Template talk:Arthurian legend
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Alpha Quadrant in topic Move?
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Move?
edit- 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. 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: Not Moved Consensus currently appears to be against the move. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Arthurian Legend → Template:King Arthur and the Matter of Britain –
- Per title. 86.40.105.236 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I see no reason for renaming this. -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's its title. It was a technical request. --86.40.105.236 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Clarification. Templates have both a name and a title. The title is what displays in the title bar. The name is whatever the template is named, and can be really anything. Apteva (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a reason for the capital L? --86.40.105.236 (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, but is it worth changing? Apteva (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd argue that the term "Arthurian Legend" is so thoroughly lexicalized that we should treat it as a proper name. "Arthurian legend" by contrast looks awkwardly generic. --87.79.208.25 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Suggestion. Seems to me that Matter of Britain is this template's first and foremost subject, so how about renaming it "Template:Matter of Britain"? CsDix (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Except that it isn't, it's focused on Arthurian Legend, not the whole Matter of Britain. A "Matter of Britain" template would be a mostly different template, since it's missing content from the non-Arthurian parts. -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, I guess the proposal should be as originally requested. CsDix (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Though this portion of the Matter of Britain is frequently called the Arthurian Legend -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- If so, then Template:Arthurian legend would seem the name to choose. CsDix (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Though this portion of the Matter of Britain is frequently called the Arthurian Legend -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, I guess the proposal should be as originally requested. CsDix (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Except that it isn't, it's focused on Arthurian Legend, not the whole Matter of Britain. A "Matter of Britain" template would be a mostly different template, since it's missing content from the non-Arthurian parts. -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if the phrase sounds more natural on the other side of the pond, but to me, "King Arthur and the Matter of Britain" sounds like a mildly interesting Harry Potter-esque Arthurian adventure. A move to Template:Arthurian legend would be prudent, at least. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose move to the unweildy "Harry Potter-esque" "King Arthur and the Matter of Britain"; support move to "Arthurian legend" if need be.Cúchullain t/c 18:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose proposed move, per reasoning of 76.65.130.165. While I do believe that "Arthurian Legend" is a proper name well established in the critical literature, I would not oppose the title "Arthurian legend". --Bejnar (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2012 (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.