Talk:1801–02 Massachusetts's 12th congressional district special election

On 30 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from 1801–1802 Massachusetts's 12th congressional district special election to 1801–02 Massachusetts's 12th congressional district special election. The result of the discussion was moved.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Massachusetts's 12th congressional district special election, 1801. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141206141022/http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/bioguide-front/7.pdf to http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/bioguide-front/7.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141206141022/http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/bioguide-front/7.pdf to http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/bioguide-front/7.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 November 2022[edit]

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a long-standing convention that elections that span over the New Year use the XXYY–(YY+1) format, as seen at Talk:2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia#Requested move 5 November 2020 (a previous close of mine) and Talk:1788–89 United States House of Representatives elections#Requested move 19 November 2022, so the WP:CONSISTENT result would be this. Such a formulation is not explicitly forbidden by our policies either. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Quote rationale from Zzyzx11's previous nomination: "I get that this was when these U.S. congressional elections spanned two calendar years, but we should at least use the standard MOS:DATERANGE two-digit ending years format." Santiago Claudio (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. MOS:DATERANGE is clear about this: "Although non-abbreviated years are generally preferred,..." (1881–1882, not 1881–82) and goes on to give exceptions to this preferred state. None of those exceptions specifically includes article titles except perhaps the one that stresses conformity with reliable sources. There are no such sources given in this proposal, so there is no reason to think that the abbreviated years are the "established convention of reliable sources". Unless such convention exists and is shown, or some other "very good reason" can be given in this proposal, these pages should retain their titles with their "non-abbreviated years". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 17:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see User talk:Shibbolethink#Your page move closure. That other RM cited above was about a completely different type of situation. It's circumstances do not apply to these two page titles. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's be clear: as stated by Paine Ellsworth, either format is acceptable. The only "very good reason" I could possibly think of would be under Consistency, the fifth article naming criterion. Moving these two pages could then make their titles consistent with the pattern of those articles' titles in the previous RM. Or possibly articles like 2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia and 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia, where, like in this case, there were more than one round of voting on the same race that spanned two calendar years (see also Talk:2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia#Requested move 7 April 2021 on that precedent). I am neutral either way. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasoning in comment by Zzyzx11 and per examples submitted regarding 2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia and 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Ranges, which states that, even though "two-digit ending years … may be used in [certain] cases", "non-abbreviated years are generally preferred". YYYY–YYYY is clearer, which provides more benefit to the reader than saving two characters. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 13:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.