Talk:Tea Party

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The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.

This is a contested technical request (permalink). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sangdeboeuf: All the entries in the page have second word with capital, because they are proper names. This is not mistake. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose per Peter James below. makes sense. for the title, per Tea party which is listed as a main topic. The other entries on the page are correctly upper-cased as proper names. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC) and Randy Kryn (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Everything else here, which is the reason for the disambiguation, is "Tea Party". It could be moved to Tea Party (disambiguation) if Tea Party also has a primary topic. The only thing relevant in WP:NCCAPS is "It is acceptable to create two articles (on different topics) with titles that differ only in capitalization". Peter James (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per PJ above. -- Netoholic @ 20:30, 22 February 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  ^talk 06:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - No clear primary if you include Boston Tea Party. -- Netoholic @ 05:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my knowledge,
    WP:PTM, "A disambiguation page is not a search index. 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". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If I say to a random wikipedia visitor "what does tea party mean?", many will say the children's game, some will say the political movement, and many will mention Boston.
      WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT are reserved for overwhelmingly dominant topics. This one just isn't that clear. -- Netoholic @ 11:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Even if that supposition were true, "
        what first comes to mind" isn't a valid criterion for determining a primary topic, since it is inevitably biased by one's personal experience. And as stated above, Boston Tea Party isn't an appropriate title for disambiguation on this page. Having "Boston" in the title disambiguates it already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Oppose per Netoholic. Recentism plays a major role here, as the 21st century political "Tea Party" would not trump the Boston Tea Party as a primary if a primary were chosen. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see
    WP:PTM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose. It's too soon to tell whether the Republican faction will be the primary topic long term, even in the US. Readers unfamiliar with the subtleties of capitalisation may expect to read about formal afternoon gatherings. Certes (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DIFFCAPS addresses that issue. Placing a hatnote at either page should be sufficient to direct readers to the target page. The political movement still gets vastly more pageviews, so we should mainly be concerned with ease of navigation to that topic. In any event, readers would still have to click a link to get from Tea Party to Tea party, whatever the contents of the former might be, so opposition to a move on those grounds makes no sense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
•  Note: @Sangdeboeuf: I removed the new date that you added because it caused the RM bot to relist it just after one day. It is still noted as "edited" –Ammarpad (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tea Party movement does not have primacy, especially for readers outside the United States. Shadow007 (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind elaborating what you mean by does not have primacy and how you reached that conclusion? Judging by hits alone, the political movement is the most-visited title by far with around 50,000 monthly hits, excluding
    partial title matches that don't belong on this page anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Mainly because it does not meet the long-term significance criterion as per
      WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Shadow007 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I'm not sure I see how any of the other options (a progressive rock band, an obscure 2010 single, and a 1965 play) have as much, let alone more, long-term significance than a political movement which effectively functions as a third political party in the United States, with an influence over US politics that several prominent commentators have suggested led directly to the election of the current US president. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.