Talk:Syro-Malabar Church/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Syro-Malabar Church. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Article title dispute
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church → Syro-Malabar Church – The term is WP:Concise,WP:COMMONhere, and the website contains the naming too http://www.syromalabarchurch.in/, so the name is official . There is no naming convention so any naming should be based on Wikipedia policy. Manabimasu (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC);Manabimasu (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —Logosx127 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The title was previously discussed in here and the consensus was created in favour of Syro-Malabar Church. Due to the above elaborated reasons and existing Wikipedia conventions, the title should be restored as early as possible.Logosx127 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Cuchullain and Scorpions1325: as they were also involved in the previous consesus. Logosx127 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Logosx127 I don't think I am qualified enough to comment on this. I was just getting involved with moving pages. Had I seen that discussion today, I wouldn't have participated. Scorpions1325 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- My dispute is largely based on WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMON and WP:PRECISE. I think a discussion can be done based on these conventions as it was previously handled. Logosx127 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Logosx127 These rationales were raised in the discussion immediately above this one, and it returned a "no move". Picking up a dispute that was carried on by an IP during the duration of your sock block does not look great (neither does moving the page without consensus). I recommend dropping the stick. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Are you associating the IP with me? Whatsoever, you haven't addressed the arguments. I am simply relisting the previous discussion started by Manabimasu which resulted in the consensus in favour of the more brief and more common title.Logosx127 (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am. And please see recent reporting on this subject that demonstrates that "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church" is used on first reference, with "Syro-Malabar Church" as an acceptable term on subsequent reference: Vatican News, National Catholic Register, Indian Express. While "Syro-Malabar Church" is a very common name (and an officially accepted one), it is not so exceedingly more common than the official name as to warrant using it instead of the official full name. It's also not evident that it is more common, and you'd need good evidence to show that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's exactly where WP:PRECISE applies. We don't need to be extremely precise in naming an article. You have already accepted that Syro-Malabar Church is equivalent to Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. You have also admitted that the shorter title is more common and you haven't argued for an ambiguity in the title. I think the dispute is over by now if we could agree to restore the article title as Syro-Malabar Church based on WP:COMMON, WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE and keep Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in the first line. Logosx127 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am. And please see recent reporting on this subject that demonstrates that "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church" is used on first reference, with "Syro-Malabar Church" as an acceptable term on subsequent reference: Vatican News, National Catholic Register, Indian Express. While "Syro-Malabar Church" is a very common name (and an officially accepted one), it is not so exceedingly more common than the official name as to warrant using it instead of the official full name. It's also not evident that it is more common, and you'd need good evidence to show that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Are you associating the IP with me? Whatsoever, you haven't addressed the arguments. I am simply relisting the previous discussion started by Manabimasu which resulted in the consensus in favour of the more brief and more common title.Logosx127 (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Logosx127 These rationales were raised in the discussion immediately above this one, and it returned a "no move". Picking up a dispute that was carried on by an IP during the duration of your sock block does not look great (neither does moving the page without consensus). I recommend dropping the stick. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- My dispute is largely based on WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMON and WP:PRECISE. I think a discussion can be done based on these conventions as it was previously handled. Logosx127 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Logosx127 I don't think I am qualified enough to comment on this. I was just getting involved with moving pages. Had I seen that discussion today, I wouldn't have participated. Scorpions1325 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Natemup as involved in the last discussion. Not sure why they were neglected in the pings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)