This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Emile, or On Education → Emile – WP:SUBTITLES uses another Rousseau novel, The Social Contract, as an example of when to drop a book's subtitle. The most renowned book in the study of education would appear to warrant similar treatment. "Emile" currently redirects to a disambiguation page when a grok.se search clearly places Rousseau's book as the primary topic:
In JSTOR and similar searches, reliable sources tend to refer to the work as "Emile" and not the longer title with or without the diacritic. A hatnote would link to Emil for other uses. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC) czar ♔ 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Short titles are an exception, especially when ambiguous, according to that guideline, and if grok.se is used maybe The Social Contract should be moved: 692/day compared with 2233/day for Social contract. Peter James (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that no one is arguing for SC→TSC. Anyone searching for TSC will find Rousseau, for which they're most likely searching. I argue that "Emile" searches on both Wikipedia and Google are almost exclusively for the Rousseau title, so the Rousseau title should assume the primary topic from its current long form. czar ♔ 20:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
"The social contract" doesn't always refer to the book; it's an alternative form of "social contract", particularly to anyone more familiar with specific examples of it (of which the book could be one). I know it shouldn't be moved, because of WP:THE, but maybe redirect The social contract to Social Contract (disambiguation). The article even starts "In political philosophy the social contract". Peter James (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Support, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Since the proposed target is neither Emil nor Émile, the factors making it an altogether different word should suffice to clear the way for this topic to be at its natural title. Cheers! bd2412T 18:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I strongly prefer Émile to the proposed title. Srnec (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
To the point where you'd oppose a move to the proposed title? The book is most often referenced without the diacritic. czar ♔ 02:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
To me, "Emile" and "Émile" are pronounced differently. The accent has a purpose, even if many do not know what it is. So when I see "Emile" I cannot immediately identify it as a French word. But when I see "Émile", it is immediately obvious. I do not see how the presence of the accent, which is correct, could possibly cause confusion or surprise. Srnec (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Emile is a given name and that is the primary topic. The fact that we have chosen to combine Emil and Emile in one dab page does not make the proposed target available. Without considering all of the articles for a person commonly known as Emile, the numbers presented above are not sufficient to justify a move. Add in the remainder of the articles and clearly the numbers will be against this move. Nothing is broken so there is nothing to fix. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Vegaswikian. I've never heard of the book, but have heard of plenty of people with this given name. There is also an Ian McKellen film called "Emile" so really there is no legitimate reason to make this move. — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.