Talk:Swans Way (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

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.

No consensus to move. Yea, it's early, but closing both discussions at the same time would seem to make the most sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swans Way (band)Swans Way — Article traffic statistics suggest no primary topic, but other topic can be distinguished by different spelling. A disambiguation page could be created, but that may be unnecessary with only two articles (and one misspelling). Peter E. James (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Similar discussion at Talk:Swan's Way (footpath) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm of the opinion that minuscule distinctions like whether to use an apostrophe or not should never be the only difference between articles. Both Swan's Way and Swans Way should redirect to a disambiguation page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Donde, an apostrophe's difference is very small, and people continuously make mistakes with them. 65.94.45.167 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a disambiguation page should be built at Swan way for all the various uses of "swan way", "swan's way", "swans' way", "swans way", with "swan" and "swann". 65.94.45.167 (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of them are called "Swan way", and that doesn't appear to be a common name for any of them. Each article is the most likely candidate for primary topic for its own name and a disambiguation page is probably not necessary - Swann's Way clearly has a primary topic, Swan's Way probably is. Swans Way seems to be used as a name for the footpath (apostrophes are sometimes omitted incorrectly in geographical names) but a hatnote would be more appropriate. Peter E. James (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.