Talk:Alberta Greens

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: Moves made as requested, requested name complies both with Commonname and WikiProject naming conventions. Mike Cline (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Green Party of Alberta → Alberta Greens
• Alberta Greens candidates, 2004 provincial election

– This article was moved from

• I’m not opposed to the move. The party used both names at varying times, but did generally go by “Alberta Greens” — especially in its final years. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On this I have to be opposed, just because it would go against the general naming convention at the moment. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To what naming convention are you referring to? "Alberta Greens" complies with the two I listed. If you are referring to the naming convention of Green parties in Canada, this also complies, because they are all at the official name, including

Evergreen Party of Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

They used both. Green Party of Alberta was also their official name, and common name. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Green Party of Alberta was also used, but to a lesser extent. Is your opposition based on any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or practice, other than

WP:ILIKEIT? 117Avenue (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Lesser extent maybe, but as Grant said it was used. Thus it also falls under common name. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild oppose. Both seemed to be used. I prefer "Green Party of Alberta". "Alberta Greens" somehow seems like a weak attempt at a party being folksy, kind of like the Alberta New Democratic Party used "Alberta New Democrats" for years. I would think that the "Alberta Greens" are the politicians and members of the party, while the party itself is the "Green Party of Alberta". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got any proof of the party being "Green Party of Alberta"? 117Avenue (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Proof" of instances of "Green Party of Alberta" being used have been mentioned and linked-to above, where you agreed that "Green Party of Alberta was also used". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant being "Green Party of Alberta" in any official sense, which is what your statement looks like you said. I still retain that "Alberta Greens" is the only proven official name, and the most commonly used name. 117Avenue (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to claim any official name as being the correct one. Official name is also not the issue, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Alberta Greens. This appears to be both the common name and the best-attested official name. If there's a local convention to use the other name, the question is Why?. WikiProjects are not a blank cheque to overrule policy, there needs to be a rationale. It's hard to imagine one that would justify the current name. Andrewa (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Not moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Greens → Green Party of Alberta – I don't agree that the current article name is the most common, and suggest we move it back to Green Party of Alberta. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof? What was your reasoning for flipping since 16:39, 13 January 2012? 117Avenue (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the rationale above is weaker than a spaghetti fish hook. Without some new evidence, this new nomination is a complete waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence was posted above. Here it is again: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There is no new evidence, as I think we all suspected. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I've got 48 to your 6, and a still unanswered question. 117Avenue (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Alberta Greens appears to be the more
  consensus can change, it typically does not happen overnight, and as of the closure yesterday, consensus was that this page should be located at Alberta Greens. I have notified the previous discussion participiants so they may (or may not) participate, again.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree with the statements above. In my view opening a new move request to revert a change made in a previous move request a day before should only happen if there are compelling circumstances and I don't see anything compelling here.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the previous decision by admin as adhering to consensus. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. But again, without evidence, there's not a lot of use just expressing this opinion, and raising an RM to do it, again without new evidence to present, is borderline

disruption. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The previous vote was 2-2, thus no consensus. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the relevant policies and guidelines. Actually I'm beginning to realise that you know them quite well after all, see below. Please keep them in mind. Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 2-2 vote is still not a win for either side. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We probably shouldn't call it a vote, a survey is a better term. The arguments count, not just the numbers. Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Just to formalise my position, reasons above, and to make it clear that I'm disqualified from myself closing this RM. Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. I’m abstaining because I’m fine with either name being used — also to avoid unnecessary issues of bias because of my direct involvement with the subject (I served as a President of, and ran as a candidate for, the party). The party used both names at various times during it’s existence. In its final years, “Alberta Greens” was the name it primarily used in promotions. If I recall correctly, we were registered with Elections Alberta under the “Alberta Greens” name, but probably (where my memory gets hazy) also registered “Green Party of Alberta” to protect use of that related name. If absolutely critical here, I can get ahold of the old party Secretary who would either remember specific details, or have documentation (however, the consensus appears to be solidifying here even without such documentation — and I’d rather not go to the trouble if not needed). —GrantNeufeld (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I mildly opposed the move to Alberta Greens, but the discussion was carried out and concluded properly and I agree that it should not be moved back without some stronger arguments to support "Green Party of Alberta". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

While I believe this RM could be immediately closed under

Great work assuming good faith. Great work. While I may support the new party, I am not a member, nor do I live in Alberta. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am

assuming good faith. You may not have been aware of the COI guideline, which reads in part Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia (my emphasis). You are now. (I am interpretting interests here in the broader sense; I think the guideline intends to caution supporters of parties not just their members.) Andrewa (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

So you've never edited the article for

University of New England, Australia?? Your own user page lists you in the category for alumni. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That wasn't hard to find. Seems you have. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine my surprise when I discovered you created that article. Doesn't that also violate COI? I'm not a staff member of any Green Party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is promote. Regarding my UNE edits, I think I had grounds to be certain that a neutral editor would agree that your (my) edits improve Wikipedia. PS your jibe that I wasn't assuming good faith might backfire, I'm possibly assuming too much good faith. You do have several thousand edits, and some interesting editing history. Hardly a newbie, and evidently aware of the behavioural guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, because the COI plolicy was written one year after University of New England (Australia). :D --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? Andrewa (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't possibly be violating a policy that didn't exist...is that crickets I hear? Usually people find me way funnier than this...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I can hear

cicadas where I am... isn't Canada a bit cold for crickets right now? Andrewa (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nah we left the cold for WA in January, it's all stink bugs up here.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have those too. Can you believe that they eat them in Laos? Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Which name would a neutral editor from Alberta pick? I'm not promoting anything, I honestly believe the other name is more common. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We know you think this. You have said so several times. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, so visit Alberta and get back to us on which name is more common. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical location of an editor has no effect on their opportunity to give an opinion of an article title. Now can we please dispense with the back and forth, and either get back to work, or have a nice cup of tea. We have all stated our positions on the correct location for this article, and this conversation adds nothing to the discussion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, but just ignore anything not amusing. Agree it's not relevant to this RM, it's more community building. A means to an end, see User:Andrewa/creed. Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tempted, but probably not within the time of this RM. Be warned I'm an early riser, but a good cook and happy to help with the washing up and housework. Should I bring my

cross-country skis? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.