Talk:1742 vote of no confidence against the government of Robert Walpole

Requested move 28 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn per nominator (per WP:SNOW). Andrewa is clearly right; this move request could be misread as WP:POINTY, that of which I must stress was not the intention. I would have liked to welcome a broader debate with these articles, sure, but I do not want to appear disruptive, hence speedy closure. --Nevé–selbert 00:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

---

• 1742 vote of no confidence against the government of Robert Walpole → 1742 vote of no confidence in the government of Robert Walpole
• 1782 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord North → 1782 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord North
• 1784 vote of no confidence against the government of William Pitt the Younger → 1784 vote of no confidence in the government of William Pitt the Younger
• 1830 vote of no confidence against the government of the Duke of Wellington → 1830 vote of no confidence in the government of the Duke of Wellington
• 1835 vote of no confidence against the government of Robert Peel → 1835 vote of no confidence in the government of Robert Peel
• June 1841 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Melbourne → June 1841 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord Melbourne
• August 1841 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Melbourne → August 1841 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord Melbourne
• 1846 vote of no confidence against the government of Robert Peel → 1846 vote of no confidence in the government of Robert Peel
• 1851 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord John Russell → 1851 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord John Russell
• 1852 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord John Russell → 1852 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord John Russell
• 1852 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Derby → 1852 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord Derby
• 1855 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Aberdeen → 1855 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord Aberdeen
• 1859 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Derby → 1859 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord Derby
• 1866 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Russell → 1866 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord Russell
• 1873 vote of no confidence against the government of William Ewart Gladstone → 1873 vote of no confidence in the government of William Ewart Gladstone
• 1885 vote of no confidence against the government of William Ewart Gladstone → 1885 vote of no confidence in the government of William Ewart Gladstone
• 1886 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Salisbury → 1886 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord Salisbury
• 1886 vote of no confidence against the government of William Ewart Gladstone → 1886 vote of no confidence in the government of William Ewart Gladstone
• 1892 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Salisbury → 1892 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord Salisbury
• 1895 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Rosebery → 1895 vote of no confidence in the government of Lord Rosebery
• 1924 vote of no confidence against the government of Stanley Baldwin → 1924 vote of no confidence in the government of Stanley Baldwin
• 1924 vote of no confidence against the government of Ramsay MacDonald → 1924 vote of no confidence in the government of Ramsay MacDonald

– Given the result of Talk:1979 vote of no confidence in the government of James Callaghan#Requested move 11 September 2016 and per WP:CONSISTENCY, it makes logical sense to have these pages moved as well. I decided not to move these pages myself in part due to the intriguing argument put forth by Andrewa. --Nevé–selbert 23:49, 28 September 2016 (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 policy on article titles.

• Oppose all. No case has been made that consistency should overrule usage in these cases, nor that usage supports a move. Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

My initial reaction is that this should be closed immediately as pointy. Andrewa (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewa: That wasn't meant to be the intention, I just wanted to gauge a consensus around these article titles. If I may, would you care to enlighten me as to what should be done instead? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 02:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There are several possible options, but this isn't a good one IMO. You could for a start confirm that I've correctly guessed below what my intriguing argument was, and then perhaps we can discuss it if you feel that it's so significant. Is my guess regarding consistency (below) also correct? Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

My intriguing argument referred to above reads in full What I think is happening here is that English usage is changing, so reliable sources tend to use the more formal but now archaic "against" for older incidents. In any case, it's up to the proponents to demonstrate that the current usage is "against" for this particular incident, and they have not done so. Consistency does not come in to it as these titles are from reliable sources rather than our own natural language constructions. [1]

While that argument may or may not be accepted (the RM in question did close as consensus against that move, proposed of course by User:Neve-selbert), there is no attempt above to demonstrate... the current usage, so the claim that I have somehow motivated this RM is itself intriguing. I am guessing that my claim that consistency does not come in to it is what is being tested here. Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

In that no attempt has been made to answer this argument, I've now formally !voted oppose all, and still think a speedy close should be considered. Andrewa (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.