Talk:Gog

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gog (disambiguation) → Gog — move to appropriate name - no article at proposed destination —B.Wind (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support per WP:D. There are multiple meanings of the word, and a redirect page is insufficient at target area. In addition, it is bad form to have a redirect to a dab page of the same name. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The main article is Gog and Magog, Gog should redirect there. The disambig page can be found at the main article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine but it's irrelevant the current move proposal. Your argument may have merit though so, please bring it up as a separate proposal or in the discussion section. — AjaxSmack 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:D as proposer - there are at least nine other pages with Gog as the name (or part thereof) of the article. The word has outgrown the scope of Gog and Magog. Since there is no article at Gog, the word (disambiguation) is redundant. B.Wind (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:DAB#NAME. This isn't even controversial. — AjaxSmack 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

GOG and Gog should direct to the same page per WP:PRECISION ("If two or more pages differ only in small details of spelling (including use of diacritics and capitalization) it may be advisable to combine the pages or provide links between the pages to reduce confusion for readers and editors.") which I see User:B.Wind has already done. — AjaxSmack 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

People??

Without providing even the pretense that he wants to provide a source, User:Til Eulenspiegel claims that Gog and Magog are actual people, while accusing me of POV-pushing.

Can someone please explain him that Wikipedia is based on WP:RELIABLE sources? Thanks. --91.10.59.75 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The revert is because you moved them to the fiction section, which seems to be pushing the point of view that the Bible is fiction, and appears to be tendentious editing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your excuse? You acknowledge that the section where you put the article makes no sense, but the section I picked was not to your liking? I suggest you reconsider your work on Wikipedia, your confrontational attitude will not help the project. --91.10.59.75 (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merely reverted a tendentious pov edit. So far I have had no previous involvement in this article, and take no responsibility for the content reverted to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming bad faith was your first mistake. After that, one cannot expect much. --91.10.59.75 (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOG is a polish company

My edit pointed out, that GOG is a polish company, depite it's registered in Cyprus. Horgelblob reverted my edit without any explanation. Horgerblob - please explain the reason, other people - please comment on that. 123unoduetre (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the right place to discuss that. Horgelblob (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]