Talk:1977 UK Championship

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

Requested move 9 January 2019[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed; relisting withdrawn. bd2412 T 19:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– This is a follow-up to a requested move (Talk:UK Championship#Requested move 1 January 2019) of UK Championship to UK Championship (snooker) and 5 related articles. The UK Championship started in 1977 and there have been 42 editions to date. It is one of the Triple Crown (snooker) events, one of the three most important snooker tournaments in the world (UK Championship has had 70,000 hits in the last year, 2018 UK Championship 350,000). 5 of the 42 editions currently have names without the (snooker) suffix, as does the UK Championship page itself. The remaining 37 have the (snooker) suffix. Of the 37 related names without the snooker suffix, 34 are currently red links, the other 3 being redirects to the snooker article with the suffix. My contention is that the use of UK Championship in this form (You-kay Championship (singular)) is the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Little else comes up from an internet search. The UK Athletics Championships were sometimes referred to as the UK Championships but always in the plural. Other events like the UK Championship (IFSA) are extremely minor. An event run by the World Cube Association appears in a google search but again, a very minor event. We can add hatnotes to other events should that become necessary. The 37 pages here do not get the hits of the current event but still have significant interest, 1,000 hits a year and more, even with the (snooker) suffix which makes them more difficult to find. Nigej (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - on its face, it should be clear this move is ambiguous. There must be innumerable sports and games which held championships in the UK during these years. -- Netoholic @ 13:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This may well be true but there is not one article starting NNNN UK Championship other than the 42 snooker articles and the only other article starting UK Championship is the UK Championship (IFSA) an event run by the (now-defunct) International Federation of Strength Athletes in 1997 and 1999. I'm simply suggesting that we treat it like the British Grand Prix (2018 British Grand Prix, etc), as the dominant use of the term. Nigej (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is probably best to clarify that the referenced requested move at Talk:UK Championship found no consensus to move that page to a title with "(snooker)" appended. It did not find a consensus that "UK Championship" is preferable, although ideally we would have consistency in titling. Dekimasuよ! 17:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly, UK Championship (moving UK Championships there and retaining the redirect) should be a disambiguation page for any overview articles for competitions which are reasonably often referred to as such within their community. 2000 UK Championship (etc.) should then list any of those specific championships held within that year. -- Netoholic @ 00:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not clear at all. No-one looking for the UK Scrabble Championship is going to look for UK Championship(s). See British Grand Prix example I gave earlier and plenty of others. We still have the principle of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and the overwhelmingly dominant use of UK Championship is for the snooker event. Nigej (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        With all due respect, Dekimasu, I think you probably made the wrong close there. It should have been "consensus not to move" based on the evidence presented. The IP proposer was the only one arguing for a move, and they did so by suggesting that two long-defunct competitions with similar (though in the athletics case not identical) names were equal in primacy to the snooker event. That was roundly shot down by the two opposers, who argued that the snooker clearly is the primary. The fact that there are only two of them shouldn't take away from the fact that policy and evidence was on their side. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amakuru, I respect your opinion. To be clear, in that discussion evidence was asserted but not presented. Both attempts to change the status quo and attempts to show a primary topic require corroboration. Since neither side showed their work I felt it was unclear which side of the argument enjoyed the policy advantage, resulting in the "no consensus" close. "No consensus" is an invitation to include more corroboration in subsequent discussions. It was pretty much the same as what has happened above in this thread (taking this thread in isolation; there is more corroboration in the proposal here), but with a slightly different makeup of participants. Dekimasuよ! 18:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dekimasu: alright fair enough, thanks for your response. It does seem from this discussion that there is more people want to say on the topic anyway, but it would probably be more useful for that to be on the main page and have these child articles follow suit whatever the main page decision is.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness to the two of us who made comments, I think it's fair to say that the proposal was so weakly argued (basically: move these 5 to the "correct" titles) that there was little to argue against. Nigej (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with proviso. Here's what this boils down to - Is the Snooker UK Championships the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the UK Championship? I think it is. There are tonnes of UK Championships (lots non-notable), and as shown above, we do not have articles in the space for these years. If there were multiple articles for UK Championships, a X UK Championship (disambiguation) page would be pertinant, as I think these articles are the primary subjects.
    Indeed, so much so, other articles on the UK Championships article aren't even close to being the primary, outisde of the Athletics articles, which are already naturally disambiguated, by them being say: 1980 UK Athletics Championships. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I somehow missed that RM (which seems with 3 people commenting on it, not only me). While "UK Championship" written like that might be only used by this tournament, "UK championship" is a descriptive phrase used by any championship that is held in the UK. No reason at all to support their official name as the cost of clarity. Would also support re-opening the previous discussion or at least re-listing it as it could use more discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all the evidence is that the snooker events are by far and away the clear primary topic for "UK Championship" (singular). While there are plenty of other events that theoretically might be ambiguous with these, they are all either not notable, not primary topic or not actually ambiguous so hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages will suffice. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As long as the main article is unqualified, it is silly and a breach of WP:CONSISTENCY to impose qualification on the child articles. If you have an argument with the title of UK Championship, make it there, not at the subpages. Per Thryduulf I do also think it is correct for it to be unqualified though. The other events called "UK Championship" are nowhere near as well known as the snooker event, making the snooker the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by the common usage criteria.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Amakuru. —В²C ☎ 06:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @BD2412: I'm not really sure what is achieved by relisting this discussion. As long as the parent article is at UK Championship, it is self-evident that these child articles must also reside there. Now there may be a case for having a new discussion at the parent page, given that fresh objections to that title have been raised here. But such a discussion should be there not here. In my opinion I suggest you should close this one as moved for consistency, with no prejudice against a fresh discussion at Talk:UK Championship to resolve the matter once and for all.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken; done. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:38, 18 January 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1977_UK_Championship&oldid=1196179331"