Talk:Abdominal external oblique muscle

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Requested move 21 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdominal external oblique muscle → External oblique – TA English equivalent - far more widely referred to – Iztwoz (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iztwoz: Full name is clearer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To follow the lead in usage - External oblique is referred to more. Entry name at moment does not register at all on ngrams and on google search external oblique has twice as many refs. Articles themselves use the more usually referred to names. The named muscles are only found in the abdomen. As the entry for Biceps - brachii relating to arm is not used. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to external oblique muscle. I think although "external oblique" is a little confusing as it raises the question "external oblique what?" --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposal is to shorten past the point of jargon. Of course sources will use shortened forms, because they are already in the context of the abdomen and muscles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If nothing else because the nom did not even bother with due diligence to provide support for the proposal. Claiming without basis that a proposed title is "far more widely referred to" doesn't cut it, Iztwoz. I reserve the right to change my !vote if compelling evidence that the proposed title is commonly used in reliable sources to refer to this topic is presented. Ping me. --В²C ☎ 04:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.