Talk:Fire + Water (Lost): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Requested move: support |
→Requested move: so |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Oppose''' Uniformity has not been held up as a general principle in support of disambiguation tags, when they are not necessary. There is nothing to disambiguate, so dismabiguation is strictly unnecessary. Convenience to editors is also not a valid rationale. We are to make things easy for our readers, not our editors. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' Uniformity has not been held up as a general principle in support of disambiguation tags, when they are not necessary. There is nothing to disambiguate, so dismabiguation is strictly unnecessary. Convenience to editors is also not a valid rationale. We are to make things easy for our readers, not our editors. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' [[Fire + Water]] would transparently redirect to [[Fire + Water (Lost)]], so readers would not be confused. It is not yet a disambiguation, it is merely internal housekeeping which is of no real consequence to readers, though it will locate the article in a permanent home so it won't need to be moved if disambiguation eventually becomes necessary. It hardly seems beyond imagining that someone at some point might connect two [[classical element]]s with an add sign and use it as the name for something else. -[[User:Anþony|Anþony]] 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' [[Fire + Water]] would transparently redirect to [[Fire + Water (Lost)]], so readers would not be confused. It is not yet a disambiguation, it is merely internal housekeeping which is of no real consequence to readers, though it will locate the article in a permanent home so it won't need to be moved if disambiguation eventually becomes necessary. It hardly seems beyond imagining that someone at some point might connect two [[classical element]]s with an add sign and use it as the name for something else. -[[User:Anþony|Anþony]] 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong Oppose''': I don't think most of the articles in that category should have "(Lost)" after them. I'm tempted to start going through undoing those unnecessarily disambiguated titles. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:48, 17 September 2006
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Banner
Requested move
I recommend that this article be moved to the title of "Fire + Water (Lost)" in order to make it consistent with the other episode articles in Category:Lost episodes. --Elonka
- Oppose This is unnecessary disambiguation. Since no other article would reasonably be titled "Fire + Water", it should stay where it is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support (as nominator) One of the reasons that it would be helpful, is for those editors who are routinely scanning the Lost articles for fancruft/vandalism. Some have expressed concerns that it's difficult to maintain the large quantity of articles in their watchlist. However, if every episode clearly says "(Lost)" in the title, that makes them easier to spot. Another reason is that episodes have a great deal of crossover, so are linked between each other. To have some episodes with the suffix, and some without, can make linking occasionally more difficult, as it's necessary to manually check the episode to see which kind it is. Having all of them with the same ending, makes linking (and scanning for typos and opportunities to disambiguate) much easier. --Elonka 23:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support In the interest of uniformity among titles, the move should me made. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Uniformity has not been held up as a general principle in support of disambiguation tags, when they are not necessary. There is nothing to disambiguate, so dismabiguation is strictly unnecessary. Convenience to editors is also not a valid rationale. We are to make things easy for our readers, not our editors. Nohat 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support Fire + Water would transparently redirect to Fire + Water (Lost), so readers would not be confused. It is not yet a disambiguation, it is merely internal housekeeping which is of no real consequence to readers, though it will locate the article in a permanent home so it won't need to be moved if disambiguation eventually becomes necessary. It hardly seems beyond imagining that someone at some point might connect two classical elements with an add sign and use it as the name for something else. -Anþony 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose: I don't think most of the articles in that category should have "(Lost)" after them. I'm tempted to start going through undoing those unnecessarily disambiguated titles. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)