Talk:Goalpariya dialects

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goalpariya_Language&oldid=908170666 - User:Uanfala, can you explain? 77.13.11.241 (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to dialect 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
 Moved – see #Post move below. See no general agreement below to rename this article. Other suggestions were made; however, there is no consensus to call Goalpariya a language, nor is there agreement to pluralize the title. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus to rename this article. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  10:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Goalpariya dialect →  – As stated in the first sentence of the article: "Goalpariya is a group of Indo-Aryan dialects spoken in the Goalpara region of Assam, India." 77.13.11.241 (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

text: 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.
===Post move===
*, I agree with your close, that's definitely no consensus for any particular new title. But we need an acceptable default outcome, as there is definitely consensus against the current article name. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

text: *To be honest, I thought that was pretty close, but not quite a consensus. Looking back over it, I see it's close enough to make it a closer's call, so I'll pick a title, which will be Goalpariya dialects for now. And in accord with closing instructions: "...while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully leading the article to its final resting place." Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  11:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm OK with this new title. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   – Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  17:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, i am not oppossing the outcome but it will definitely increase issues, in addition to existing "language vs dialect".भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this move.  Thank you.  Chaipau (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   – Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  14:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much, Bhaskarbhagawati! Yes, these issues frequently arise as dialects grow in usage and become seen by linguistic experts as languages. Several involved editors on these pages have been debating the issues for several years. The key of course is what we find in independent reliable secondary sources about a particular dialect that is a potential language in terms of common usage. So it's imperative that editors continue to seek such sources to help resolve these issues. Thanks again for agreeing with the outcome for the present. There is no prejudice if strong arguments can be made for "dialects → language". Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  14:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 July 2019 

message: *, I agree with your close, that's definitely no consensus for any particular new title. But we need an acceptable default outcome, as there is definitely consensus against the current article name. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *To be honest, I thought that was pretty close, but not quite a consensus. Looking back over it, I see it's close enough to make it a closer's call, so I'll pick a title, which will be Goalpariya dialects for now. And in accord with closing instructions: "...while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully leading the article to its final resting place." Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  11:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm OK with this new title. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   – Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  17:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, i am not oppossing the outcome but it will definitely increase issues, in addition to existing "language vs dialect".भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this move.  Thank you.  Chaipau (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   – Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  14:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much, Bhaskarbhagawati! Yes, these issues frequently arise as dialects grow in usage and become seen by linguistic experts as languages. Several involved editors on these pages have been debating the issues for several years. The key of course is what we find in independent reliable secondary sources about a particular dialect that is a potential language in terms of common usage. So it's imperative that editors continue to seek such sources to help resolve these issues. Thanks again for agreeing with the outcome for the present. There is no prejudice if strong arguments can be made for "dialects → language". Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  14:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Post move