Jump to content

Talk:Daugava

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Garzo (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 16 October 2005 (→Descision: statement of results). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move

Western Dvina is more commonly used name for this river, and in most of its flow it's called Western Dvina (in Belarus and Russia), being called Daugava only in small its part in Latvia.

Please vote!

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
Yes, and in Riga over 40% of the population speak Russian and call it the Dvina. Satyadasa 07:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) In Belarus the river's name is Dzvina not Western Dvina.
2) In Russia river flows very small distance of all way to sea.
3) It is most important river of Latvia, but not of Belarus or Russia.
4) Most local Russians in Latvia also call this river Daugava. (Influence of Latvian language).
5) In EU oficial maps this river called Daugava [1].
--Feens 13:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I don't see the reason why you moved the article here (and removed the most well-known name of the river). Please look at the map: http://www.baltic-region.net/partners/dzd/pdf/basetop.pdf

You will see that less that 1/3 of it is "Daugava". In nearly all languages it is "Dvina". I suggest to revert to where it was. Mikkalai 17:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support --Monkbel 19:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. In many languages the name Daugava (or Düna) is used. --Valentinian 20:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

can you note any such languages? --Monkbel 17:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Latvian, for example. --Jūzeris | Talk 09:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any other examples? Septentrionalis 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Lithuanian it's Dauguva and I bet in some other Baltic languages like Latgalian or Liv it is similar, but that doesn't matter. In English it's Dvina. Satyadasa 07:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google:

  • 49 English pages for "Daugava" site:gov
  • 7 English pages for "Western Dvina" site:gov
  • 65 English pages from eu.int for "Daugava"
  • 1 English pages from eu.int for "Western Dvina"

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Descision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.

Request was:

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute this closing; 60% should be rough consensus, when half the opposing votes are weak. Septentrionalis 23:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "60% consensus" was a temporary vote tally of 3-2, which was previously 2-2 and has now changed even further. See below for more details. -- Curps 20:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote has been a little messy, but, with extra time, the votes are in at 3 for/5 against the move. As consensus for the move hasn't been reached, the page stays where it is. Consensus is only needed to support the motion, failure to reach consensus results in the maintenance of the status quo. As those in favour of the move didn't achieve a majority of the votes, there cannot be a claim that the majority are being overridden. --Gareth Hughes 20:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copied from the WP:RM PAGE

    • There hasn't been a second round of voting. After the first round was closed as a 2-2 tie (despite your claim of "general approval" [2][3]), you relisted the requested move here [4], and the only thing that happened was that one additional person added a vote to the previous-existing round of voting (which is still on Talk:Daugava), making it 3-2. Calling this a "60% consensus" sounds a lot grander than it really is. -- Curps 08:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When Ryan Norton closed this vote on the 15 October 2005 (due to WP:RM backlog) the consensus was after the ususal five days of discussion 2 support to 2 opposed and after the extended time 2-3. I believer that Ryan behaved correctly as WP:RM always defaults to the side of not moving and this consensus building was not as clear cut as it could be. However since two of the users, (from a very small pool) who were involved in the initial consensus building wish to re-open the vote and two more people have since expressed an opinion, and are persumably in favour of repoening the vote, I think it does no harm to let the consensus build for another five days and then shut the vote. Philip Baird Shearer 16:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However I do think the onus is on the person reopening the request to put the move template on the talk page and to copy the new request as worded on the WP:RM page to the top of the Requested moved section in line with the WP:RM three step guidelines so people know what the new proposed name is. Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daugava&oldid=25683881"