 | This set index article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved as proposed. Moving for lack of opposition to the proposal. Note that the page is a surname page unless and until evidence is provided that other uses are likely to be referred to as "Zundel" alone; consequently, I will move the other uses to an appropriate proximity with the surname at issue. bd2412 T 16:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Zundel (name) → Zundel – Should be an uncontroversial move. Hoops gza (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Zundel has been a redirect elsewhere for about ten years, and has never pointed at the name except for a few hours around the time of this request. "Zundel" also seems to have several other significant meanings, which aren't all naturally part of Zundel (name): R. v. Zundel, Zundel cation, and the Ernst Zündel redirect target. Perhaps convert the base title to a
redirectdab page? Dekimasuよ! 21:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. The page should then be converted to a general DAB to include Zundel cation and R. v. Zundel. Elegant solution to several problems associated with this title. Andrewa (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment What you guys are suggesting (a disambiguation page) does not seem necessary or in line with Wikipedia standards since the articles you wish to add are not exact matches of merely the name "Zundel". Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What_not_to_include for this policy. Ergo, it should remain a surname page without those additional articles. - Hoops gza (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree, that's not what the page to which you link says at all. It reads in part Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference. For example, Baltimore Zoo is not included at Zoo (disambiguation)... (my emphasis). That's not the sort of link we're talking about here. Perhaps the guideline needs clarification, but it seems clear enough to me. Andrewa (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's exactly the sort of link we're talking about here. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, if there were no other articles on zoos we still wouldn't redirect zoo to Baltimore Zoo, but if there were no more articles associated with Zundel it would be quite proper and helpful to redirect Zundel to either Zundel cation or R. v. Zundel. These two articles probably belong in a See also section rather than in the DAB list, and could go there even without the proposed move, but IMO it would be better to call it a general DAB. But perhaps get an opinion from WikiProject Disambiguation? Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. And it still wouldn't be a disambiguation page, it would be a surname page with a see also section. - Hoops gza (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree that if we don't do the move but do add the see also section, it would remain a surname page with a see also section, but I think we may need to agree to disagree on the rest. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. And it still wouldn't be a disambiguation page, it would be a surname page with a see also section. - Hoops gza (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, if there were no other articles on zoos we still wouldn't redirect zoo to Baltimore Zoo, but if there were no more articles associated with Zundel it would be quite proper and helpful to redirect Zundel to either Zundel cation or R. v. Zundel. These two articles probably belong in a See also section rather than in the DAB list, and could go there even without the proposed move, but IMO it would be better to call it a general DAB. But perhaps get an opinion from WikiProject Disambiguation? Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's exactly the sort of link we're talking about here. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Their Wikipedia titles need not be exact matches of merely the name "Zundel" to be valid targets on a disambiguation page--they need only be sometimes referred to simply and completely as "Zundel". Dekimasuよ! 00:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. And the bottom line is user experience, not conformity to one interpretation of the rules. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the question that remains to be answered. Are there sources that refer to the cation or the case as "Zundel" alone? If so, then they are ambiguous; if not, then they are unambiguous topics, but can be included in the "see also" section of a surname page, since in both cases, the "Zundel" originated as the surname of the person for whom the later thing was named. bd2412 T 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. And the bottom line is user experience, not conformity to one interpretation of the rules. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree, that's not what the page to which you link says at all. It reads in part Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference. For example, Baltimore Zoo is not included at Zoo (disambiguation)... (my emphasis). That's not the sort of link we're talking about here. Perhaps the guideline needs clarification, but it seems clear enough to me. Andrewa (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2014 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.