Talk:Superior (proposed U.S. state)

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.

The result of the move request was: Not done -

Oppose. The clause in question also says disambiguators should be precise enough; they should also be accurate. There has never been a state of Superior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The main difference here is that Washington is an actual state at this time and not a name of a hypothetical state that may or may not exist in the future. Also the title may confuse cause confusion (especially for people who are not from the US) and imply that there is currently a state name Superior when there is in fact not one. This issue does not exist for Washington.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Pmanderson but suggest a move to
  Superior (proposed state). The U.S. is superfluous unless evidence is provided of the existence of a another proposed state to be called "Superior" -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Would support a move to drop U.S. TopoChecker (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]

• Comment All the counties in Category:Former counties of the United States - they are not actual counties existing at this time. All these titles may cause the same confusion, as the "(state)" does. Now one may reply the term "county" is not included for disambiguation. Then look into Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire - Bretzenheim (state) - not a state anymore. Why isn't it Bretzenheim (former state)? Because it doesn't matter for disambiguation. Something was / is / will be / may be a state. No distinction in title needed. TopoChecker (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]
• Oppose, it is not and never was a state of any sort. older ≠ wiser 00:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The dab does not say it is one. It does not say it was one. TopoChecker (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]

• Using the title "(state)" implies otherwise. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current title admirably explains the status (proposed) and location (US). Plazak (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The titles for Texas, Minnesota etc, do not show the location, nor the status (current), - they do not even show it is a state. TopoChecker (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]

• Texas and Minnesota are quite well known as US states, and require no further dab. Plazak (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab exists to distinguish base terms. They are not there to tell details about the content. They can tell details, but WP:PRECISION asks for telling few. TopoChecker (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]

• The disambiguating phrase should also not be misleading. "(state)" is misleading in cases where no such state ever existed. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That also depends on the person that try to interpret the dab as there is/was a state. Would Superior (proposed) be misleading?. TopoChecker (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]

• That would be unintelligible. Might as well use a completely arbitrary disambiguation term like Superior (x1m3z42). older ≠ wiser 17:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For completely arbitrary I would invoke
  WP:PRECISION/ shortness and propose Superior (1). But better not to choose something completely arbitrary, but something connected with the content of the page. E.g. Superior (proposed) or Superior (proposal). Texas does not come with the term "state", the information is it one is in the article. Same could be done for Superior. TopoChecker (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply
  ]

• oppose it's not a state.
  WP:PRECISION doesn't say that you're supposed to use the wrong disambiguator just for the sake of making something short. Why don't we just call it Superior (new) then? It's just as wrong. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You claim it is wrong, but you bring no evidence. Leaving an adjective out, makes the noun wrong? There is no Washington (current U.S. state). TopoChecker (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)comment by banned editor[reply]

• It does when the adjective negates the noun, as it does with "fictional" or "proposed" or "suspected". Powers ^T 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it depends on how one interprets the dab term. If it is to distinguish one base term from another then Superior (state) does that well. A specific description whether that was a state in a novel or a state proposal would violate
  WP:PRECISION. It also does not matter whether this was proposed U.S. state or a proposed Mexican state. But if the dab term is meant to be read as <base term> is a/was a/is located in <dab term> then the proposal above would violate correctness. TopoChecker (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply
  ]

• Oppose; leaving out "proposed" is misleading and inaccurate. Powers ^T 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removing "proposed", which would make the title inaccurate, as LtPowers says above. I don't have much of a problem with removing "U.S.", but I like how its inclusion clarifies that this is a proposed U.S. state (i.e., a subdivision of a country) and not a proposed sovereign country. Ucucha 03:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowppose User:TopoChecker should reflect upon whether " ...(state)" is always the best disambiguator. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose
  Superior (proposed state). Skinsmoke (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - Suggested new name is inaccurate, current name is precise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.