Talk:Ten Talents (cookbook)

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 section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Talents (cookbook) → Ten Talents – At present Ten Talents is a little-used redirect. It is the actual title of the cookbook. A hatnote will be added after the move. See Talk:Ten Talents (cookbook)#Title : Bhunacat10 (talk), 17:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bhunacat10: I have changed page Ten Talents into a disambiguation page. Many would say that the Biblical parable is more long-term noteworthy than a routine cookery book. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Anthony Appleyard, are we sure "ten talents" is a common term for this bible parable? It seems to be called "five talents" and "parable of the talents" at least as often? valereee (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not the question. The question is if people searching for Ten Talents will mean a specific cookbook, or a parable? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Gerda Arendt, I think what you're saying is that anything with "talents" in it might cause a searcher to arrive at a page they weren't looking for, so that someone searching for the parable might put in "talents" or "five talents" or "ten talents", and if they use "ten talents" they'll arrive at this cookbook and be confused? valereee (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, see also further below. Even if a title is the first, that doesn't always mean it should be used. Example below. I believe the disambiguation (cookbook) is good, so oppose move. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That was a good move, much better known for the parable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and inappropriate for a technical request. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Involved editor. valereee (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Confused valereee (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The target was previously a redirect to
  talk) 05:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  GeoffreyT2000: I have restored the old deleted edits of page Ten Talents. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not sure what's being opposed or supported: the original proposal was not for a disambig page but to adopt the cookbook as
  primary topic
  for the title Ten Talents.

Let it be clear that this is not a tussle over whether a cookbook or a parable is the more "significant". It's simply a contention – which seemed to me obvious – that our article title Ten Talents belongs with the only topic we cover that has Ten Talents as its name: Bhunacat10 (talk), 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be clear that this is wrong. Look at the first musical setting of some common text. The text should NOT be the article name, but point to where it comes from. A reader looking for the text will not be served by arriving at a specic composition setting it. (Example: Jauchzet dem Herrn, alle Welt from Psalm 100 vs. Jauchzet dem Herrn, alle Welt (Mendelssohn)) Similarly, a reader searching for the talents, just with the wrong number, should not arrive at a specific cookbook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'm not clear on what just happened, but I'm fine with 'Ten Talents' going to a dab. That what what I had originally requested help with as I figured it was a complicated enough set of moves that I'd break something and cause more work for someone else than just asking them to do it. If everyone else is happy, I am. valereee (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this? valereee (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.