Talk:Lese Majesty (album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Country music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music 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.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 8 November 2017

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: moved the pages per consensus.(closed by non-admin page mover) —usernamekiran(talk) 00:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lese Majesty → Lese Majesty (album) – And then recast this page as disambiguation page, with entries being Lèse-majesté and Lese Majesty (album) (with possibly a "See also" section pointing to Lèse majesté in Thailand and Lèse majesté in Norway -- don't know about that).

Reason being that "Lèse-majesté" is a quite notable legal and historical concept with many manifestations over many countries eras, while Lese Majesty (album) is another music album. I would say that Lèse-majesté is more important than Lese Majesty (album) by a factor of at least 1,000 to 1.

Partly on account of this, and partly because "Lese Majesty" is a likely spelling variation for "Lèse-majesté" (or "Lese majeste" which redirects there) because "majesty" is a common word in English and "majeste" is not). It is for this reason that I searched on "Lese majesty" and was surprised to be be looking at an article about a music album. I'm confident that very many more people who search on "Lese majesty" are looking for Lèse-majesté rather than Lese Majesty (album).

I'm not sure, but there may be some rule about this, but I mean this move would better serve the reader so WP:IAR in this case.

In fact IMO Lese majesty should just be a redirect to Lèse-majesté with a hatnote there directing the reader to Lese Majesty (album), but I haven't suggested this as it is bigger change. But if people want to go for that instead that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the capital M should ideally not be used for the UK spelling of the legal term, but the current title is likely to cause confusion. Given that it is an album "(album)" will only help all readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I would say this is a clear primary redirect to Lèse-majesté, where there is already a hatnote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SMALLDIFFS. No less than 4 differences between a single pair of names (two diacritics, one hyphen, and one case change) amounts to more than enough to distinguish these topics, and we would not create a disambiguation page anyway, per WP:TWODABS. It's entirely sufficient to distinguish these pages with disambiguation hatnotes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 12:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not exactly clear if you are opposing any change or are suggesting that this page (Lese majesty) indeed be moved to Lese Majesty (album) and, instead of this page (Lese Majesty) being recast as a disambiguation page, make it a redirect to Lèse-majesté. I listed this as second alternative and I believe that User:Necrothesp also supports this.

That would be fine. Leaving the current unsatisfactory situation in place would not. You should probably clarify this.

On the off-chance that you're suggesting the current unsatisfactory situation be left in place, you'll need to provide some argument. WP:SMALLDIFFS says "The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for" which is what we are trying to do here so I woudn't think this really would support a case for no change.

The notion that that any significant percentage of our readers are going to enter the diacritics when searching on this term is kind of ridiculous.

Again, on the off-chance that you're suggesting the current unsatisfactory situation be left in place, recall that we are her to serve the reader, and we'd need to fill in this black: "Not making any change and therefore surprising the great majority of the people searching on "lese majesty" with a a page about an extremely obscure hip-hop album rather than what they actually want is a benefit to our readership because ________________". I can't think of what would go in the blank but I might be missing something? Herostratus (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given most people probably actually don't know how to spell Lèse-majesté correctly (including, apparently, Shabazz Palaces!), I think we are better off making it a primary redirect from anything resembling it, since nine times out of ten that's what readers are going to be looking for, not some obscure album by an obscure hip hop act. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is fine; the page move is still the same but instead of "Lese Majesty → Lese Majesty (album), and then recast this page as disambiguation page" we have "Lese Majesty → Lese Majesty (album), and then recast this page as a redirect to Lèse-majesté. Either is fine and the person closing the discussion can decide. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The base name should be a primary redirect to Lèse-majesté. It easily satisfies both of the primary topic criteria. Andrewa (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2017 (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.