Talk:Cascades
Add topic | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 04 November 2013
[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: Move. Clear consensus to remove the "the". It has been suggested that Cascade Range is the actual primary topic of the term "Cascades", while there's currently no consensus to that effect it may be worth exploring in the future. Cúchullain t/c 17:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The Cascades → Cascades – Per WP:THE, titles should not start with articles, except for unusual conditions not met here: entries on this dab page are not uniquely named "The Cascades". Per WP:DABNAME, dabs without a primary topic should be titles with the ambiguous term. —hike395 (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Survey
[edit]- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support: seems logical. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support, this should be our standard titling practice. bd2412 T 20:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support move to Cascades (disambiguation); primary topic for Cascades is the Cascade Range, which is where Cascades redirected until about nine months ago. Red Slash 01:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Any additional comments:
Re: primary topic --- I see Red Slash has proposed that Cascade Range is the primary topic for this disambiguation. I find this plausible. Has anyone done a primary topic analysis? What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- 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.