Jump to content

Talk:Gris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 26 December 2018

[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 section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Everything on the disambiguation page is a partial title match. There is nothing stopping the game from being the primary topic for "Gris". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Gamma-Ray Imaging Spectrometer averages 2 hits per day. - Station1 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be G.R.I.S., not Gris.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "100% title match" is not the standard employed in WP:Disambiguation. We base decisions upon whether there is more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. So if there is, say, a topic that can be referred by a specific phrase, that phrase may be ambiguous when evaluated against other topics on Wikipedia. In this case, the RECENTISM issue is raised due to the claims about page view popularity being relevant, which can be dismissed when one considers how recent this game has appeared, and that it long-term is very unlikely to rise above all the other uses of the phrase "Gris". -- Netoholic @ 00:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Source

[edit]

Requested move 24 October 2019

[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: Consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]



– Clear primary topic; the article gets more page views than every other page on the disambiguation page combined, and has sustained page view levels way above the other topics. The high amount of hits for the disambiguation page compared to everything else suggests that people are probably clicking through to this (or Juan Gris, which is a partial title match anyway). Sceptre (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that Juan Gris is commonly referred to as just "Gris"? Specifically, in contexts where his full name hasn't already been mentioned? If not, I think a primary redirect would be a very bad idea. Colin M (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying that it should be, but that the disamb page serves both names well. At a minimum, if the redirect is moved, a hatnote should probably be placed on the page directing readers to the artist (as occurs at Pollock). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for roughly the same reason as Station1/Lordtobi. To Station1's point, I will say that someone could write an anthroponymy article on Gris as a name (cf. MOS:DABNAME), but such articles are generally very, very weak candidates for primary topic. I would reconsider my recommendation if any evidence could be found that any of the people listed at Gris are commonly referred to by "Gris" alone (and not just as a shortening of the name in repeated mentions). Colin M (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.