Talk:DS 7 Crossback

Requested move 27 September 2022

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: No consensus. Following the principle "when in doubt, disambiguate", and the concerns that "DS 7" is ambiguous (although the car may well be the primary topic), I will redirect it to the dab page DS7. As usual, a no consensus close may be subject to revisiting in near future. No such user (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS 7 Crossback → DS 7 – With the recent 2022 facelift, the car changed its name, ditching the Crossback subtitle (jabz) 15:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Automobiles has been notified. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we were starting a brand new article then either name would be fine. Under the general idea of WP:RETAIN, I would leave it as-is. Who knows, maybe next year they will restore the old name or give it an entirely new name. In any of these cases, a redirect, such as DS 7, will bring the reader here. Stepho talk 22:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support per WP:CONCISE, however I think that DS 7 is perhaps ambiguous, and should actually redirect to DS7, a disambiguation page, and so this article should stay with the current name as a natural disambiguation. Certainly if that is not redirected a hatnote should be added to this article (whether it is moved or not). I'm struggling to see the relevance of WP:RETAIN as that refers to the variety of English an article is written in. A7V2 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said the general idea of WP:RETAIN. When there are multiple valid ways of doing something and one of them is already implemented then we shouldn't swap between them without a very, very good reason. Stepho talk 04:23, 5 October 2022 (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.

@Stepho-wrs:: something like this is indeed codified in WP:TITLECHANGES: If an article title has been stable for a long time,[9] and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Now, rebranding does qualify as a good reason, but given the ambiguity (and recognizability) concerns, I agree that the old title is good enough for the time being. No such user (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste move

Really sorry, as I was impatient and cannot wait for the speedy deletion of the redirect. I did move the existing redirect to my userpage and speedy deleting it also. — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)