Talk:Lest we forget

Ancient Sacrifice

"Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice, An humble and a contrite heart.": Surely the ancient sacrifice refers to Psalm 51:18 ("The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise"), not to the death of Jesus? --GroupCohomologist (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. BD2412 T 03:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Lest we forget (phrase) → Lest we forget – Disambiguation is unnecessary - only lowercase usage. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Also, all the entries on the disambiguation page relate to the phrase, clearly making the phrase the primary topic.– BrandonXLF (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – "only lowercase usage" is not a good rationale for a case-only primarytopic takeover. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – the old primary-topic doctrine is so flawed, has caused so much trouble, has degraded readers' ability to search, that it should be used only with great caution. Tony (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. As someone said in some others in this series of "takeovers", DIFFCAPS properly applies when the capitalization scheme in question is very distinctive; it doesn't really work in a case like this. That would leave us with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument for the move, and I don't think this phrase qualifies. I'm sympathetic to the nom's instinct, but it's one we've frequently dismissed at RM, for years. That which is older and more original is not necessarily the primary topic, especially when that original referent has little currency. Hardly anyone actually uses this phrase in contemporary English, unless they're being self-consciously silly. It's survival in titles of works is a poetic-ish anachronism, and the average teenager today probably doesn't recognize the phrase apart from one or more of these pop-culture works. But none stand out as a clear primary topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support no one's looked at the views [[1]] which show that this gets overwhelmingly more views with the exception of the For the Fallen article which only mentions the term and appears to refer to the phrase anyway. So even if one ignores DIFFCAPS and only looks at current popularity the phrase still has over 46x the views of all the other "Lest We Forget" articles so its clearly primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish, Dicklyon, and Tony1: do the page views convince you? Even if we assume everyone used lower case this would still be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  No, I still think disambiguation works better. In this case, it's not clear what's going on, but page views of "For the Fallen" seem to be a leading indicator of the phrase views. Let's not turn wikipedia into a dictionary. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  No, for the same reason explained at Talk:Line in the sand (phrase)#Requested move 28 November 2019. It's skew caused by Google only linking to one page here, which artificially funnels readers to it, having no choice but to come to it first and then try to find what they're really after, which is mostly likely a pop-culture work using this phrase in its title. WP isn't a dictionary and people generally do not use it for looking up simple idioms, rather than using some other online source for that. The problem had been compounded by lack of a hatnote (now fixed – Google's spider should eventually pick up on this, since it's the first link in the page; see what the incoming link ratio is in, say, a year).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Meaning of the phrase. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Dicklyon on this point: "'only lowercase usage' is not a good rationale for a case-only primarytopic takeover", however the "primarytopic takeover" here is nevertheless warranted by usage per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as noted by Crouch, Swale. As to SMcCandlish's counter, it contradicts the entire basis for the WP:GOOGLETEST, which relies on the fact that Google constantly monitors what users are really looking for when they search, and updates its algorithms accordingly, in real time. Besides, Google does not only link to one page here. --В²C ☎ 21:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - yes, we do need to demonstrate that it is the primary topic for the lowercase form, but that seems to be amply demonstrated. Have at it.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think is generally is necessary to demonstrate that its the PT for a different case when its the only topic called by that case per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PRECISION. No other topics are also called "Lest we forget", all are called "Lest We Forget". In the case of Green card some sources do use a capital "C" so would be ambiguous with the upper case per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Topics like Petrol, Ovens and Skye are primary for those names since they are also called by those names, none of the other topics on the DAB page are called by this specific name. That said since many readers probably will type with lower case we need to keep that in mind and if in doubt generally disambiguate but anyway it looks like this is clearly primary even ignoring case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.