 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
- 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. Discussion of a potential merge can continue below. Cúchullain t/ c 12:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Arches → Arches (disambiguation) – Having just finished fixing all incoming links to this link magnet, all but two went to arch (one went to a nightclub called "Arches" for which we have no article, and the other to Arches paper). Generally, the primary topic of a common plural should be the singular form, to which the title arches should redirect. bd2412 T 04:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose; instead merge "The Arches" "Arches" and "Arch" disambiguation pages into one page. Then redirect "arches" to "arch". --
70.24.247.121 (
talk)
07:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Either option would be an improvement over the current status of things. However, JHunterJ is right that those are potentially two separate discussions. bd2412 T 15:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and note that the above "Oppose" vote's result does not actually differ from moving it and then merging it -- if 70.24.247.121 would like to see them merged, that can be proposed independently, but they shouldn't be merged since they are predominantly independent sets). -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose – a disambig page looks most appropriate here, given the multiples places and other things with this name.
Dicklyon (
talk)
03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The existence of multiple places and other things does not prevent there being a primary topic. Many titles that have multiple ambiguities still have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But then this has been pointed out to you before. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support moving as plural of primary topic. The items listed here are all relatively obscure or are rarely referred to as simply "arches" without additional context. older ≠ wiser 12:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Move clear primary topic, and there is a high burden of proof to argue that slightly different grammatical forms should point to different pages. That said, I do support 70's idea that Arch, Arches and The Arches should be a single disambiguation page.
Dondegroovily (
talk)
13:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection to merging the various forms into a single disambig page.
bd2412
T
19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be problematic merging in Archway as well? the two most common uses of that are either an arch or
Archway, London.
Simply
south....
.. wearing fish for just 6 years
19:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that would be getting a bit far afield for a disambig page. "Arches" is the natural plural of "Arch", both of which are occasionally also surnames or place names with a somewhat different etymology. Throwing a "The" in front of such a term is also a pretty routine convention. No one is going to type in "archway" if they are really looking for a person whose surname is "Arch", or a place named "Arches". bd2412 T 01:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be problematic merging in Archway as well? the two most common uses of that are either an arch or
Archway, London.
Simply
south....
.. wearing fish for just 6 years
19:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection to merging the various forms into a single disambig page.
bd2412
T
19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Don't have a lot too add – I agree that "arch" is what the large majority of readers searching for "arches" will be after. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
|
| Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
- 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. Discussion of a potential merge can continue below. Cúchullain t/ c 12:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Arches → Arches (disambiguation) – Having just finished fixing all incoming links to this link magnet, all but two went to arch (one went to a nightclub called "Arches" for which we have no article, and the other to Arches paper). Generally, the primary topic of a common plural should be the singular form, to which the title arches should redirect. bd2412 T 04:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose; instead merge "The Arches" "Arches" and "Arch" disambiguation pages into one page. Then redirect "arches" to "arch". --
70.24.247.121 (
talk)
07:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Either option would be an improvement over the current status of things. However, JHunterJ is right that those are potentially two separate discussions. bd2412 T 15:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and note that the above "Oppose" vote's result does not actually differ from moving it and then merging it -- if 70.24.247.121 would like to see them merged, that can be proposed independently, but they shouldn't be merged since they are predominantly independent sets). -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose – a disambig page looks most appropriate here, given the multiples places and other things with this name.
Dicklyon (
talk)
03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The existence of multiple places and other things does not prevent there being a primary topic. Many titles that have multiple ambiguities still have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But then this has been pointed out to you before. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support moving as plural of primary topic. The items listed here are all relatively obscure or are rarely referred to as simply "arches" without additional context. older ≠ wiser 12:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Move clear primary topic, and there is a high burden of proof to argue that slightly different grammatical forms should point to different pages. That said, I do support 70's idea that Arch, Arches and The Arches should be a single disambiguation page.
Dondegroovily (
talk)
13:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection to merging the various forms into a single disambig page.
bd2412
T
19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be problematic merging in Archway as well? the two most common uses of that are either an arch or
Archway, London.
Simply
south....
.. wearing fish for just 6 years
19:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that would be getting a bit far afield for a disambig page. "Arches" is the natural plural of "Arch", both of which are occasionally also surnames or place names with a somewhat different etymology. Throwing a "The" in front of such a term is also a pretty routine convention. No one is going to type in "archway" if they are really looking for a person whose surname is "Arch", or a place named "Arches". bd2412 T 01:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be problematic merging in Archway as well? the two most common uses of that are either an arch or
Archway, London.
Simply
south....
.. wearing fish for just 6 years
19:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection to merging the various forms into a single disambig page.
bd2412
T
19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Don't have a lot too add – I agree that "arch" is what the large majority of readers searching for "arches" will be after. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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.