Talk:Newlyweds (disambiguation)

Requested move

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: consensus to move the page in this case, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newlyweds → Newlyweds (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT. I see nothing on this page to dissuade me from thinking that the clear primary topic of the term is the singular, Newlywed; they necessarily come in pairs, anyway, and are referred to in the plural. bd2412 T 22:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and pasted per the editor's request: Support - and feel free to copy paste this support onto all similar moves. I think this is now a case for use of technical move rather than full RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Oppose~~ in this one case. the Newlywed article is barely developed User:Gregkaye
Oppose per unsigned Gregkaye comment above. Redirecting to a non-existent article does not help anyone. Dohn joe (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm above support - User:Gregkaye is First year of marriage a less notable topic than for random example MassTransit-Project? Among the other things that User:BD2412's housekeeping clean up can be expected to find are gaping holes like this one. User:Dohn joe opposing filling gaps in the encyclopedia doesn't help anyone either. Please start the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't a gaping hole be filled before we toss our readers into it? It would have been much better to create the article before suggesting that we redirect readers to the current gaping hole. Now that the draft is underway (and it looks good!), we can re-evaluate the benefits of this move. For now, though, it doesn't make sense. Dohn joe (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have created Draft:Newlyweds. The Encyclopedia of Human Relationships has a four page article on the subject that is entirely focused on social science research into the subject. I dare say we can do better than that. bd2412 T 02:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:BD2412, this is exactly what WP:RM should be doing, identifying and filling holes. That is already viable as a start article. Is Encyclopedia of Human Relationships article titled Newlyweds or something else like Early years of marriage? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Human Relationships article is actually titled Newlyweds. I would submit that this is the common name for people in the early years of a marriage (as well as being more concise). bd2412 T 03:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye: @Dohn joe: Now that an article has been created at Newlywed, is the basis for your opposition resolved? bd2412 T 17:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YEP (that was code for support). The article looks really well structured and reads well. good job. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose. I'm pretty pleased with the newlywed article that bd2412 and I just wrote. I think, though, that the articles on the dab page here are likely to outdraw that article, and certainly be the likeliest targets for "newlyweds" searchers. Checking out the pageview stats show that there are several quite popular articles there. Dohn joe (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:PLURALPT and WP:NOTDICT. I, too, appreciate User:BD2412's work on the article even if it might have been extorted by comments here. However, the term is still more of a dictionary term and less of an encyclopedia topic for "Newlyweds" vis-à-vis the other entries. — AjaxSmack 03:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and also because everything on the DAB page is so obvious derivative, making it pretty obvious what is the primary topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 03:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wonder... isn't it a bit like trousers? You can't have one... [1] Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 22 October 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.