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: moved. The consensus is that the Belgian city is the primary topic for anything called "Namur", both in terms of usage and long-term significance. Dab page moved to Namur (disambiguation). Note that opinions by the blocked socks were discounted. Jenks24 ( talk) 11:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Namur, Belgium → Namur – WP:COMMONNAME – Tridek Sep ( talk) 13:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

This is a contested technical request ( permalink). EdJohnston ( talk) 17:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: A COMMONNAME argument should provide data. How do we know that Namur, Belgium is the meaning most often intended when considering all the entries in the DAB page at Namur? EdJohnston ( talk) 17:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This ‘case’ is no different from Antwerp or Liège. I believe Wikipedia should be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridek Sep ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I fully agree. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: User:EdJohnston, WP:COMMONNAME as a move rationale is not even applicable here, since the base name is not affected by the move proposal. Thanks a lot to User:70.51.202.113 for pointing this out below, I failed to see this. Domlesch ( talk) 13:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I agree WP:COMMONNAME as a move rationale is not applicable here. My logic is, however, not based on this policy precisely because it is not applicable. Tridek Sep ( talk) 13:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: Fails WP:NWFCTM, WP:PTOPIC (A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.). Wikipedia cannot be consistent in the way that all Belgian cities get the plain name. And guess what is behind Quebec - no, it is not the city, but the province. Several meanings for Namur exist, even in Belgium and no prove has been presented that all the other meanings combined are less thought of than the Belgian city. Domlesch ( talk) 19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The eight counts provided by proposer below sum up to 9955, adding 1161 for the ships one gets 11116 views which is more than the 10583 for the city. Domlesch ( talk) 00:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Domlesch, you're very active for a new account, and your familiarity with RM is admirable. Agree with your oppose here. Tridek Sep please don't remove other user's Talk page edits. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

User:In ictu oculi, thanks a lot but I completely failed to see that no rationale for the move was provided in the first place. See User:70.51.202.113 below. Domlesch ( talk) 13:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I am also impressed by the familiarity of this new account with Wikipedia policy. I can only applaud this man's ability! Tridek Sep ( talk) 13:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Support: The number of times articles are viewed are often used in discussions about article names. These are the figures which prove the city of Namur is the primary topic.

Namur, Belgium has been viewed 10583 times in the last 90 days. 1

• 2015-07 and 2015-08 are higher than in the preceding months. i.e. not long-term stable. Domlesch ( talk) 23:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Namur (province) has been viewed 3353 times in the last 90 days. 2

Roi-Namur has been viewed 2293 times in the last 90 days. 3

County of Namur has been viewed 1982 times in the last 90 days. 4

Namur (Montreal Metro) has been viewed 871 times in the last 90 days. 5

Namur, Wisconsin has been viewed 427 times in the last 90 days. 6

Arrondissement of Namur has been viewed 393 times in the last 90 days. 7

Namur, Quebec has been viewed 343 times in the last 90 days. 8

Roman Catholic Diocese of Namur has been viewed 293 times in the last 90 days. 9

The articles on institutions and other organisations based in Namur are all viewed less than Namur itself. Tridek Sep ( talk) 21:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Other topics combined have been viewed 11120+ times in the last 90 days. The eight counts provided above by the proposer sum up to 9955, adding 1161 for the ships one gets 11116 views which is more than the 10583 for the city. Domlesch ( talk) 00:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

There's an obvious failure to apply policy here. Some of these are obvious examples of partial title matches ( WP:PTM). Roi-Namur island and the the Diocese of Namur are not likely to be referred to as simply 'Namur'. The total is therefore 11116-2586=8530 views for other topics vs. 10583 for the city. The city is therefore the primary topic. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The question is not restricted to "based in Namur", Tridek Sep completely ignored the ships, e.g.

• HMS Namur (1697) 317 views
• HMS Namur (1756) 672 views
• HMS Namur 172 views

Domlesch ( talk) 23:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I’m impressed by Domlesch' math, but less enthusiastic about his attempt at logic. My proposal does not fail WP:NWFCTM or WP:PTOPIC. They describe the statement used by Domlesch as one of two aspects that are commonly discussed. It is not a strict policy. I believe it is unnecessary to take sentences out of context. WP:NWFCTM and WP:PTOPIC also state that the guidelines are best treated with common sense. Using common sense, I can only conclude that the city of Namur is the primary topic in relation to other similar articles, and indeed more so than any of them combined. Also, there is no reasonable possibility people might confuse ships with a city. A lot of ships are named after cities or states, and this never was a reason to link directly to disambiguation pages. Tridek Sep ( talk) 02:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong oppose no rationale provided. This article is already residing at the proposed "common name", since "Namur" is the base name, and this uses comma disambiguation. The part after the comma counts as disambiguation, and thus does not enter common name dicussion in this case. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 07:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The rationale is that the ‘Belgium’ part is not necessary, given the fact that Namur is the primary topic. Tridek Sep ( talk) 09:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:70.51.202.113 Thanks for pointing out, that WP:COMMONNAME as a move rationale does not apply, since the base name is not affected by the move proposal. Domlesch ( talk) 13:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • No need to state this three times. I responded to the first comment. Tridek Sep ( talk) 13:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Given that the local name is Namen and for some reason English persists in using the French minority name, Belgium is helpful. Plus all the others on the dab. Fails WP:NWFCTM, WP:PTOPIC and Namur is a already a dab page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)~ reply
  • Question Why do you believe Namur is a minority name? Tridek Sep ( talk) 09:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I was being tongue in cheek, it's the Walloon capital. But anyway, oppose is oppose. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• • @ In ictu oculi : Local name ? Absolutely not. Namen is the Dutch translation, Namur city and province are in the French part of Belgium... TheToch ( talk) 18:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Obviously In ictu oculi ( talk) 18:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Support, per Tridek Sep. I'd also support a move of Namur (province) to Province of Namur (ditto for the provinces of Liège and Antwerp) to bring it into line with the French Wikipedia tradition. Speaking as someone familiar with Belgian history and geography, in a Belgian context "Namur" would always be understood as relating to the city unless specifically indicated otherwise.— Brigade Piron ( talk) 22:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Renaming should be done based on article title policies. Users Brigade Piron and Tridek Sep don't provide any policy backing. WP:PTOPIC is crystal clear. They ridicule the process by playing WP:ILIKE. Wikipedia is already in decline. Gosh, what has "French Wikipedia tradition" to do with writing an English language encyclopedia? 91.9.103.179 ( talk) 02:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Personally, I'm a fan of WP:COMMON. I have neither the time nor the inclination to become a full-time Wikilawyer, even though regulations do certainly have their place. What does French Wikipedia have to do with anything? Well, if you check the name of the website you're on you might find out. French Wikipedians are not stupid, and work by the same logic we do. What they decide sets some kind of precedent to at least consider. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Domlesch and 91.9.103.179 are the same person. Yesterday, Domlesch was confirmed as one of many socks of Tobias Conradi. I promise not to remove his comments in this discussion, but I believe it is unfair to game the system like this. It is therefore unnecessary to accuse us of ‘ridiculing the process’. Anyway, I am also a big fan of WP:COMMON and a more common sense approach. That said, I’d like to point out that renaming to Namur doesn’t even violate WP:PTOPIC.
Tridek Sep ( talk) 16:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: By the way, Oreo Priest might want to add to this discussion? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know about this. I did in a few places above. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Support, per Brigade Piron; he is exactly right. In a Belgian context "Namur" would indeed always be understood as relating to the city unless specifically indicated otherwise. It's important to remember this when counting references to the Province, County, Diocese and Arondissement as somehow denying the city its status as the primary topic. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support per User:Oreo Priest Eustachiusz ( talk) 00:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The page views provided by Tridek Sep show that this is by far the most prominent "Namur" by usage. Disregarding partial matches on the dab page, the page views for this article dwarf the sum of page views for the other contenders, namely the non-Belgian cities, and the province.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 10:55, 22 September 2015 (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.