Talk:Historia (history of the Americas journal)

Requested move 6 February 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: Moved per discussion below (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Historia (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile journal) → Historia (Chilean journal) – The present title, "Historia (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile journal)", is overly long and contains more information than is actually needed to distinguish the journal from for example Historia (Antiquity journal). Nothing in WP:JWG#Title suggests "Historia (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile journal)" is a more appropriate title. This move is an actual revert to the previous name of the article before it was unilaterally moved (without discussion). Dentren | ^Talk 11:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support can't see any other Chilean journal. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:17, 6 February 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.

Title

Let me know if there's anything unclear or disputed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide#Title disambiguation, which codifies the common practice in WikiProject AJ. fgnievinski (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree the original renaming, Historia (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile journal), was overly long, reason why it was renamed again, to Historia (PUC Chile journal). In any case, it follows WP:JWG#Title disambiguation, esp. the part about publisher name appearing in the title. fgnievinski (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Three points. fgnievinski has refused to participate in the recent move proposal. Second Fgnievinski have manipulated [1]. That edit was done just one minute before he made his unilateral move.[2] the page WP:JWG#Title disambiguation to justify your move. That's not honest and I is being discussed. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting_Fgnievinski. Third, this aeticle should be moved back to its original name, and then fgnievinski should, if he thinks, make a move proposal not based on naming conventions he has unilaterally altered. Dentren | ^Talk 13:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Dentren: (1) You should ping users if you expect their participation. (2) You're welcome to edit or discuss the journal title guidelines (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals); in fact, one of my edits has been recently reviewed, partially rejected, while the part that you dispute has been preserved: [3]. (3) You are free to move the article at any time; a request is only necessary if a technical reason prevents it; a discussion is required in case of disputed moves, which I hope has now been clarified. Let me know if any pending issues persist. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure what's going on here, but it's a really silly dispute. Concerning our current disambiguation guidelines at WP:JWG, those were mostly written with journals of the same fields in mind, given that's usually where the conflicts arise [e.g Open Medicine (De Gruyter Open journal) vs Open Medicine (John Willinsky journal)]. I think at the moment, it would be premature to use the guideline as a blunt instrument to cover journals of different fields with the same name, simply because we never though of what to do in those cases. In cases like Historia vs Historia, we might be better off specifying the field rather than the publisher. We'd end up with something like Historia (Greco-Roman history journal) and Historia (Chilean history journal) (not Historia (Chilean journal)). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• These are both history journals, there's no need to dig sub-fields -- disambiguation by publisher remains applicable; I vote for keeping WP:JWG as simple as possible. fgnievinski (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

They are clearly distinct fields. That's like saying Chemistry and Physics are the same fields ('science'). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's more like organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry. fgnievinski (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed we update our guidelines here. Everyone's feedback is welcomed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that proposing to change the consensual guidelines is the best alternative to enforcing them, as I was trying to do. fgnievinski (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Headbomb, thanks for your input. The issue is that Historia (Chilean journal) is both about Chilean history and history of the Americas [4]. If you check a number of the journal (its open-access) you can usually also find articles that are not about Chile. I don't really know what name is the best one but an acronym like PUC can hardly be good. Dentren | ^Talk 15:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

American history journal then. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The article about American is a disambiguation page and, in fact, American history is a redirect to History of the United States. fgnievinski (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So how is it going to be? Historia (history of Chile and the Americas journal)? fgnievinski (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we going to settle: Historia (Chilean and American history journal)? fgnievinski (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If the acronym PUC is bad, the article about Pontifical Catholic University of Chile indicates we can use just UC instead. fgnievinski (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A parenthesis with an acronym unknown to the normal user is not very informative. Dentren | ^Talk 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)