Jump to content

Talk:GWR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 26 April 2022

[edit]
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 to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


GWRGWR (disambiguation) – to allow for the current title to be harmonised with the main article primary topic (which is Great Western Railway, and should be where this common acronym also leads to (per WP:CONSISTENCY) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please show evidence that Great Western Railway is the primary topic for GWR? Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole of the evidence that is needed is the simple and uncontested fact that the article is currently at Great Western Railway. However, on top of that, there is this discussion showing that there is consensus that this is indeed the primary topic (as opposed to a similarly-named modern entity). I don't see why this would be controversial. Other examples of abbreviations linking to the primary topic they would refer to in the vast majority of cases include NYC, USA, and plenty of others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. I don't think the RM that you mention applies, and even if it did, previous RMs are typically a sign that something is not uncontroversial. I also feel that comparing New York City with a railway company that most people have never heard about is not a fair comparison. I'm marking this as contested. You're more than welcome to start an RM. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RM very much shows there is a consensus that the article "Great Western Railway" is the primary topic for the designation "Great Western Railway" (many of the comments there specifically make arguments that that is the case, ex. The original GWR was in business for well over 100 years and has much more literature written about it which has enabled its article to be developed to GA status.. And thus, it is also the primary topic for GWR. A major railway company which was engineered by none other than Brunel is much more likely to be searched for than some American one which is actually known as the G&W, or some former radio station. Please withdraw your opposition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't quite agree with your argument. I'm also contesting the very fact that your request is uncontroversial (if nothing else, the fact that we're having this discussion shows that it's not uncontroversial). Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Dr. Vogel, this should have a full RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topic grabs are rarely uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I think it's fair to give the person a chance to explain themselves. Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2022 (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.