Talk:The Sundering
Latest comment: 7 years ago by SSTflyer in topic Requested move 3 June 2016
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 3 June 2016 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. A somewhat marginal case, but generally stronger arguments have been made by the supporters. SSTflyer 11:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
– The fictional event is a primary topic, as stated by Uanfala. For now, I have turned The Sundering into a disambiguation page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting (2nd) Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support as it's a priomary topic, receiving far more pageviews than the other two articles. This demonstrates usage, but it's also relevant to look at which topic is likely to have a longer-term significance. Although it's a bit difficult to judge between a novel, a series of two novels and an event set of a major role-playing game, the event set happens to also be the setting for several novels, so maybe this points in the same direction as usage. Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - When I created this, there was no way to know the relative significance, but I'd say lasting primacy has been shown over the years. —Torchiest talkedits 17:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. No primary topic here. And I say that as a long-time roleplayer myself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. It might have more page views but it's not obviously the primary topic. You can't reasonably claim "long-term significance" for something that's only been around a few years. PC78 (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Torchiest. BOZ (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose No strong primary topic. Leave the disambig at the base title so incoming links get fixed and searchers find the page the want. Plantdrew (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.