This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography 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 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: move. -- tariqabjotu 14:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Support clearly. Should be proposed at Folio also though, imo. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Is there even an attempt to prove that assertion that the printing usage is the primary meaning of "folio"? Like, even an attempt? This and the other various folios put paid to any thought that folio (printing) is at all the primary topic here. Seriously. Oppose. RedSlash 05:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't try proving my assertions in requested moves. You can do Google searches on your own. Here is a push. Try foolscap + folio next to see what you get. Srnec (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you not know that it's important to use reliable sources at Wikipedia? Unsourced assertions, when they're challenged, don't do well. Check the page view stats for the several different titles at folio. I don't think there's a primary topic and if I'm not mistaken the burden falls on the proposer to at least give a hint to there being one. I'm really not sure what your Google Books search was intended to show. RedSlash 08:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Support: Seems like the WP:PRIMARY meaning. I reviewed the other entries at Folio (disambiguation) and none of them seem like contenders. Most of them seem to derive their name from the printing format. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Did you check the pageview statistics? It's not even close, this is not the primary topic by that metric at least. RedSlash 10:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The other uses of the plain word are way lower. That different compound terms that are derivatives of this sense, like First folio, also have high views only reinforces that this is the primary meaning. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree – pageview stats are irrelevant here. Over a 90-day period, some of the figures are (approximately): Folio (printing) 14,000; Folio [disambig] 14,000; Foolscap folio 13,000; Folio (typeface) 1700. We don't know what those 14,000 who went to the disambig page were actually looking for, i.e. where they went next. However, it's a fair bet that a high proportion of the 13,000 who wanted to read about the modern paper size, Foolscap folio, started by searching under the full name, Foolscap folio, or else simply under Foolscap (the term by which the paper size is almost invariably known in the English-speaking world), and very few under Folio (an abbreviation limited to Latin America, as far as I can see). GrindtXX (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Support. The original meaning of Folio was a sheet of paper (the Latin word means simply leaf), from which several modern meanings are derived, three of which are covered by this article. All the other articles listed on the disambig page are essentially second- or third-generation derivatives. This article should clearly be regarded as primary. I do have problems with the present title, Folio (printing): (a) because, as the article says, the sense of folio to mean a page of a book is used predominantly in reference to manuscript rather than printed books; and (b) because there's clearly scope for confusion for readers who are actually looking for Folio (typeface). However, those problems would be resolved if the title were simplified to Folio. GrindtXX (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment this is an improperly formatted multimove, someone should fix that. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
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.