Talk:Queens (disambiguation)

Requested move 1 June 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: no consensus to move. Plenty of discussion and valid arguments from both sides. I don't see how relisting would generate any clearer result. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Queens (disambiguation) → Queens
• Queens → Queens, New York

– WP:ASTONISH. There is no primary topic for either the singular (Queen) or the plural "Queens", by PT#2 it would be Queen regnant and Queen (chess) among others on the DAB page. In the category namespace here (and on Commons) Category:Queens is about the noble title with the borough at Category:Queens, New York (and Commons:Category:Queens, New York City). Until Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 21#Queen category we had the band at Category:Queens and for nearly a month we had it about the shogi (until nominated by me). Similarly until Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Queen (nominated by me) the Commons category for Queen was for the band. So yes while topics in the singular can't generally take the singular in category namespace neither should things in the plural in article namespace. Bones, Cars and Cats redirect to the subject that WP convention names in the singular. Indeed the noble title for the male form is just at King (not King regnant) but because of the band (and other articles) the article on the female form is at Queen regnant but its still a contender for "Queen(s)" per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. While the the noble title isn't frequently pluralized people will often talk about the kings and queens that ruled a particular country and while in chess people only start with 1 queen people do frequently promote pawns to queens and thus a player can end up with 2 or more queens on the board in addition to the fact that even if both player a person might say something like "both player's queens are 4th rank" for example. In the article its self the chess article uses "queens" 3 times in the main text. Queens, New York City is another possibility but that's probably not needed since both the state and city are just "New York". I left a comment at Talk:Queens#Disambiguation but there has been no replies. The DAB page "Queens" could be formatted similar to how Wells was saying "the plural form of any type of Queen". Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support, WP:ASTONISH is understatement. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Reasonable argument. I am really astonished too. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would also note that when I search for Queens on Google I get news results relating to Elizabeth and Victoria, then Queens' School in Hertfordshire then Queen's University Belfast then the band and results for a map in Ipswich then Queens' College in Cambridge but I don't appear to get anything for the place in NY until 16th result which is a news article on a shooting. Even the university in Charlotte comes up before the NY borough. A Google Image and Books search on the other hand does return a bit more for the place in NY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Did you try a location-agnostic query on Google? I'm thousands of miles away from NYC and every single thing on my front page when I search for "Queens" is NYC. You're in England--of course it all comes up with local stuff. Red Slash 05:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • A Google search for Lewis only returns 1 result for the place in Scotland despite the amount that I look up Scottish islands. Similarly a Google search for Charlotte returns all results for the NC city on the 1st page of results. I was astonished not to get results dominating with the place in NY for Queens. While we can obviously dismiss many results for being PTMs and geographical based the fact that the university in NC comes up before is surely telling. From the Google search from WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY I still don't get results for the place in NY but that's probably because Google has ended up working out my location since when I first started using that search it returned many more American results (eg for Plymouth returned the MA city). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom and above. Current title is not precise, recognizable, or natural per WP:CRITERIA. -- Netoholic @ 23:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom and above. Massive WP:ASTONISH. No primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PLURALPT. This is a massive topic here, a highly populated district which is notable to the extreme and definitely has lasting educational value. If the borough were called "Queen", it would probably force a dab page at Queen even if there were only two topics with that name. As it stands, there is not a single topic that is commonly pluralized among the major ones listed at Queen (disambiguation). This is like windows; it's definitely unambiguous enough to hold its own. It's worth noting that Queens as capitalized outranks "queens". "Queens are" v "Queens is" shows roughly even, despite how you rarely would use any city as a grammatical subject. Red Slash 05:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, massive primary topic. Nothing else on Queens (disambiguation) is in the same realm of notability. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  Queen regnant is surely in the same realm of notability if not higher. The various uses of "queen(s)" probably aren't on the plural DAB because the Queens article has a hatnote to both the singular and plural DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ASTONISH. If anything, the primary topics are clearly Queen regnant and Queen consort. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is an obvious oppose, given the sound logic of Red Slash. ɱ (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per Red Slash. A clear overwhelming primary topic, and given WP:PLURALPT coupled with the prominence of this subject the move would not be necessary or helpful for readers. WP:Astonish can be helpful, but at it's core it's really just based on the personal knowledge of the users who choose to participate in a given discussion so without other backup its not particularly useful.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• UTC)
• Strongly oppose per Red Slash. The plural form clearly meets both primary topic criteria. Why on earth would anyone searching for anything other than this topic use the plural form as their search term? It would be astonishing if they did, and their astonishment would be appropriate accordingly. That’s how it should work. ——В²C ☎ 11:44, 8 June 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.