Jump to content

Talk:Finland–Norway border

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Norway–Finland borderFinland–Norway border – The article was moved to "Norway–Finland border" due to "West-East country position". As a general rule west-east would lead to all kinds of complications (what if the countries are north/south of each other? or northeast/southwest? one surrounding the other like Italy/San Marino? etc.). Second, the common practice seems to be alphabetical order, judging from the contents of Category:Borders by country; see for example Category:Borders of Mali. As a precedent see Talk:Mexico–United States border#Requested_move.2FDiscussion_about_title. Jmk (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the general issue on the MOS talk page. (But then somebody said MOS was the wrong place, as it is a TITLE issue. Oh well.) --Jmk (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment people have been renaming bilateral issues and border articles recently to make it that way. As to whether such a convention exists, or whether people are editwarring the titles to get their way... -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while the idea "West-East" is not a bad idea in general, it can't be followed as easily as the alpha solution in practice. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't see any good source-based reason to start building a convention on which-side-of-a-border-to-name-first, If a rule is to be used to justify moving articles, that rule should at least be documented and supported by some kind of consensus; I see neither. bobrayner (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't bother you, then, that the article was moved without consensus? --BDD (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does bother me; but although undiscussed moves are usually problematic, I don't see the current title as problematic. I would see another move as a net negative, until there's a genuine reason to move which is actually based on sources or something like that... and if this RM succeeds, sooner or later somebody's likely to start citing it as a precedent in order to move a bunch of other articles for "consistency" (on which issue I agree with Emerson). bobrayner (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hobgoblins such as myself will continue to cite consistency in RMs, especially since one of the core points of WP:CRITERIA is consistency ("Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles"). Isn't the risk of nationalistic edit warring worse than trying to enforce consistency? --BDD (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Another move" means simply going back to the original title which has been stable since the article was created — which is the default anyway in case of no consensus (Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus). --Jmk (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2013 (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.