Talk:Liege (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Requested move[edit]

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: Not moved. No consensus after relisting. Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  • There is some logic to doing the move. At present there is an 'accented DAB' that breaks out the possible meanings of Liège (with the accent) and an unaccented DAB that handles the alternatives for Liege. Each DAB page also points to the other. The solitary word Liège goes to the Belgian city as the primary meaning, with a hatnote to the accented DAB. If the solitary word 'Liege' (with no accent) is to go anywhere it should probably be to the unaccented DAB. The move proposed above will do this. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It should be a full discussion on whether the Belgian city is primary or should a dab page replace it. The two dab pages should be merged to the unaccented form though. Liege (disambiguation) should be the merged dab page, but it should contain the history of Liège (disambiguation) since that dab page was created in 2001, and was originally called "Liege" no accent, not "Liège". -- (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy move not possible. This was the result of a move discussion in 2009 -- (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This move was requested at WP:RM/TR. I am copying it here because it's controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Even though I requested the move, I have no dog in this hunt. I requested the move for procedural reasons–when the main title (Liege in this case) is a redirect to a a disambiguation page (Liege (disambiguation)), the disambiguation page is supposed to be at the main title. I do agree that Liege (disambiguation) and Liège (disambiguation) should be combined into a single page (with their histories merged), regardless of where that single page ends up. I will also note that there are no unintentional mainspace links to either of the disambiguation pages, or to the redirect Liege, so the result of this discussion will not break any links in mainspace. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 06:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There should be no differentiation between Liège and Liege, the use of an accent is not necessary disambiguation and the Belgian city is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

Liège has been viewed 67427 times in the last 90 days. [1]

Liège (province) has been viewed 6092 times in the last 90 days. [2]

Liège Island has been viewed 310 times in the last 90 days. [3]

Liège (Paris Métro) has been viewed 764 times in the last 90 days. [4]

Liège (car) has been viewed 1077 times in the last 90 days. [5]

Nothing at Liege (disambiguation) suggests Liege should be anything other than the city. Zarcadia (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Note: 1436 different people viewed Liege (disambiguation) over the past 30 days, suggesting that at a minimum, 1436 people typed in Liege expecting something other than the city. Red Slash 00:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Think about that. Over a 90 day period, about 4500 people went to the disambiguation page. That's less than 10% of the people who went to Liège, and still fewer than the people that went to Liège (province), a clearly (to Belgians) secondary meaning. On top of that, more than thirty times more traffic went to Liège than Homage (feudal), making it abundantly clear that the city is the primary topic. Oreo Priest talk 16:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Homage (feudal) is a different, important topic as well. It admittedly has only been viewed 1841 times, but given the differences in accentuation I don't think we need parity overall. Keep in mind that the page at Liège is also getting a page view for each time an editor lands there by accident, seeking a different article. I think we have a lack of a primary topic for the specific unaccented title Liege. Red Slash 00:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you think that Liege (disambiguation) should be unsplit from Liège (disambiguation) (as it used to be from 2001-2011) or that the two disambiguation pages should remain separate (as they have been in 2012)? -- (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I think that both should redirect to Liege, and Liege should be a disambiguation page. Red Slash 00:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; the pageview stats do not consider the unaccented spelling. It is unfair to attribute all of those views to people searching for "Liege". Powers T 23:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Belgian city is the primary topic, as the page views easily show. I find the argument that anyone wanting to find the city will type 'Liège' ridiculous. This is the English Wikipedia, and most people in English speaking countries have keyboards that have no accents, or most people are unaware how to input them or even disinclined to bother. They should be treated as the same spelling for all intents and purposes related to disambiguation. Oreo Priest talk 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree for reasons you may not expect. There's two possible outcomes of this move request here, both of which are (I beg) at least plausible:
  1. The city is in fact primary topic for both spellings. Outcome: city at Liège, redirect from Liege.
  2. No primary topic at Liege, which becomes a disambiguation (NOT redirect) page. (Liege (city), of course, redirects to the city.)
If it's case two, does that somehow mean that when people type in Liège, that they're looking for anything but the city? No, of course not. The people looking for other things are never going to type in Liège, so even in that case Liège should be exactly where it is (with hatnotes on top still, of course). Red Slash 23:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The whole problem here is that you're treating the spellings as distinct, when they are functionally indistinct for the vast majority of users. Very few people can or will type an è into the search bar to get the exact spelling they want. So most people typing 'liege' will expect to find the city, with only a handful looking for other things. That's a perfect case for a redirect and hatnote. Oreo Priest talk 16:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
You have not provided evidence that people typing "liege" are expecting the city. The pageview stats do not show that, for reasons I stated above. Powers T 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The pageview stats do show that, for reasons I explained in response to one of Red Slash's comments. And do you seriously believe that most people type in an accent to get to the page on the city? Oreo Priest talk 18:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly not. I expect most people follow a link to get to that article, a link which will, more often than not, have the accent. Powers T 15:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Surely much of Wikipedia's traffic is from internal links. But what if they want to find it directly? You think they'll type in the accent? Oreo Priest talk 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No, but if they do, they are (almost) definitely looking for the city. Therefore even if the page liege is a disambiguation directory, the accented version should still point to the city. Red Slash 23:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree that the accented version should go straight to the city. But if the city is the massively most visited article for both spellings and people who try to get there will type in 'liege' with no accent, then of course that should remain a redirect to the city. Oreo Priest talk 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of the 4600+ who hit the redirect Liege,[[6] only 1300+ needed the disambiguation page.[[7] The current arrangement appears to work for the majority. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. While moderately common in historic fiction et.c. the English word is archaic. Imc (talk) 19:10, 11 May 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.