Talk:Riphean (stage)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move 1 February 2025
[edit]
 | It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
- Riphean (stage) → Riphean (geology)
- Llandovery Epoch → Llandovery (geology)
- Wenlock Epoch → Wenlock (geology)
- Ludlow Epoch → Ludlow (geology)
- Pridoli Epoch → Pridoli (geology)
- Moscovian (Carboniferous) → Moscovian (geology)
- Oxfordian (stage) → Oxfordian (geology)
- Aquitanian (stage) → Aquitanian (geology)
- Calabrian (stage) → Calabrian (geology)
- Boreal (age) → Boreal (paleoclimatology)
- Atlantic (period) → Atlantic (paleoclimatology)
– Standardize disambiguators for divisions of geological time based on the 2014 precedent for Mississippian (geology) and Pennsylvanian (geology). Also included are two paleoclimate ages of the Holocene, not included in the geologic time scale. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure about a few of these – "Llandovery Epoch" seems like a good natural disambiguation. No objection to standardizing the existing parenthetical disambiguators. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Geology has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Question: How sure are we that none of these are the primary topic? Even though Consistency is a criterion for article titles, having no disambiguator is preferable for primary topics (per WP:D, WP:COMMONNAME, Recognizability, and Naturalness) — hike395 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)- Alternative proposal --- according to the disambiguation naming guideline, using a
more complete name ... that is unambiguous, commonly used in English ... and equally clear
istypically the best to use
. Following this guideline, I would propose the following:- Riphean (stage) → Riphean stage
- Moscovian (Carboniferous) → Moscovian stage
- Oxfordian (stage) → Oxfordian stage
- Aquitanian (stage) → Aquitanian stage
- Calabrian (stage) → Calabrian stage
- Boreal (age) → Boreal age
- Atlantic (period) → Atlantic period
- Mississippian (geology) → Mississippian subperiod
- Pennsylvanian (geology) → Pennsylvanian subperiod
- I selected lower case for these because that appears to be the most commonly used, although I'm open to upper case also. — hike395 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I like this alternative proposal, but for the purpose of standardization, I think all articles about geological time periods would need to be renamed in a similar fashion. My understanding of WP:CONSISTENT is that parentheses for disambiguation don’t break consistency, but adding words that aren’t “naturally” there would (“City” as a proper noun is the example it gives for acceptable natural disambiguation). Since these articles are no different than all the others that are simply titled Devonian, Triassic, etc., I think they should all be titled Devonian period, Triassic period, etc. if this proposal is adopted. The capitalization of the second word should also be consistently either upper case or not. I2Overcome (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- There is WP:CONCISE to consider --- article titles should also be short. Generally if there is no ambiguity (or if the topic is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), you also want the shortest title. I would think that would push us towards Devonian rather than Devonian Period. I'm content for the second word to be capitalized, too. — hike395 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- None of my business, but I know some people who strongly oppose capitalization of the second (categorizing) word of this kind: they like Ross orogeny but dislike Samfrau Orogeny and work hard towards their likes in some areas. --Altenmann >talk 08:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, I think it makes more sense to use parenthesis for the ones that need disambiguation. I don't think it's worth breaking consistency by adding the word "period," "stage," etc. to a few but not all of the articles for geological periods, stages, and other time units. But I'm an inexperienced, new editor, so I will differ to your judgement on how to best apply Wikipedia's article naming policies. I just thought I would contribute to this discussion since it appears to have stalled for some time. —I2Overcome (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- There is WP:CONCISE to consider --- article titles should also be short. Generally if there is no ambiguity (or if the topic is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), you also want the shortest title. I would think that would push us towards Devonian rather than Devonian Period. I'm content for the second word to be capitalized, too. — hike395 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- I like this alternative proposal, but for the purpose of standardization, I think all articles about geological time periods would need to be renamed in a similar fashion. My understanding of WP:CONSISTENT is that parentheses for disambiguation don’t break consistency, but adding words that aren’t “naturally” there would (“City” as a proper noun is the example it gives for acceptable natural disambiguation). Since these articles are no different than all the others that are simply titled Devonian, Triassic, etc., I think they should all be titled Devonian period, Triassic period, etc. if this proposal is adopted. The capitalization of the second word should also be consistently either upper case or not. I2Overcome (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
