From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 9 September 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) KCVelaga ( talk) 04:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply


London Burning: Portraits from a Creative City London Burning – Per WP:SUBTITLE142.160.89.97 ( talk) 03:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply

This is a contested technical request ( permalink). Hhkohh ( talk) 03:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Hhkohh: How do you reconcile your position with our book-specific guideline, WP:SUBTITLE, which states:

Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name, per WP:CONCISE. The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes.

142.160.89.97 ( talk) 03:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:SUBTITLE is not a policy, just a guideline, see also WP:COMMONNAME and other related policy Hhkohh ( talk) 09:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SnowFire: How do you reconcile that with WP:SMALLDETAILS? 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 18:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Because the resulting redirect would be WP:ASTONISHing? Because this article should arguably be sent to Articles For Deletion anyway? Note, if your concern is that the subtitle is irrelevant, I have no complaints about a move to London Burning (book). Strictly on the basis of "where should London Burning go?", however, note that I said "unusual case". It seems unlikely many readers who type in "London Burning" are looking for this book, so a disambig page is a proper place to land. A "small details" argument might be okay if usage was split 50/50 between London Burning (the book) and London's Burning (the album, etc.), but not when the split is like 99/1 against. (I point you to the pageview statistics, which show an amazing maximum of ONE pageview a day for the past month, with several days at 0.) SnowFire ( talk) 19:41, 9 September 2018 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 9 September 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) KCVelaga ( talk) 04:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply


London Burning: Portraits from a Creative City London Burning – Per WP:SUBTITLE142.160.89.97 ( talk) 03:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply

This is a contested technical request ( permalink). Hhkohh ( talk) 03:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Hhkohh: How do you reconcile your position with our book-specific guideline, WP:SUBTITLE, which states:

Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name, per WP:CONCISE. The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes.

142.160.89.97 ( talk) 03:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:SUBTITLE is not a policy, just a guideline, see also WP:COMMONNAME and other related policy Hhkohh ( talk) 09:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SnowFire: How do you reconcile that with WP:SMALLDETAILS? 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 18:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Because the resulting redirect would be WP:ASTONISHing? Because this article should arguably be sent to Articles For Deletion anyway? Note, if your concern is that the subtitle is irrelevant, I have no complaints about a move to London Burning (book). Strictly on the basis of "where should London Burning go?", however, note that I said "unusual case". It seems unlikely many readers who type in "London Burning" are looking for this book, so a disambig page is a proper place to land. A "small details" argument might be okay if usage was split 50/50 between London Burning (the book) and London's Burning (the album, etc.), but not when the split is like 99/1 against. (I point you to the pageview statistics, which show an amazing maximum of ONE pageview a day for the past month, with several days at 0.) SnowFire ( talk) 19:41, 9 September 2018 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook