Jump to content

Talk:Austria–Italy border

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Austro-Italian border)

Italo-Austrian border

[edit]

The more elegant term Italo-Austrian border as in Italo-Austrian War is preferable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjvanb (talkcontribs) 07:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 October 2022

[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: Procedural close. Merged with similar move request. See Talk:France–Germany_border#Requested_move_15_October_2022 (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Austria–Italy borderAustro-Italian border – This is by far the most WP:COMMON NAME for the border in English WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. According to ngram viewer it is about 4-5 times more common than Austria-Italy border, Italy-Austria border or Italo-Austrian border. Bermicourt (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to the clone of this comment at this parallel discussion here. Bermicourt, I would advise to nominate multiple pages using WP:RMPM in the future, to avoid duplicate discussions like these. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Text of original closing statement
The result of the move request was: Moved. I just closed the RM proposal discussion at Talk:Franco-German_border where the arguments presented were essentially the same as here, and even by the same editors, so look there for more details. The main difference is that the COMMONNAME argument favoring the move is not as strong here, but over there it's overwhelming ("36 times more common"), while here it's "just" very strong ("4-5 times more common"). So here too the COMMONNAME position must prevail over the CONSISTENT argument relying on consistency with a convention that consensus could not find even exists in a recent RFC. В²C 05:35, 30 October 2022 (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.