Talk:Cottage Country (film)

Requested move 24 July 2016

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: No consensus. Well, obviously, that part was easy: DIFFCAPS is both pretty ambiguous and pretty controversial in this regard. Now, what that means for the destiny of the page... as it was on an undecorated title between 2012 and 2014, and on the disambiguated title from then on, I think the latter qualifies as a "stable" one, so reverted. No such user (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Cottage Country → Cottage Country (film) – This morning's removal of disambiguator was not uncontroversial. DIFFCAPS does not say it's a good idea to make titles less precise and less recognizable. An RM should be made for a controversial move. – Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon and PC78: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's not controversial, it's the very definition of WP:DIFFCAPS which is an established part of policy regarding article titles. Please explain how you think this constitutes a valid exception. Clearly the page should not be moved again without a formal discussion. PC78 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• This interpretation of DIFFCAPS always provokes controversy. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• I don't see why, it looks very clear to me on the issue of capitalisation with very little room for interpretation. PC78 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• You didn't see the part that said when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered? 19:20, 23 July 2016 User:Dicklyon (sign unsigned)
• Sure I did. But this is a simple capitalisation issue, exactly like the "Red meat" example. PC78 (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• But the Red Meat vs. Red meat example has never been uncontroversial. A lot of us hate it, which is why going for other alternatives is common and good. Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Come on Dick, the red meat example has been there since 2009. You might not like it, others might not like it, but it clearly has long-term acceptance by the community as a whole. PC78 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support restoration of the disambiguator (film) that was stable for a few years and was removed as if uncontroversial. The title is not recognizable as a film without it, and is ambiguous with the region called cottage country, which is also not-uncommonly capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 0.00000020%? What is that chart supposed to show? If your argument is that the recreational location is the primary topic the capitalised form, then I'd like to see some convincing evidence. PC78 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Textbook example of WP:DIFFCAPS, an article naming policy which quite clearly states that two distinct topics can be distinguished by capitalisation alone, and appropriate disambiguation techniques (i.e. hatnotes) are used as per the recommendation. The article was equally stable at this title between 2012 and 2014, prior to another undiscussed move. PC78 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per DIFFCAPS. Calidum ¤ 01:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support move back to stable title. Unless they're C# programmers, the vast majority of the public do not differentiate concepts based on their case, so there's a WP:RECOGNIZABILITY problem with the current title. DIFFCAPS is fine for unusual forms like WoO, and initialisations such as MAVEN, but not for simple sentence case/title case, where the primary topic is commonly written in either form.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The vast majority of the public"? Based on what evidence? PC78 (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2016 (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.