Talk:Laufey (mythology)

Norse history and culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture 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.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved.

Discussions:

Moved, 7 May 2024, to Laufey (mythology), see discussion.
Not moved, 16 May 2024, to Laufey, see discussion.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Laufey (singer) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 May 2024[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laufey (mythology) → Laufey
Laufey → Laufey (disambiguation)

– The article was recently moved from Laufey to Laufey (mythology) based on really weak and imo insufficient support. The name stems from the mythological goddess and should not be portrayed as anything lesser. The singer which launched the discussion is named after the goddess.

I'm requesting to revert the move since i didn't get to discuss it. Blockhaj (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky, Blockhaj contests your close at Talk:Laufey (singer) § Requested move 7 May 2024.

Blockhaj, the usual procedure when contesting the close of a requested move is to discuss with the closer on their talk page and give them some time to respond. Opening another RM so soon is frowned upon per the last paragraph WP:THREEOUTCOMES and does not align with WP:RM's aim to preserve page title stability. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted next time. Blockhaj (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What @Blockhaj sees as weak and insufficient support is a consensus to create the disambiguation. The previous RM was well attended with 7 responses when on the average, we get 2-3 responses within the first week of any requested move discussion. There are two things being discussed in the previous RM: 1. whether the singer is the primary topic; 2. whether the goddess is the primary topic. The first point is refuted by consensus, everyone agreed in the discussion on that. On the second point, there is consensus to disambiguate even in consideration of the goddess' long-term significance. Therefore the outcome is to create disambiguation.

I suggest that this RM to be speedily closed as out of procedure, and that if there is a further need/want to overturn the previous RM outcome, @Blockhaj is to open the discussion at Move Review. – robertsky (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blockhaj, please note that Move Review (MR) explicitly states, While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion (formatting original). Indeed, the MR instructions on that page also explicitly limit the reasons one can open a MR. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotideypoc41352 this request was not opened to personally argue with the previous discussion, i never partook in it. I do however disagree with it and feel the need for it to be reverted. Blockhaj (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blockhaj: I seem to have miscommunicated my point.

The move can't be reverted here.

You can withdraw this discussion as moot.

And if you go to MR as Robertsky said, the MR instructions I linked above show that I disagree with it and feel the need for it to be reverted is not enough.

Overturning a move closure (how a closed RM is reverted) at MR requires strong evidence and policy-and-guideline based reasons.

Hope that helps. (Sorry for the ping, Robertsky, just wanted to let you know I mentioned you. I can't close this discussion because I'm in it now.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose we just discussed this and apart from being named after no other arguments appear to have been presented. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to insufficient support, TBH eight people commenting in a week, and mostly agreeing, is on average considered a good turnout for an RM. That level of interest largely reflects the size of the editor community. Should it be considered good turnout when we're pondering topics with a significantly larger reader community? Not sure, but that's how it goes. Note that in this case this quality probably helps a long-term significance argument.

With regard to how strong or weak the support for the change was, I'd judge it sufficient mainly because the change that is introduced does not substantially detract from your goal of keeping the original topic well presented to readers - the list at Laufey now is only 4 items, that's a very conventional way to navigate and you'd have to make a coherent argument why this would risk astonishing readers. One thing we could argue about is the list ordering, and that's easy enough to fix (I'll go do that now).

Per WP:NOTBURO, I recommend we close this here, and observe the statistics after a month or two, to be able to see if perhaps the reader interest has changed significantly, and then revisit the issue. --Joy (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy, is the mythical goddess arts and entertainment though? – robertsky (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky The depiction seemed... artistic? :) Perhaps we need a more generic section heading, like Society or something like that. --Joy (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as nominator for the original discussion. Though the singer may not deserve the primary page, I still believe that a disambig page is fair. The Sharpest Lives (contribs) 19:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.