Talk:1875–1876 New Zealand general election

A fact from 1875–1876 New Zealand general election appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 April 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that George Grey was the winner in two different electorates in both the 1875–76 and 1879 elections in New Zealand?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/April.

Wikipedia

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

New Zealand: Politics Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Zealand general election, 1860–1861 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved: as per discussion. billinghurst sDrewth 03:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Election dates

The date range given for the election isn't right (28 Dec 1875 to 4 Jan 1876). The Gladstone election, for example, was on 20 Jan 1876. Schwede 66 18:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 June 2019

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: both articles moved to their four digit formats. While some editors here have noted that the MOS does not mandate an alteration to a four digit format in this instance, CThomas3 summarised the position of those that supported the move best. The move may not be required, but standard convention does support the preference for four digit dates in article titles. Note: I have also actioned the category renames, and updated the categories for the affected articles. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin 18:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– per WP:DATERANGE. Note: A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If these articles are moved, then the corresponding eponymous categories should be speedily renmaed to match, per WP:C2D: Category:1875–76 New Zealand general election and Category:1860–61 New Zealand general election. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't aware of the 2016 RFC. If I had been aware of it, I would have simply moved those articles as an uncontentious alignment with our MOS. And yes, we should also adjust the categories. Schwede 66 23:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The RfC in question was closed with the statement applications such as sports seasons, fiscal years, and consecutive years use the two-year date range convention without problems. These applications can continue to do so. Given that these are cases of two consecutive years, it's not clear that this move should be mandated by WP:DATERANGE. Number 5 7 11:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – and yes, it's good to see it acknowledged that titles should respect our MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per manual of style. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Apologies, BHG. WP:DATERANGE presently states:
- Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column); and (3) in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources.

Therefore, that RfC notwithstanding, there was no change to the MOS that would guide us to rename these pages. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:DATERANGE and the 2016 RFC. While the MOS does not require the move, it does state that we have established a clear preference for full four-digit dates, even if there are limited exceptions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.