Talk:Moselle

Untitled

Dutch: Moezel Marcov 20:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves

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: moved. There is a clear consensus that the river is the PRIMARYTOPIC. Xoloz (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

---

• Moselle (river) → Moselle
• Moselle → Moselle (department)

– In English, the primary topic for "Moselle" is the river, that's what people are generally referring to when they talk about "the Moselle". This is clearly confirmed on google books. Some way behind the river, are the Moselle valley and Moselle wine, but I am not proposing to change those. However, not many English-speakers are familiar with French department names, so Moselle, in the sense of a department is way behind, yet it is currently the primary topic. This move request resolves that problem by moving Moselle to Moselle (department), following the disambiguation convention for French departments. Bermicourt (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support this also fixes the bad disambiguation of this river article, there being another river called "Moselle". -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Might say something about me, but when I think of "Moselle" my first thought is for the wine. So I'm in agreement that Moselle should be renamed Moselle (department), but I think it might be better if Moselle (disambiguation) moves to Moselle because I don't think there is any topic that is more likely than all other topics combined. Anyway, to something a bit more objective than my gut reaction, here are the page view stats over the last 90 days: 13,085 for Moselle (river), 10,261 for Moselle, 3,599 for Moselle valley, 2,065 for Moselle wine, 1,649 for River Moselle (London), 805 for Moselle, Mississippi, 361 for Mosselle, Missouri, 307 for Moselle (riverboat), 384 for Mosselle (disambiguation). Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Further comment. Thanks for doing those stats. It'd be interesting to see how many viewers of Moselle went there by mistake. If you take out the department's administrative units and navbox articles, many of the remaining links to Moselle are clearly about the river but erroneously pointing to the department. For example, see Rhine, Battle of Ramillies, 370s and all historical articles referring to Moselle before the department was even formed. Also, taking a quick sample from Google Books, 70% were about the river; the remaining 30% was split evenly between the valley, the department and the steamship. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Interesting, thanks. Yes, it's always difficult to say how many views for what is currently at the primary topic location are actually people intending to go the disambiguated article that actually has more views. To clarify my position for the closing admin, I support the move of Moselle → Moselle (department) and am neutral on the move of Moselle (river) → Moselle, as I think there are reasonable arguments both in favour and against it. Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Make Moselle a dab page & move the department to Moselle (department), per Jenks24. I'm sceptical of the claim that people would be familiar with the river but not department. If you're knowledgeable enough to know about the name of a French sub-tributary of the Rhine, then you should know that French departments are very often, even predominantly, named after rivers. Regarding traffic, 75% of the traffic going to the department would have to be meant for the river to give it a bare majority. Wp:primarytopic says "clearly more than all other topics combined". In this case, that would mean perhaps 20,000 of the 30,000 views. Considering that a fair share of viewers not looking for the department might be looking for something else than the river also, in this case the wine, a disambiguation page is what is needed. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you for the suppport. I wonder if you could recheck the arithmetic? My calculations suggest only 30% would be needed, but I may be wrong. Also, in my experience, European English speakers overwhelmingly know the Moselle river and valley as a very picturesque tourist destination in both Germany and France, but would not have a clue about French departments. Even so, page visits are not considered by Wikipedia to be decisive. However the hard evidence from Google Books and from non-admin articles is that "Moselle" is referring to the river - around 70% in the case of Google Books. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding page visits, they are considered decisive. What you mean by "primary topic" (covered more often by books) is not the same as wp:primarytopic. In fact, until bits about "enduring notability" and "educational value" were added, traffic was the only criterion. I wrote the mini-essay WP:TITANIC on why it was bad, at that time Avatar was about the movie and not the hindu concept. Things are better now, even if there are still things like nickelodeon, which should about the early small movie theatres no matter how many more hits the children's channel gets. However, in this case neither candidates has a superior qualitative advantage, so the quantitative one is the determining one. Regarding my arithmetic, you need to take around three quarters (or 75%) of the department's hits (around 7000 out of 10000, (and a 100% of them must be people looking for the river)) and add them to the river's 13000 to have a clear enough 2/3 majority of hits, i.e. 20000 out of 30000. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ah sorry, I thought you meant to get to around 51%. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm hardly a math genius myself, but the importance of statistical significance has been bashed in my skull . ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. In addition, the other meanings are derivative. —  AjaxSmack  20:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As AjaxSmack said, other meanings are derivative. There is also a strong case for a dab page, as Victor Falk suggested, but as the river is the original meaning, it makes sense to give it a primary status despite close competition in page views. A hatnote should be put in place, of course. No such user (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom and AjaxSmack.--Staberinde (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support both moves. A line call IMO, but this is the most logical result, and most helpful to readers overall. Andrewa (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• I must say I completely forgot to take into account that the wine and the department are derivatives of the river. Per the established avatar, titanic, corvette and minesweeper praxis, I support the move proposal. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:41, 21 June 2014 (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.

tourist brochure?

The second paragraph of this article reads like the blurb in a tourist brochure. I read a lot of geographic articles yet, offhand, I can't recall another intro so obviously so. - ZuluKane (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"winegrowing" vs. "wine growing" vs. "wine-growing"

@Bermicourt: Although Merriam-Webster shows "wine growing", it is shown as a noun. Used as a compound modifier, it would take a hyphen ("wine-growing region"). Collins Dictionary shows "winegrowing". There is no justification for using all three forms in one article, as this one did before I changed it (same with the Lower Moselle article). The Collins Dictionary choice ("winegrowing") has the benefit of not setting us up for arguments about whether the hyphen is needed when used adjectivally. One way to settle what form to use is to search the revision history to see which form was used in the earliest revision and the use that form throughout the article. I did not research this, but you are free to do so. Chris the speller ^yack 04:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)