Latest comment: 3 months ago by Vanderwaalforces in topic Requested move 4 January 2024

Requested move 4 January 2024 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 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: not moved. Opposers present a stronger argument for why this should not be moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

– Proper formatting using prime symbols rather than apostrophes per discussion at Talk:3"-deamino-3"-oxonicotianamine reductase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've notified WT:CHEMS for you, since you are discussing something based on their MOS and that affects tons of articles in their project area. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Accessibility is more a matter of reading than typing. Typing can be managed by redirects, but if I understand correctly, screen readers will incorrectly read the current names in an irritating way. (And the most authoritative sources, such as IUPAC, apparently use primes and recommend using primes.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose as even though there may be a separate Unicode character, it cannot be easily typed, and our readers will not have a problem understanding apostrophe. Perhaps DISPLYTITLE could be used to display that way, but optional. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Prime characters should be used (or displayed via DISPLAYTITLE) in article titles to follow IUPAC nomenclature. This is a small, easy thing that makes an article appear more professional, and is how molecules are referred to commonly (e.g. Directionality (molecular biology)). I am unconvinced the articles will be harder to find as search (Help:Searching#Under the hood, CirrusSearch) should ignore prime characters, apostrophes and single quote characters as 'greyspace'. Search uses paired quote marks to search for exact phrases. Linking to the articles will be accommodated by the redirects. The issues with some screen readers not reading prime characters properly brought up in the above linked Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_44#Typography_of_primes may be an issue, but all will read a apostrophe or quote character as is, which is definitely wrong. ― Synpath 21:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Struck suggestion DISPLAYTITLE is not capable of. ― Synpath 01:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: (1) WP:DISPLAYTITLE cannot make an apostrophe (') into a prime (′) or vice versa as suggested above. (2) In some typefaces/devices, an apostrophe and a prime look the same, and in others the prime is angled slightly to the right like File:Prime (symbol).svg ( ). SilverLocust 💬 21:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: The pages' previous title should still redirect to the new ones, so a user typing into the search bar the current name will still get the article. This is similar to the consensus on WP:DIACRITICS. Bensci54 (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The use of redirects to handle typing difficulties is also advocated by WP:TSC. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this view—the use of redirects should fix any problems in typing/finding the page titles, though I'm neutral on the moves themselves. BhamBoi (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per opinions of veteran chemistry editors DMacks and Graeme Bartlett. It's always curious that editors who do not edit in Chemistry swoop in on this kind of discussion. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose If the article titles are changed the body text of the article will still use apostrophes; if an effort is made to change the body text then apostrophes will be slowly be reintroduced by subsequent edits. In any scenario the pages will end up containing 2 different forms of the same name, which may cause issues with text readers and searches. Stacked against this is a change which offers no real benefit to our readers, it's imperceptible and thus hollow . Even those in the profession are unlikely to notice or care. --Project Osprey (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: The argument about the ease of typing is not valid, since redirects from the apostrophe version to the prime version would exist. BTW: In de.wikipedia, the typographically correct article titles (i.e. with primes) are used. --Leyo 10:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per the oppose views above. It seems the chemists do not support it. I am a long retired academic chemist. Bduke (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2024 (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.