This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strong supportNova gets 11,140 views compared to only 290[[1]] for this one. Google results also don't show anything for the fortress. Maybe the base name should be a DAB page but certainly shouldn't be about the fortress. Note that it was a redirect to Nova from 2004 until it was overwritten with the fortress. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose the current topic has been at this title for over ten years without any previous discussion of a move, so the fact that the title was a redirect for five years before that doesn't really tell us anything. The page views for "Nova" and large number of astronomy hits on Google show that "nova" is a prominent topic, but don't demonstrate that most people arrive here by accident, since anyone typing "nova", whether capitalized or not, in the search window will see that topic first. The fact that nobody proposed moving the article for its first ten years suggests to me that the hatnote is sufficient to direct readers who arrived here by mistake to the correct topic. This proposed move looks like a solution in search of a problem. P Aculeius (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes people are more likely to search for things with the singular form but in this case the astronomical meaning gets over 34x the views (even taking into account users arriving in error) seems to suggest the 1st criteria of
WP:ASTONISH. The fact no one noticed this for over 10 years isn't strong evidence that there isn't a problem since relatively few editors watch redirects and no one watching Nova is notified if this happens. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think that WP:ASTONISH means what you think it does. It's not obviously relevant to this situation. WP:PRIMARY would be relevant if the title of this topic were "nova", not "novae". "Nova" is clearly primary for that title, and would prevail over any other topics called simply "nova". But there's only one topic called "Novae", and this is it. It's naturally disambiguated without any need for parenthetical disambiguation. The fact that nobody has proposed turning it into a redirect before has nothing to do with the number of watchers: if a lot of readers thought this was the wrong topic for this title, then they'd have proposed a page move long ago, no matter how many watchers there were. Most readers looking for "nova" will get there without typing "novae" (or anything, if they're clicking on a link in another article). For those that arrive here, there's a hatnote at the top of this article. Surely that's good enough. P Aculeius (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT
: "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary".
It's a pity to have to quote a key point from a brief item of guidance linked in the nomination, but P Aculeius's reply is based on a principle explicitly rejected in the guidance. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT gives as an example that "oven" is the primary topic for "Ovens". It doesn't necessarily follow that all plural forms should be redirects to primary singular words, particularly when there are multiple plural forms, as there often are in the case of Latin loan-words in English. And unlike "Ovens", where it's not clear what would be the primary topic for that form if not the cooker, and all of the other possible candidates seem to require disambiguation in the title, there don't seem to be any competing topics for "Novae". But I also stand by my observation that the existence of this article at the present title doesn't seem to have been a significant source of confusion in the ten years that it's existed; the hatnote seems to be good enough. P Aculeius (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 obscure places called "Ovens" and several PTMs, in this case there is only 1 obscure place called "Novae". We don't necessarily redirect all plural forms (eg
WP:NOPRIMARY which I support). Most readers won't know how to propose a move and even some editors won't. Longships is another example that was located at the base name for over 14 years (no redirect was overwritten, the title was always about the place in Cornwall) yet everyone agreed that the place clearly wasn't primary. The same is true here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. There's no other article on WP that needs the title. There's already a hatnote pointing to
There is another article that needs this title (as a possible primary topic redirect) namely the astronomical meaning. There's no reason to believe that this article is "much more likely" to be sought than the astronomical meaning and it certainly doesn't have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than the astronomical meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No,
Novae expect this topic. Station1 (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It does need this title (or at least a DAB) similar to
Novas only gets 1 view a day compared to 18 for this is simply because the former is a redirect and the latter is an article. As you have already said in previous discussions around 95% of people get to the correct article regardless of title so the difference in views likely is simply because of that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, exactly! 95% (or more) of the 18 readers per day are at the right article. So we should change the article's title from its correct natural and recognizable name to one with an artificial qualifier because maybe fewer than one of those people might want the nova article? It doesn't make sense to me. Let that small minority click on the hatnote. That's the better, less intrusive way to dab. Station1 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those 95% (or more) of the 18 per day readers will still find this article regardless or its title. The remaining readers should be taken to a DAB page to be given the choice of which article they want to read about. In addition "Novae (fortress)" will come up in the search suggestions so readers typing this term into the search box can click on it anyway. This also means that we won't need the hatnote anymore. Even if we were to assume people are much more likely to be looking for this article than the astronomical meaning (which I don't think they are anyway) we would still have to deal with the long-term significance criteria and principal of least astonishment, clearly the fortress doesn't have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than the astronomical meaning which is a level 4 vital article and what most people would expect the term to refer to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those "remaining readers" are already "given the choice of which article they want to read about". Sending all of them to a dab page is not any better than having them simply click on the hatnote. Station1 (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No,
WP:NOPRIMARY tells us that unless a topic is primary it can't be at the base name. This probably fails PT#1 and certainly fails PT#2. We don't make PT decisions primarily based on NCs. We could make this title as a redirect to the astronomical meaning and have a hatnote back so that readers can choose that option if they want. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOPRIMARY is not applicable to this case, because there is only one notable topic with this title. If there were a separate, similarly important Novae in Pannonia, or another in Africa Proconsularis, then it would come into play, but NOPRIMARY does not apply when the other topic being discussed, "nova", is located at a different title. The relevant guideline here is
WP:PLURALPT, which clearly shows that one topic may be primary for the singular form of a common word, while another may be primary for the plural form, as is the case here. The examples provided plainly demonstrate that overlap between the singular and plural forms of a word may be resolved without declaring that the singular topic must clear the field of all forms of the word with other meanings. History shows that a hatnote is sufficient to distinguish these two articles. P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
As noted titles aren't the point its topics that matter per
Oranges (only the fruit is usually countable) and Papers (paper is uncountable). Since the astronomical meaning is countable and is a very common/notable topic by a huge amount even if a very small number of readers/sources used this term. History only shows editors didn't notice the problem, not that one didn't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course titles matter. This is a proposal to change a title. All the shortcuts you cite, PRIMARYDIRECT, PRIMARYTOPIC and NOPRIMARY, are just shortcuts to the guideline at WP:Disambiguation, which starts with "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous,...." There is no conflict between titles here. Policy at WP:Article titles tells us titles should be natural, concise and no more precise than necessary, like the current title. But, "It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles." In this case, it is possible to use the exact title desired for this article; it is not used for other articles and there's no need to use it for other articles. Of course, those policies and guidelines could be ignored if there was some logical reason that most readers would benefit by a change, but there's not. Station1 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When there is a title conflict among multiple topics then yes. In any case
WP:PRECISE are shortcuts to the titling policy which is clear that if a title has multiple meanings it requires disambiguation so its not possible to use this title because of a conflict with the astronomical meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
But obviously it is possible, because
Novae and nova have co-existed for over a decade with no known problem. Station1 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Strong and very obvious supportper "novae are" test in Gbooks. Station1's "There's no other article on WP that needs the title" can be disregarded as contrary to Wikipedia policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Novae is the name of this topic. The title should reflect that, and the current one does. Novae is a plural form of nova of course, but there’s no evidence that it’s a sufficiently likely search term for that topic to topple the primary topic here. The existing hatnote link covers the rare cases nicely. It comes down to this: Anyone searching for this fortress is almost certainly going to search with novae. Anyone searching for the Nova article is very unlikely to do so with novae. Sending everyone searching with this term to an article or a dab page they are not looking for is not an improvement. To the contrary. —В²C☎ 15:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Novae" is the name of the astronomical meaning to even if its titled differently according to our naming conventions. There is plenty of evidence that "Novae" if anything refers to the astronomical meaning far more than the obscure fortress. The fact that the views are far higher and Google, Images and Books all return the astronomical topic and site:wikipedia.org Novae also returns the Nova article first. And "Freston" is the name of the village in Suffolk, the one and only topic called plain "Freston" not here, there are 2 topics called "Novae" and most evidence supports that this one isn't primary for the term. As noted its clear that this topic doesn't have "substantially greater enduring notability" than the astronomical meaning and there is evidence contrary to it being primary by usage. I would also note that even if the fortress got as many or more views as the astronomical meaning and was a major city I still wouldn't agree it was primary since there needs to usually be a large margin for a topic to be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The astronomical concept is overwhelmingly the primary topic for this pluralised form, over any others you may mention, and it should certainly
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT there. — Amakuru (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Amakuru, did you look at the article? Here, “Novae” is not a pluralization. It’s the bonafide name of the topic. It’s the only use of this term that is not a pluralization. Why would anyone search for any article, including Nova, using the plural form? And for the rare ones who do, we have the hatnote link. —В²C☎ 15:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? What does any of that have to do with the likelihood anyone will search with novae to get to the nova article? —–В²C☎ 05:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Amaruku, readers who search "Novae" are more likely to be looking for Nova than this article. (t · c) buidhe 08:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
