us what it am! - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * propose move to Scanian
 * 1) Support. —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support, it's the solution found for Valencian, so it has precedent, but it does go against the policy of not using names that are ambiguous between a linguistic variant and an ethnicity. --Angr/undefined 17:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: first choice. Jonathunder 23:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: use English names where one exists. CDThieme 02:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: All variations of Scanian or Scanian (XYZ) are fine by me. Arbor 07:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak support: Usually we don't use raw adjectives as article titles for languages. Typing in "Scanian" I'd expect to end up at a disambiguation page. That said the "(linguistics)" disambiguator looks confusing to me so this option may have something going for it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Support Angr and Huakurth's reservations are well taken, but it is in English, and hence preferable to the present name. Septentrionalis 16:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * propose move to Scanian (linguistics)
 * 1) Support. Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, it's the solution found for Mandarin (linguistics), Cantonese (linguistics), etc., so it has precedent, it's NPOV, and it doesn't violate any policy. --Angr/undefined 20:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. As per Angr and my argumentation elsewhere on this page. / Peter Isotalo 18:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: All variations of Scanian or Scanian (XYZ) are fine by me. Arbor 07:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. But if a poll truly is to decide this obvious issue, then it proves Polls are evil // Fred-Chess 11:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak support. Personally I'm not fond of Cantonese (linguistics). It looks to me like it's not an article about the Cantonese language but maybe about some obscure concept I'm not aware of in linguistics. I know perfectly well what "Skånska" is but I doubt I'd have recognized it with an article title like "Scanian (linguistics)". That said I'm willing to defer to people who've spent a longer time thinking about this than I have. My biggest beef here is that I think we should discuss the issue of article titles for Scandinavian languages in general and try to find a consistent solution. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) *If you have beef with inconsistency concerning the language group, please discuss it at Talk:North Germanic languages. / Peter Isotalo 16:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, per the WikiProject Languages guideline. The issue whether to call Scanian a dialect or a language is controversial; therefore, the article should bear a name that is neutral wrt to that controversy. The professional, encyclopedic way to go here is for the alternative opinions to be outlined in the article, in an NPOV way. Not for them to duke it out in a page move vote. The title should not take sides whatsoever. Bishonen | talk 07:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak support Felix's objection that (linguistics) should disambiguate linguistic terms, like lemma, is well taken; but I could accept this. Septentrionalis 16:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) *Linguistics is the study of language(s). If a term defines a language or a dialect, then it's by definition a linguistic term. I really don't see what the problem is. / Peter Isotalo 17:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just slightly unexpected. A bit like France (geography), maybe. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The only other possibility I can think of that follows the criterias (being NPOV, in English, and not ambiguous) is Scanian tongue. But, this does not follow the "WikiProject Language" suggestion, and I'm sure they have discussed this thoroughly. // Fred-Chess 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Scanian is not a linguistics term. (The other examples where this is used sound odd, too.) Unlike most of the other choices, this is not linkable in running text. Jonathunder 23:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * propose move to Scanian language
 * 1) Marginal support I would not call Scanian a language, but it is possible that this will be the only consensus to move; and if so I will accept it. Septentrionalis 16:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Oppose, this is just as POV as Scanian dialect, and apparently an even less widely held POV at that. --Angr/undefined 18:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

I have changed this to an Approval voting as per guidelines on WP:RM. WP:RM votes are often changed to this style when during the consensus building it becomes clear that there is more than one possible move option.

The ordering of the options is cronalogical. Feel free to add other proposals to the bottom of the list. You can only vote to support a proposal. There is not Opposing voting when votes are under approval voting. You can vote for as many options as you wish and you can change your votes to help build a consensus at any time up to the close of the vote.

I have tried to move the votes under the correct heading but if you think I have made a mistake on any of the votes please inform the person so they can fix their vote. Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And I've changed it to a straw poll. Approval voting has no support as a way to build consensus on Wikipedia and is in stark contrast to official policy such as Wikipedia is not a democracy or Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. RM has no status as any kind of policy. It's merely a tool for moving article titles and as such should follow core policy, not override it in this manner.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, I would consider Scanian to be a dialect. Politically, a case could be made for granting it the status of a language in its own right since Serbian, Croatian, Danish, Swedish, and other languages differentiated mostly because of the "it has an army and a diplomatic corp" argument. The difference with Scanian is that it really is a dialect, and it has no army or diplomatic relations that require other entities to recognise it as a language, which makes it a special case.

I vote that it be considered a dialect of Swedish here at Wikipedia, since that is technically the case, and this is an encyclopaedia, not a textbook concerned with biases and terminology based on nationalism.

As far as SIL and a minority of Scanian regionalists are concerned, that does not matter one bit to me. SIL is already well renowned for its decidedly unscientific biases, and "a minority of Scanian regionalists" does not constitute a collective opinion that requires us to write articles based on their illusions of regional separatism, whether those be cultural, linguistic, or political. If "a minority of Scanian regionalists" want Scanian to be recognised as a "language" instead of a dialect, I would recommend that the supporters of that minority viewpoint develop some pop-science to support their claims. I would love to view whatever they come up with, considering that Scanian is a dialectal hybrid, mostly containing Swedish forms with remnants of older Danish vocabulary and pronunciation in its modern form.

On the matter of what title the article should bear, I have no comment at this time, as there seems to be more than one valid suggestion presented here for discussion.

 P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c) 05:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To make my position clear I have no position on whether the word dialect is in the title but I do not think "Skånska" is an English name and it should not be in the page mae. If someone wish to change this into an approval vote then I will consider other options. Philip Baird Shearer 11:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Philiph, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. NPOV combined with both the naming conventions and the guidelines of Project Languages supercedes anything that Requested Moves can muster. Polls are still evil and especially so when they're constructed so that any of the voting options are blatantly POV.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Peter, regarding your vote above: the intro of the article states: " Skånska is a closely related group of dialects of Swedish spoken in Skåne", and then explains that SIL erroneously regards it a language. So the article itself clearly establishes Skånska as a dialect, not a language....? In a way I think that the article name should reflect the article content? So "dialect" would not be wrong. There is also no POV dispute on whether it is a language or a dialect anymore, because in the previous discussion all were in favour of it being a dialect. // Fred-Chess 11:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred, if you can find a more appropriate term that isn't either "dialect" or "language" to go in the lead, then please suggest one. Otherwise, please avoid using article content as an argument to POV the title.
 * And why are you so hell-bent on avoiding a neutral article title rather than one that is not? The formula XXX (linguistics) has been in use for a long-ass time and has been recognized by consensus at Project Languages. We even have two FAs (Cantonese (linguistics) and Mandarin (linguistics) with these names. Why is this consensus as well as my attempt to uphold NPOV being disregarded from on account of this isolated RM poll?
 * Peter Isotalo 17:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Then why not just Scanian? But I remain unconvinced that this is a more common term in English than Skånska. Skåne Swedish still seems like the best option to me. We don't have to kowtow to every minority view in our articles and article names. For example Earth doesn't seem to give a lot of weight to those who think the phenomenon is only a few thousand years old. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel that Peter is misrepresenting my intention in requesting the move. I did not do it to further some political motives to oppress the speakers of Scanian, or whatever. I did it because the current title is not in English, which is wrong, especially when it means it has funny characters. I didn't outright move it (which I think I could've) because I wasn't sure if this was the best possible title and wanted to have a discussion. I did a bit of research (based on the article's content) and decided that (seeing as the article says that it's a dialect of Swedish), calling it the Scanian dialect shouldn't be POV, but seeing as it is, someone really ought to add a NPOV banner to the article to make that clear.

I also think Peter is being somewhat arrogant. ''And why has no one done even a bare minimum of research before voting? It would sufficed simply to contact me and ask about it.'' What, so you're the boss-king of Wikipedia and know everything about everything? The move hasn't happened yet, mate. We're discussing it and trying to achieve consensus. You don't need to act like you've been stabbed in the back and we're POVing up the article (which, I observe again, is already POV if my suggestion, which is based on the article, is POV). I said in the first place that this was just one suggestion amongst many. I didn't know we had a better procedure for doing votes on multiple options; you have my full support in stopping this poll and starting another one if so.

BTW: There's plenty of neutral terms that can be used instead of language or dialect, if that's a problem in the lead. One such example is 'language variant'. Should we call it Scanian language variant? I really don't care, as long as it's in English unless there's some other insurmountable problem.

Otherwise, I'll ask you to try and be constructive.

—Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 22:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done a lot to improve this article and I was the one who fought the hardest to keep it from being POV:ed in the direction of Scanian language. You didn't bother to contact me even after the vote was started. I hat to find out about it by pure chance. I think I have the right to feel at least some indignation about that.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you wanted to be told about such things. I certainly made no attempts to hide it from you (or anyone else; I thought this counted as "out in the open"). I thought that if people cared about this article, they might have it on their watchlists. That's generally what I expect to happen. Still, you found out about the vote, and I've perhaps learnt something about wikiculture that I wasn't aware of before. Can we consider this a positive thing, then? —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't object in principle to moving the page to a name that makes it clear to non-Swedish speakers that this is a language variant but the currently proposed move doesn't make sense to me unless Skåne is also moved to Scania. And I was under the impression that Scanian Swedish would be more in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions than Scanian dialect. We have, for example Newfoundland English rather than Newfoundland dialect. So I support a move to Skåne Swedish and I also support a move to Scanian Swedish on the condition that a consensus is reached to move Skåne to Scania. I guess I oppose the current move if every opinion has to be binary. I'd also like to note that I have never edited this page and I feel that the opinions of those who have should be given more weight than those of outsiders like me. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If I happened to be writing a linguistics paper that made reference to Skånska, I'd probably call it Scanian Swedish, but I'd do so in full awareness that I was thereby assuming the POV that it's a dialect of Swedish, not a separate language. So that option is POV too. --Angr/undefined 17:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Bah. Skåne Scandinavian then :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This vote violates NPOV
I question the validity of Requested Moves as a policy maker. RM does not encourage consensus, since its guidelines dictate that issues be settled by approval voting with an unacceptaby small majority (60%!). The vote has been flawed from the start, since the move to Skånska was made without seeking any kind of consensus or respecting appropriate naming policies. The following issues makes the current vote unacceptable: This vote should be discontinued, the article moved back to Scanian (linguistics) and if anyone opposes that, then please take the issue up at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Languages and explain why NPOV should be ignored in this particular. Consensus for both of these already exists and overrides anything RM can muster.
 * NPOV is non-negotiable. Any article title which is not neutral is by definition invalid and no vote can change that.
 * The guidelines and long standing practice of WikiProject Languages have been ignored, despite the fact that it has had consensus for well over a year.

Peter Isotalo 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you make a good case here so I have altered my vote to reflect that. Why don't you do the same and perhapse a consensus can from around "Scanian (linguistics)" ? Philip Baird Shearer 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Philip, I'm quite upset that RM barges into articles and acts as some sort of policy arbitrator when it's merely supposed to be a way to contact admins when they're needed for a move. You (as in people active at RM) should amend the guidelines of RM to encourage people to start discussions at the talkpage reach consensus that way and only call for polls if the situation is too confused and no policies or guidelines support any of the suggestions. Polls are evil and aren't a good way of building consensus. The approval voting system should be changed to one of actual consensus, without set figures or other types of instruction creep.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Do we have a workable consensus?
Can we end this discussion and move the article to Scanian (linguistics)? It looks like that's the option that has the most support and least opposition. Is anyone opposed to moving to Scanian (linguistics) within the next 24 hours and moving on? --Angr/undefined 08:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. It looks a bit clumsy but since there's a tradition for "linguistics" used in this way I don't mind. I'm much more concerned with the native vs. latinate names. I'm not sure all Swedish provinces have as convenient an adjective as 'Scanian'. Presumably people feel Halländska should be moved too - but where? I still stand by Skåne Swedish and Halland Swedish as the best options for consistent clear naming throughout. Those names may suggest (correctly) that those are dialects but they still aren't as crude as Skåne dialect etc. There's a big difference between Indian English and Indian English dialect. In any case let's not hurry the decision and by all means let's find a solution for all the language variant names at the same time. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * AFAICT there's no dispute as to the status of Halländska, everyone agrees it's a dialect, so in that case Halland Swedish would probably be the best name. --Angr/undefined 15:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I take that back. I see now that Ethnologue is treating Scanian as a cover term for Skånska, Halländska, Blekingska, and Bornholmsk. That being the case, I'd say we should merge Halländska here after renaming it Scanian (linguistics). They're both pretty short articles anyway, so it hurts nothing to treat them together on one page. --Angr/undefined 15:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm clearly out of my league here. Skånska/Scanian is spoken in Bornholm? That's news to me and I suspect it would be news to many people in Bornholm. Our own Danish language article says:


 * "While many similarities can be found in Southern Swedish and the Bornholm-dialect, they are more similar to the modern national standards than to each other."


 * I think we should tread lightly in merging articles based on the classification system at ethnologue.com. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not just because Ethnologue says so, though. Reading Skåneland I get the impression that it's the whole formerly Danish region, Skåne, Halland, and Blekinge, that has this sense of cultural heritage distinct from that of the rest of Sweden, and I suspect the linguistic differences will mirror that. Even if we don't discuss Bornholmsk here, I think it does make sense to discuss Halländska and Blekingska here. I haven't seen a linguistic map of Swedish dialects, but I suspect that there are more isoglosses along the pre-1658 boundary than there are separating Skåne from Halländ and Bleking. Ethnologue itself says that the modern "Scanian language" has been heavily influenced by Swedish in Sweden (implying that it hasn't been so influenced on Bornholm), so clearly the dialects have grown apart. --Angr/undefined 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that this makes sense historically but from the contemporary point of view I remain skeptical. We should, of course, treat the history of those languages/dialects but I'd rather not get mired in some historical classification when describing the current situation. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course the article needs to describe both the historical context and the current situation. --Angr/undefined 09:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote tactically Angr] remove you support for the other options so that the vote for Scanian (linguistics) gets a higher pecentage of the votes. If everyone who is willing see the page moved to Scanian (linguistics) does that then a clear consensus may emerge. If new arguements are put forward you can always switch your vote again.

Haukur lets put this to bed and agree a consensus. As to your other concerns: Should we have a English English page or should it be an English English dialect ;-) The people of the Black Country are proud of the fact that they speak with a dialect and not an accent and that it is a form of English that predates modern English. Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've moved my vote, which was looking non-plussed at finding itself under "The name should remain Skånska", to reflect the intentions I recorded before the voting principles were changed, i. e. to state that I'm in favor of a move to Scanian (linguistics), per the discussion above. I endorse Peter's protest against letting Requested Moves override NPOV. Philip, thank you for notifying me on my page, but I'm still a little digruntled at the chopping and changing after voting was underway. If the rules get changed yet again (remember the Gustavus Adolphus nightmare, anyone?), please just delete my vote. This is an official request. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Clearly people wanted more than two original options and setting out proposals allows people of good will to work towards a consensus. If only the two options were still available then there is a good chance that the page would have been moved to a name most who cared did not want. (For example Bishonen you opposed the page move, as there were only two options you had expressed a wish not to move the page) In the last 24 hours a couple of administrators have move dozens and dozens of pages (to work through the backlog on the page). I think it is unfair for anyone to expect them to wade through lots of none structured arguments, when as it becomes apparent that there is more than two possible outcomes (move to A, don't move) structuring the poll with multiple proposals allows a consensus to be built, that is also easy to comprehend for the administrators, or equally clear when no consensus has been built. On a typical day there are between 5 and 10 requested moves so I think there is an onus on those participating in a debate to lay out the consensus making process in a way which is easy for an outsider to read quickly. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's been more than 24 hours since I asked if we can close this discussion. By my count: With all due respect to Jonathunder's opinion, I think it's clear Scanian (linguistics) has broad consensus. For what it's worth, I had the same reaction as Jonathunder when I first encountered Mandarin (linguistics) and Cantonese (linguistics). Using the (linguistics) disambiguator for language varieties that cannot be called either languages or dialects without violating NPOV isn't great, but it has more support than any of the other options. I am now moving Skånska to Scanian (linguistics) and fixing double redirects, and hoping we can now move on to improving the content of this and other articles rather than arguing about its name. --Angr/undefined 09:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keeping it at Skånska has 2 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose
 * Scanian dialect has 3 supports, 2 weak support/support with reservations, and 2 oppose (1 strongly)
 * Scanian has 4 supports, 3 weak supports
 * Scanian (linguistics) has 7 supports, 2 weak supports, and 1 oppose
 * Scanian language has 1 marginal support, 1 oppose


 * I'm glad we've come to a consensus with a page title that most people here are happy to accept, and I thank everyone who's tried to achieve this (even if your opinion, ultimately is different from what's happened). I do most sincerely apologise for any difficulty my choice of method to cause this move might have created (but not, of course, for wanting the move in the first place). —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 11:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks to all who voted, Angr for finally moving the article, and Felix for suggesting the move.
 * I hope you won't mind if I archive this move discussion to clean up this page for discussion concerning article content itself. // Fred-Chess 12:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject:Languages
WikiProject Languages cannot relieve us of our obligation to use English. Fortunately it does not pretend to. I would accept, although I do not prefer, Scanian (linguistics), or Scanian language; I would even tolerate Scanian. All of these are, of course, moves; and therefore do not change my vote. I suppose an approval summary will be needed, but this is enough for now. Septentrionalis 18:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The intro to WikiProject Languages expressly says: "These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them."
 * WikiProject Languages is explicitly described as disputed. (I have added some language to it, but not that.)
 * The fourth point of WikiProject Languages deprecates usages such as Skånska or Scanian alone, as implying that Scanians are only a speech community, and not a culture, a people, or a region.


 * No one is advocating that the article stay in the current title, Sept. My own and bishonen's objections are becuase the intended move is to Scanian dialect, which is not neutral. I agree with your interpretation that the vote should be whether the article should be moved or not, but the problem is that particularly Philiph doesn't view it this way, and he echoes his usual demand that each seperate suggestion for a move should require a sepearate vote. He's done it in several votes before this and it always leads to hopelessly confused discussion and bureaucratic chaos. To me the issue is crystal clear; Wiglaf moved the page to Skånska without any prior consensus. The article should've defaulted back to Scanian (linguistics) before the RM vote even started. Unfortunately, no one bothered to actually read up on this properly, and right now we're stuck with several votes supporting a move that contradicts several guidelines as well as NPOV.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiglaf moved the article on my request. My reasoning was that we have articles "Halländska", etc; also all provinces were moved from Latin to Swedish names, including "Scania" that was moved to "Skåne", furthermore we have the article called Skåneland which was moved from Terra Scania. So why not move "Skånska" accordingly I reasoned? It seemed to make little sense to move all other articles to their Swedish counterparts, but have this article still with the English/Latin name. If we do move this article to an English name, I reason we should also revisit articles such as Skåne and Skåneland. // Fred-Chess 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We certainly should reconsider Skåne, but this is not the place to do it. I doubt any further progress can be made without an approval summary. Septentrionalis 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, Sept. The provinces is a separate discussion. And, Fred, please don't try to apply consistency to all these article just because they'r about Sweden. We can't always be 100% consistent in article naming.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Retreating from approval voting
From my talk page:
 * Philiph, please stop changing votes drastically right in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Encourage people to vote according to the standing vote, not one you decided by yourself. Please read my objections about the validity of RM as a policy maker. I do not recognize RM as any kind of arbitrator of NPOV. Peter Isotalo 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

At the moment I think that as there are so many options being expressed that an approval vote is more likely to reach a consensus than any other method. At the moment the danger is the page will be moved to name most do not think is the best one. But if someone other than you revets this revert I will accept the majority view that approval voting is not wanted. If anyone else reverts it please reinstate the vote made by user:Cassowary who has got caught up in the revert made by Peter and is entitled to have his/her view added to what ever voting method is used. Philip Baird Shearer 16:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ha! silly me. I have only just realisd that "Felix the Cassowary" added his vote to the approval voting having proposed the original move. So at least one onther person is trying to reach a compromise and seems willing to work with you Peter and not against you. Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Under the rules of approval voting one can not Oppose a proposal. In the past there have been several heated debates about approval voting and opposing does not count (as this is a scandinavian page an example was Talk:Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, where I was of the opinion that they should be allowed and was beaten into submission). Indeed Peter was an active participant in that vote and argued agains opposition votes in the fist round. One can always add you opposition in the Discussion section.


 * On WP:RM we probably need to be able to add opposition voting BUT then it would not be approval voting. First "catch you hare" a person would have to write an article on the rules etc and get a consensus to add the new voting system to the WP:RM page as guidelines. No one has yet been willing to invest the time and effort in setting up such a page and then getting it accepted as WP:RM guidelines. Philip Baird Shearer 21:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What "rules"? Approval voting is an article, not a policy of Wikipedia and I know of no other place on Wikipedia where decisions are made by minimum-majority decisions. RM already violates the consensus that is core policy such as Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the very foundations of consensus building. I don't see the problem here, since RM is not policy or even a guideline, but merely a user tool.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I am going to revert your changes. But if someone other than you revets this revert I will accept the majority view that approval voting is not wanted for this decision and that your straw poll will be used instead. If this happens Please explain the rules by which you will work out what the consensus is. Philip Baird Shearer 00:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Philip, consensus for Scanian (linguistics) already exists. It's evident by a combination of the naming conventions, the guidelines of Project Languages and above all, NPOV, which is (in the words of Jimbo) absolute and non-negotiable. This vote merely tries to contest a whole slew of policies and standard practices which has far more support than just a handful of users can muster. RM simply has no say in these issues, because it's not a policy, just a tool/forum for announcing article moves.
 * And if you're confused about how to build consensus, then I urge you to read Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's perfectly unambiguous as to how consensus is formed.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop misrepresenting my intentions. This vote merely tries to move the article from one in Swedish to one in English. It does so badly; I freely accept that. If I did this again, I would certainly do it differently. But it certainly does not try to "contest a whole slew of policies and standard practices"; if I wanted to've done that, I would've said something on WP:NPOV or wherever. —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I appologize for any offense, Felix. I didn't mean to say that your intentions were illicit and I appreciate that you've reconsidered your stance. I was trying to express my frustration over Philip's unflinching insistance on following the dubious guidelines of RM as though they were law.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)