Talk:Genua

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move

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: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also a related dicussion at Talk:Überwald (Bergstraße)#Requested move.

Genua (disambiguation) → Genua – I just fixed ±32 incoming links that were aimed at the real-life Italian city but were redirected to the fictional Discworld city. At the same time there are only 14 incoming links from Discworld-articles. Therefore I conclude that more people use Genua as the alternative spelling for the real-life city and probably a regular disambiguation page would be best instead of a auto-redirect to the lesser used fictional location. FakirNL (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be being discussed as a Redirect for discussion, since the redirect of Genua is central to the proposed move? The question is "Is the Discworld city the Primary Topic for the word Genua?". I think it's probably an RfD. PamD 16:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Pam, no. If the intention is to delete a redirect to move another page there, RM is the usual process. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the people who are interested in Discworld, including the person who created the redirect in the first place and considered that the Discworld city was the Primary Topic, don't get to be notified of the discussion by any established mechanism? Doesn't seem right. Anyway, I've left a note on the redirect's talk page, in case it's on anyone's watchlist, and also on the "probably inactive" Discworld project's talk page. PamD 17:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try Talk:Discworld geography. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, I definitely wasn't trying to bypass the Discworld fans by placing the requested move here instead of at the redirect talk page; this just seemed like the best place. - FakirNL (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, let's get this straight... You're going to interject a personal complaint at FakirNL into an ongoing RM discussion, about a supposed failure to notify the "right" people, yet you don't even add a notice to Talk:Discworld geography, the actual target of the Genua rediretct? I posted said notice myself, BTW. FakirNL is following entirely normal WP practice, and isn't even necessarily expected to have noticed that the seeming Discworld city article goes to a sectional redirect (I didn't notice this myself upon first commenting here; the DAB page was misleadingly linking to the would-be article name, not to the target Discworld geography#Genua). Discworld fans don't get to be exempt from standard operating procedure just because this happens to intersect with a fannish interest of theirs. One should watchlist the page names one cares about. Even the WP:DISCWORLD wikiproject is inactive [single-work projects are usually a bad idea, because they run out of articles to write quickly!], so notifying it might have been a waste of time in FakirNL's estimation. There's no requirement for FakirNL to go far out of his way looking for people to canvass against his own move proposal. :-/ And redirs are not articles; the creators of them do not have the kind of not-really-proprietary interest in them. Few of us bother to notify the creators of redirs when they're affected by RM discussions. It's not s.o.p., much less required of WP:ETIQUETTE. Finally, this is the proper talk page at which to have this move discussion, since its page is the one with content added by multiple editors with distinct interest, not just some redirect no one pays attention to. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, PamD. Avoid excessive formalism. If you want Discworld-fans notified over this kind of triviality, you should do it yourself.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, SMcCandlish and Peter Isotalo. I'm sorry if FakirNL took this as "a personal complaint": it wasn't. I was genuinely asking which of two venues the discussion ought to be at, as two separate operations were being proposed: the elimination of the redirect, and then the move of the dab page to the vacated title. When I was informed by BDD that yes, this was the correct venue for discussion, I expressed surprise that "the system" doesn't provide for notification at the previously-agreed primary topic, and I notified a couple of places. I quite agree that the redirect's target article's talk page would have been a good place to put a note about it too, don't know why I didn't think of it at the time. People watchlist things they're interested in, but not necessarily the dab page to which an incoming redirect might be converted. PamD 23:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as also other two cases added by BDD. In this case there's an exonym, Genova, but still Genua has some currency in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The reasoning for making the disambiguation page the primary topic seems rather strong. Steel1943 (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Red Slash 03:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't absolutely categorically buy the "a real-world place is automatically more notable than a fictional one" argument (I could found a small town called Mordor, but I wouldn't expect Mordor to be moved to Mordor (fiction) or whatever any time soon). In this case, it's patently obvious that the real place is more notable than the fictional one, popular as Discworld might be. Even if Genua were a real article on that, not a redir to Discworld geography#Genua. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an informal consensus that real-world uses should usually be primary over fictional ones, with some commonsense exceptions. Peter Parker is a good case where the fictional usage really does have more notability. If in doubt, though, I'd say we don't want to assume primacy of fictional uses. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Real world importance is obviously more relevant here. Peter ^Isotalo 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: seems reasonable, even though the real-world place here is an archaic/non-English/misspelled version of the name! PamD 23:36, 25 April 2014 (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.