Jump to content

Talk:Fellows (surname)

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

Requested move 21 July 2018

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is consensus to move both the pages per the discussion below but no consensus on merging/redirecting Fellows (disambiguation) to either of the suggested targets. Discussion on the merger can be furthered on the relevant talk page should editors choose to pursue. (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 17:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– some plural of fellow 72.239.6.168 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 19:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (i.e., there is none), but oppose redirecting to fellow for the same reason. I'm fine with a merge of Fellows (disambiguation) into Fellow (disambiguation) if others agree. —  AjaxSmack  01:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't "Fellows" a good PTOPIC, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, none of the topics at Fellows (disambiguation) look to have much significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ​Not unless there is evidence that people searching for "fellow" in an encyclopedia would type "fellows". I would wager that people typing the s are just as likely to be searching for the surname. There is a way to test this; see WP:DABTEST. However, so far this nomination is based entirely on supposition. —  AjaxSmack  14:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajax the primary meaning in the encyclopedia for "Fellows" would appear to be the plural of Fellow, none of the other topics come close to challenging it, the surname doesn't have any actual content yet, though there is coverage (and none of the people appear to be ambiguous with "Fellows"). Fellows, California has a population of 106 and Fellows, Wisconsin is a ghost town. Redirecting a plural to a singular (or vice versa) is common in accordance with WP:NOTDICT (see the "Minor differences" section) and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The same would apply to Blossoms and Ovens, the articles are at the singular because of WP convention, not that they aren't commonly referred to in plural, Cars redirects to the vehicle despite Cars (film). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ..."the primary meaning...would appear to be..." is faith-based editing, which (although I don't have any hostility towards) I see no reason to apply here. —  AjaxSmack  22:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We often make educated guesses in such cases, see Talk:Bones (disambiguation)#Requested move but in any case one could probably be able to work out quite easily that Manchester is a more likly target than Manchester, Ohio, without looking at stats etc. But anyway Fellow gets around 354 views a day wile the other 2 topics get around 8 [[1]] compare this to Car where Cars (film) and others get more views [[2]], the vehicle is still primary for the plural, however the film is based on the vehicle. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    An educated guess would be nice, but how is that to be done with no evidence? The number of views the fellow article gets does nothing to inform us what people typing "fellows" are looking for. That Car is the target for "Cars" is also a mistake if you note that the a Google search of "Cars" does not turn up the Wikipedia "Car" article anywhere in the top 50 hits (but it does include Cars [film] and The Cars). The fact that "the film is based on the vehicle" is utterly irrelevant to a user searching for a topic in an encyclopedia. Do you really think someone looking for information on the film is suddenly going to exclaim, "Wow, didn't know that this movie was about cars; I've changed my mind; I think I'll read about automobiles instead of the movie"? —  AjaxSmack  02:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You might as well argue the same thing with Apples v Apple (that people should be expected to search the plural form), I don't see why the plural has a significantly smaller claim than the single, as I pointed out it is just WP convention to title singular and fellow(s) is a count noun that means it is common in both singular and plural. I don't think the car situation is a mistake, "Cars" would nearly always be understood to mean well car(s). Notice how many times "Cars" appears on our article Car, also "Fellows" also appears at that article. The very fact that the film is called "Cars" and not "Car" is precisely because the noun is frequently pluralized. If you think Cars should go somewhere else, feel free to start a RM there but I doubt it will be successful. If I start typing "Cars" into Google it suggests things like cars for sale. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both moves as nominated, and oppose merger of dab pages. Most of the entries on Fellows (disambiguation), for example the place names, are essentially unrelated to the singular form "fellow", and it's far better and clearer for readers to have them listed separately rather than shoehorning them on to one dab page. I also don't see a case for a primary redirect at this point, per AjaxSmack. Just let the dab page be at the base name.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both moves as nominated, and oppose merger of dab pages - as above. Dreamy Jazz talk | contribs 21:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fellows_(surname)&oldid=1199642461"