Talk:Accius

Requested move 9 October 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

---

• Accius → Accius (Latin poet)
• Accius (disambiguation) → Accius

– Per pageviews and comparison with other topics, there is no primary topic for the term "Accius". If any topic may have a possibility of having the primary topic claim per page views and third party searches, it would be Lucius Accius, but at the present time, I do not see enough evidence for that subject/article to the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target for this term. (Also, I chose "Accius (Latin poet)" for the new title since "poet" is ambiguous [Lucius Accius was also a poet and seems to be often referred to by his surname.]) Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support these moves 2601:541:4500:1760:4013:BD07:EBAC:5345 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lucius Accius was also a Latin poet! How about Accius (16th-century poet)? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If the subject Lucius Accius is indeed a "Latin poet" (this was not clear in their article), then I'm fine with this move instead of the one I proposed. And @Necrothesp: Just to make sure, since it wasn't completely clear in the statement above: Do you support the "Accius (disambiguation) → Accius" move? Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Given Lucius Accius was Roman, of course he was a Latin poet! Which other language would he have written in? Yes, I do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the only article titled "Accius". All of the other dab page entries are partial title matches. PC78 (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need to disambiguate since this is the only article called "Accius". Neodop (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and would also support Necrothesp's proposed form, Accius (16th-century poet). The one-sentence stub for Accius does not fit the concept of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC above six other entries at the Accius (disambiguation) page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I honestly can't see how the opposers above can't see that this obscure poet isn't the primary topic for Accius, given the Roman poet also often goes by this name, as will the others on the list. It is not therefore a "partial title match". -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    • None of those articles indicate that those people are known by the mononym "Accius". PC78 (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • So you've never heard of a person being referred to simply by their family name? Weird! It was very common in Roman times too. Chaps whose cognomens were Caesar and Cicero, for instance. If the 16th-century poet was very famous then I'd agree, but he clearly isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2019 (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.