Talk:Cheyenne (disambiguation)

On 24 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Cheyenne. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 24 December 2023

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: not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move. BD2412 T 21:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne (disambiguation) → Cheyenne
Cheyenne → Cheyenne people

– Title similar to British people and British language. The people have 11,739 views but the capital of Wyoming has 21,482 views, the TV series has 3,743, the language has 1,521, Cheyenne Enterprises has 467, the given name has 466, the place in Oklahoma has 430, the river has 396, the Jason Derulo song has 250, the 1947 film has 233, the video game has 119, the catamaran has 110, the 1906 song has 90, the supercomputer has 46, the 1929 film has 19 a,d the Francesca Michielin song has 7. Google returns more results for the capital than the people as does Images but Books suggests the people may be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Redirecting to a disambiguation page would just guarantee that no one would arrive at their desired article when searching "Cheyenne". Cheyenne, Wyoming and Cheyenne language are instantly accessible through the hatnote and infobox on Cheyenne, which should continue as the primary topic, since all other uses of the term come from their name. Yuchitown (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Oppose per primary and long-term significance (almost everything on the page is named for the tribe, thus affirming long-term significance in naming practices). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a similar proposed move that resulted in "not moved": Talk:Cheyenne#Requested move 2 February 2015. User:Maunus pointed out that "the Great Native American Move War of 2014 resulted in a kind of consensus that the indigenous groups are the primary topics for their names and that consequently we don't need to have 'X people' articles, they should be located directly at X." Yuchitown (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
I don't think that discussion has much relevance, it had the only reason as "people" with no comment about what do do the the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has relevance because the argument is that indigenous peoples are always the primary topics for their names. It does not apply only to people articles, but this is one of the people article, and indeed one where it is the primary reference.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire linked discussion is completely relevant and resulted in "not moved" then, as this will as well. Perhaps this will get rehashed a decade in the future too. Yuchitown (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions where there is no reason given and no indication about what do do with the base name (as its going to be less obvious without titles that aren't qualified but may be naturally disambiguated) commonly result in consensus against a move but when a reason and intention on what to do with the base name are given are more likely to result in consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oppose move·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.