Talk:Phase II

Requested move 29 June 2020

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: no consensus (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phase II → Phase 2 – WP:CONSISTENT with Phase 1, Phase 3, Phase 4, etc. Gonnym (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Opposing due to WP:DABNAME which says to follow the "spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred". 6 of 8 in the Media section use "Phase II" (also 3 of 5 under Other). -- Netoholic @ 20:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So they should be Phase One, Phase II, Phase 3, Phase IV and Phase 5? Peter James (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how the totals work out. WP:DABNAME doesn't have a consistency principle, but it does state a preference for keeping with the majority of items. With redirects in place, the impact of slightly different name formats doesn't matter, and they don't even link to each other so its not a clear set of connected DAB pages. -- Netoholic @ 01:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. JIP | Talk 20:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as consistent. II/Two/2 could all be used, but all numbers should be the same.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONSISTENT. As far as the above oppose based on WP:DABNAME, I would just note that WP:DABNAME is just an editing guideline, while WP:CONSISTENT is an article naming policy. And article naming policy should trump an editing guideline in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the fact that disambiguation pages aren't articles and the titles we're talking about aren't part of any tangible series? -- Fyrael (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that DAB pages aren't technically articles, but they do exist in article namespace, so I think the policies still apply. If I'm wrong about that and there is an explicit policy exempting DAB pages from standard article naming policies please direct me to where I can find that. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Netoholic's !vote and Fyrael's comment. This isn't a series or set of articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:DABNAME. Seems like most readers come here looking for a title with "II" in it. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2020 (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.