Talk:Wake
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 26 November 2021
[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: There's a strong consensus to move the "wake" article. Fewer editors weighed in on the appropriate name but Wake (physics) seems to have the most support of the proposed options. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Wake (disambiguation) → Wake
- Wake → ?
– Per massviews, Wake (ceremony) has received 139K pageviews in the past year compared to Wake which has received 60K. When you also consider the various other senses, I think there is no primary topic here. Possible new titles for the current article could be Wake flow, Wake (physics), or Wake (fluid dynamics). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Reasonable expectation of the readers. JBchrch talk 19:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. No clear primary topic for this title. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Google seems to show the ceremony meaning more. Waking up (as opposed to going to sleep) would also be another common meaning but its not clear if that's likely in an encyclopedia, there is also Wakefulness. We could also use Wake (liquid) per Commons:Category:Wakes (liquids), Commons:Category:Wake is a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: As "liquid" is not an abstract noun, I don't think (liquid) is a very good disambiguator, as it implies that a wake is a type of liquid, as opposed to abstract nouns where it generally implies that the term is part of that field of study. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps the Commons category title should be changed then? This RM may give us a better title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- So (liquids) is slightly less bad than (liquid) since plural concrete nouns can be treated as abstract nouns, especially on Wikipedia (i.e. "the study of liquids"). But on Commons, plural nouns have a double meaning, so the current title while acceptable could definitely be improved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps the Commons category title should be changed then? This RM may give us a better title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: As "liquid" is not an abstract noun, I don't think (liquid) is a very good disambiguator, as it implies that a wake is a type of liquid, as opposed to abstract nouns where it generally implies that the term is part of that field of study. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support, propose Wake (physics) Red Slash 19:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
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.