Talk:Section 2 (album)

Requested move 31 October 2019

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: All moved apart from Section 28. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• Section 2 → Section 2 (album)
• Section 5 → Section 5 (hooligan firm)
• Section 22 → Section 22 (United States agricultural law)
• Section 25 → Section 25 (band)
• Section 28 → Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1986
• Section 31 → Section 31 (Star Trek)
• Section 32 → Section 32 (company)
• Section 2 (disambiguation) → Section 2
• Section 5 (disambiguation) → Section 5
• Section 31 (disambiguation) → Section 31

– WP:ASTONISH, since "Section" followed by a number is such a widely used convention that no one would reasonably expect the current mix of specific legislative provisions and popular culture topics. Each of these topics either already has a disambiguation page or has other meanings that can be disambiguated against. bd2412 T 11:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for Section 28 per WP:COMMONNAME, and also note that it wasn't English law, which would apply only in England and Wales, it applied to Scotland as well, as can be seen from the lead of the article. If it were to be moved, then Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1986 would be more rational than the proposal, but I would still oppose such a move on Common Name grounds. DuncanHill (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the proposed alternative title, and have changed it in the proposal accordingly, but the UK statute is not more significant than Section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Section 28 of the Constitution of Australia. bd2412 T 12:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • So now it looks like I'm objecting to something that isn't in the proposal, and proposing something that is. Anyway, are the Australian and Canadian things commonly referred to as Section 28, with no indication of what they are the Section 28s of? DuncanHill (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Every Section 28 is in some context, that's generally the point of having section numbers for things. A Google Books search for "Section 28" yields countless results with no particular primary topic evident. bd2412 T 12:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Look at the pageviews (and the relative sizes of the articles) - the UK law absolutely dwarfs the others. Is that not a strong indication of it having greater significance? Also, saying that "every Section 28 is [commonly referred to as just "Section 28" with no indication of what they are the Section 28s of] in some context" is a cop-out. Wikipedia is written for a broad audience. And the UK Section 28 is the only one that is commonly referred to as simply "Section 28" in non-specialist RS. e.g.:
      • The Guardian - Section 28 protesters 30 years on: ‘We were arrested and put in a cell up by Big Ben’
      • PinkNews - What was Section 28? The history of the homophobic legislation 30 years on
      • BBC - Section 28: What was it and how did it affect LGBT+ people?

A recent episode of RuPaul's Drag Race UK actually featured some very moving commentary about Section 28 from drag queen Divina de Campo (which has caused a brief spike in pageviews - which is why I cut off the pageview comparison linked earlier at 10/30). And of course, she referred to it simply as "Section 28", not "Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988". Colin M (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Section 2, Section 5, and Section 22 moves, oppose the others, strong oppose to moving Section 28. Section 2 & 5 are fine, seems like there's no primary topic, so use a disambig page. The Section articles that don't have anything else that could be disambiguated by them don't need a disambiguator at all (e. g. Section 32), so no need to create one until there is "competition" for the name. Section 31 is debatable, but there's a lot of sourced material on the Star Trek organization and a novel series and all, and most of the other options on the disambig page don't even have articles, with the only competitor that comes close being Section 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is still a rather obscure topic. Section 28 was discussed before but is universally referred to in sources as just "Section 28" with "of the Local Government Act" almost never appearing; see Talk:Section_28#Requested_move_9_June_2015 for the previous RM where moving that failed. (Also, disagree with claim above that the "UK statute is not more significant" than the other options - only specialist Canadian solicitors deal with specific sections of a law that is rarely litigated on, while the UK statute was radioactively controversial and plastered on newspaper frontpages for a decade for debate amongst the general UK public. The UK law is more notable, as the length of the reference section would suggest.) SnowFire (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, while I support a move of Section 5, suggest Section 5 (film)? What counts as a "hooligan firm" anyway, Enron? ;-) . SnowFire (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @SnowFire: Did you mean Section 5 (firm)? I would prefer to avoid the implication that the subject, which is basically a street gang with a favorite sports team, is anything corporate. bd2412 T 15:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Struck - apparently "hooligan firm" is the term of art used? It reads weird and accusatory to me, but so be it. SnowFire (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support moving all section # titles as something like this is clearly not meant to be at the base name. Don't have a preference for what the end result title and disambiguation for the moved titles is, so support any version. --Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support all moves per WP:ASTONISH and nom - if Section 28 is primary, it should be a redirect, like First Amendment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 14:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Section 2, Section 5, Section 22, Section 25, Section 31 and Section 32 - other articles exist by this name and the topics are not PRIMARY. Other articles could also exist - for example section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is quite key legislation in relation to UK commercial tenancies but oppose Section 28 as it's clear PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman: Note that Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also exists, and Section 32 of the Constitution of Australia is an existing redirect. bd2412 T 14:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying (it's not hatnoted), I've amended. GiantSnowman 14:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and created Section 22 (disambiguation), Section 25 (disambiguation), Section 28 (disambiguation), and Section 32 (disambiguation). bd2412 T 15:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Start over, one at a time please. Each of these are separate topics and should be dealt with separately. This RM is growing much too unwieldy, and it's unfair to ask editors or closers to wade through the arguments on these different things just because they have a superficial commonality. Dohn joe (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The commonality is not superficial; no Section and number title should be the primary topic of a term. bd2412 T 17:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose treating all of these moves as an ensemble. I disagree with the thesis of the nom, i.e. that no names of the form "Section n" should be allowed to have a primary topic. Yes, there are surely some notable documents that have a section numbered 31, or 5, or 25. But are they commonly referred to as just "Section 31" (rather than "Section 31 of the Constitution of Australia" or whatever)? If 99% of readers searching for "Section 31" are looking for the Star Trek thing (and that might not be that far off), then, well, this is the situation WP:PTOPICs were designed for. Some/most of these proposed moves are probably good, but they should be considered on a case-by-case basis using the established criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Colin M (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support all currently titling above is blatantly anti-reader. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support all together with moves of the new Section 22 (disambiguation), Section 25 (disambiguation), Section 28 (disambiguation), and Section 32 (disambiguation) to the respective base names. Be careful with hatnotes at Section 31 (Star Trek) and Star Trek: Section 31. I don't think there is a primary topic for any of these (although I acknowledge there's a good claim for Section 28). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support sections 2, 5, 25, 31 per above, move Section 22 to Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act per WP:NATURAL, agnostic on Section 28; while Canada's section 28 has had symbolic significance to Canadian feminists, its practical importance is disputable. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with moving Section 22 to Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. bd2412 T 19:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Should a disambiguation page only include things commonly referred to as "Section 2", or list every article that mentions a Section 2 as part of its topic? If the latter, there are potentially multiple topics up to at least Section 747 (and at least one up to Section 1300), and the lower numbers are likely to become Wikipedia's longest disambiguation pages. Peter James (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We should include things that readers might reasonably be looking for by that section number, with common sense militating against obscure connections to the phrase. bd2412 T 23:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The former. You could also create the latter article, but then it would be a set index article, not a disambiguation page. Colin M (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name. There is no other notable Section 28 except the Canadian one and it has a longer title so no disamb needed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:08, 6 November 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.