![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Disambiguating by case?; it seems that having two articles differing only by case is generally considered a bad idea, and there's an article Foreign affairs we may not want to cause confusion with. - ℘yrop (talk) 18:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Um, can we see a source for that statement? MC MasterChef 12:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I made some recent additions. I'll try and add some more later....tired right now...-- Jersey Devil 08:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
An IP keeps on deleting info regarding Pillar's article in the "Post-Cold War" section of this page. I think, considering that Pillar has been interviewed on, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, NPR's Fresh Air, etc... regarding this particular article that it is notable. And will revert the info back into the article. If any other community members have a problem with this please comment on this talk page.-- Jersey Devil 02:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes you are correct. I only read the headline and that shouldn't be in this page. But with regard to Pillar's article, I do think that it is notable enough to be mentioned in this article and don't see an argument for not including it in the article. If there are other prominent pieces written in FA, well then add the information about that in the article. I'll wait for more comment from the community on this to avoid a revert war. P.S. Add this, ~~~~ to the end of your posts on talk pages to sign your comments.-- Jersey Devil 03:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think what is dearly needed on this page is some information about the flavour of articles that you get on Foreign Affairs. I think the best way to give this to include a discussion of the primary readership and authorship with a goal to accounting for its perspectives and biases.
205.250.248.100 08:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Foreign Affairs → Foreign Affairs (magazine) – see Foreign affairs (disambiguation). (Foreign Affairs (journal) moved to Foreign Affairs) In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 23:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Relisted.-- Aervanath ( talk) 17:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
[[Foreign Affairs]]
) in citations, because people are expecting the capitalized version to refer to the magazine. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}}
19:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Just for posterity.... I created a special redirect from the hatnote in the article to the disambiguation page, in an effort to see how many people arriving at the journal article went on to the dab page, presumably because they were looking for an alternative "Foreign affairs" article. The results? Over nine days, the special redirect was viewed 51 times, or an average of 6.5 times per day. Dohn joe ( talk) 22:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 10 October 2015. The result of the move review was Procedural close; withdrawn in favor of a new RM. |
The result of the move request was: Not moved - Wait 6 months and try again if evidence warrants. Don't beat this up Mike Cline ( talk) 13:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Foreign Affairs → Foreign Affairs (journal) – As discovered in the previous discussion, it is not possible to collect page view stats for this article alone because the views of this one and Foreign affairs are combined in the stats (the bot does not distinguish between capital and lower case letters). Therefore, to prove that this article is the primary topic, I propose that it be moved back to its original title of "Foreign Affairs (journal)" for a trial period of no more than a few days (let's say 3) with "Foreign Affairs" turned into a temporary three-page disambiguation of "Foreign Affairs (journal)", "Foreign affairs" and "Foreign affairs (disambiguation)". It will then be possible to collect data on how many users are searching for the journal, as opposed to foreign affairs and other uses. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Speedy close, recent RM, taken to WP:MR already. Additional information noted but consensus will not change this quickly. Endorse six months before reassessing. Removing move protection as unnecessary --
Samir 18:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
George Ho (
talk)
15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC) (Rationale not done by me.)
Foreign Affairs →
Foreign Affairs (journal) – Not the primary topic. By examining the page view stats for the 3rd September, when this page was at "Foreign Affairs (magazine)" for 15/24ths of the day
[6], it is possible to show that it is not the primary topic in terms of page views.
On 3rd September, there were:
We can therefore deduce that most of the 233 views were of "Foreign affairs" not "Foreign Affairs", and that there were actually more views of the album article than the magazine article. If we assume that all 44 views of the magazine article were in the first 15 hours of the day and views are evenly distributed, then in the full 24 hours there would have been 44*24/15 views (70 views). DrKiernan ( talk) 14:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this better described as a journal or a magazine? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Disambiguating by case?; it seems that having two articles differing only by case is generally considered a bad idea, and there's an article Foreign affairs we may not want to cause confusion with. - ℘yrop (talk) 18:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Um, can we see a source for that statement? MC MasterChef 12:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I made some recent additions. I'll try and add some more later....tired right now...-- Jersey Devil 08:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
An IP keeps on deleting info regarding Pillar's article in the "Post-Cold War" section of this page. I think, considering that Pillar has been interviewed on, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, NPR's Fresh Air, etc... regarding this particular article that it is notable. And will revert the info back into the article. If any other community members have a problem with this please comment on this talk page.-- Jersey Devil 02:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes you are correct. I only read the headline and that shouldn't be in this page. But with regard to Pillar's article, I do think that it is notable enough to be mentioned in this article and don't see an argument for not including it in the article. If there are other prominent pieces written in FA, well then add the information about that in the article. I'll wait for more comment from the community on this to avoid a revert war. P.S. Add this, ~~~~ to the end of your posts on talk pages to sign your comments.-- Jersey Devil 03:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think what is dearly needed on this page is some information about the flavour of articles that you get on Foreign Affairs. I think the best way to give this to include a discussion of the primary readership and authorship with a goal to accounting for its perspectives and biases.
205.250.248.100 08:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Foreign Affairs → Foreign Affairs (magazine) – see Foreign affairs (disambiguation). (Foreign Affairs (journal) moved to Foreign Affairs) In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 23:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Relisted.-- Aervanath ( talk) 17:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
[[Foreign Affairs]]
) in citations, because people are expecting the capitalized version to refer to the magazine. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}}
19:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Just for posterity.... I created a special redirect from the hatnote in the article to the disambiguation page, in an effort to see how many people arriving at the journal article went on to the dab page, presumably because they were looking for an alternative "Foreign affairs" article. The results? Over nine days, the special redirect was viewed 51 times, or an average of 6.5 times per day. Dohn joe ( talk) 22:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 10 October 2015. The result of the move review was Procedural close; withdrawn in favor of a new RM. |
The result of the move request was: Not moved - Wait 6 months and try again if evidence warrants. Don't beat this up Mike Cline ( talk) 13:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Foreign Affairs → Foreign Affairs (journal) – As discovered in the previous discussion, it is not possible to collect page view stats for this article alone because the views of this one and Foreign affairs are combined in the stats (the bot does not distinguish between capital and lower case letters). Therefore, to prove that this article is the primary topic, I propose that it be moved back to its original title of "Foreign Affairs (journal)" for a trial period of no more than a few days (let's say 3) with "Foreign Affairs" turned into a temporary three-page disambiguation of "Foreign Affairs (journal)", "Foreign affairs" and "Foreign affairs (disambiguation)". It will then be possible to collect data on how many users are searching for the journal, as opposed to foreign affairs and other uses. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Speedy close, recent RM, taken to WP:MR already. Additional information noted but consensus will not change this quickly. Endorse six months before reassessing. Removing move protection as unnecessary --
Samir 18:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
George Ho (
talk)
15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC) (Rationale not done by me.)
Foreign Affairs →
Foreign Affairs (journal) – Not the primary topic. By examining the page view stats for the 3rd September, when this page was at "Foreign Affairs (magazine)" for 15/24ths of the day
[6], it is possible to show that it is not the primary topic in terms of page views.
On 3rd September, there were:
We can therefore deduce that most of the 233 views were of "Foreign affairs" not "Foreign Affairs", and that there were actually more views of the album article than the magazine article. If we assume that all 44 views of the magazine article were in the first 15 hours of the day and views are evenly distributed, then in the full 24 hours there would have been 44*24/15 views (70 views). DrKiernan ( talk) 14:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this better described as a journal or a magazine? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)