Talk:Concordia (mythology)

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I would agree with the merge. Both articles are talking about exactly the same god as the Greeks and Romans had the same gods but under different names. However it needs to be made explicitly clear in the title that the god has two names. --Paronomasia 11:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concordia (mythology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2018[edit]

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: no consensus to move the pages as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia (mythology) → Concordia
Concordia → Concordia (disambiguation)

– Evident WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with regards to historical significance and precedence over the other topics. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Oppose. Concordia University is the primary topic, if anything. I don't think you're doing due diligence on these. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The university is not simply named "Concordia". It's highly likely people will type in "Concordia University" when searching for the university, not "Concordia". Please learn about WP:PTM before throwing out accusations about incompetence._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I find it unlikely that the majority of people searching for "Concordia" are searching for the fairly minor Roman goddess of that name. Many of the pages linked to at Concordia have higher page views than Concordia (mythology). Besides the universities, the Book of Concord, which people could very plausibly be looking for in searching "Concordia," has consistently higher page views than "Concordia (mythology)". "Concordia" also links to numerous pages that have lower page views than "Concordia (mythology)", but whose total page views far surpass those of "Concordia (mythology)." To see some of these statistics yourself, see this chart. (Note that for simplicity's sake, I only included Concordia (ship) as an example of a page with lower page views than "Concordia (mythology)." There are plenty of other pages with similar page views.) Based on all this, it seems that this article fails one of the two criteria suggested at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Bnng (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No one will look at the title "Concordia" and think, "Why isn't this article about Concordia University?" But we have articles on several of the subjects that are actually named concordia. They get too many views for this subject to be primary, as you can see here. I assume these concordias refer to the generic Latin word for harmony rather than to the goddess. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as I read Wikipedia's disambiguation policy, this move should go ahead. This seems to be by far the most notable Concordia that doesn't have natural disambiguation in the name. The others are the confluence of two glaciers in Pakistan, an electoral district in Manitoba, and several sailing ships that require parenthetical disambiguation from one another. There's no risk of confusing this topic with any of the several Concordia Universities, Colleges, High Schools, or Churches any more than there is with any of the numerous towns named after Concordia; they all contain naturally disambiguating titles because that's normal for common geographical names and cultural institutions. Most of them would probably benefit from hatnotes; only one of the first few I checked had one. And a hatnote is all that this topic requires to send people who arrive here to a disambiguation page with other topics having similar titles. Consider the following paragraph under the disambiguation policy:

Partial title matches should also be considered. For instance, New York City is far more notable than the British city from which it got its name, and the vast majority of the time that "York" is used in books, it is used in the names "New York City" and its containing state of "New York". However, since sources rarely use an unqualified "York" to refer to "New York", York still hosts an article on the British city, and no suggestion to change that would be seriously entertained. Likewise, "Sofia" has been the first name of countless girls and women throughout history; however, as a single term it most commonly refers to the Bulgarian capital.

I find it very improbable that unqualified references to "Concordia" referring to any particular school or town will be widespread; on the contrary they're likely to be very localized as there are so many of them, as the term nearly always requires some context. In a school catalogue or the sports pages context is inherent; but the only instance of "Concordia" used without such context is likely to be the goddess. P Aculeius (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No clear primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 18 April 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.