| Revision as of 06:07, 2 February 2016 editGadfium (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators172,325 editsm Gadfium moved page Talk:Mesh blocks to Talk:Meshblock: Per talk page, consensus appears clear.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 05:01, 5 February 2016 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,670,002 edits Removing expired RFC template.Next edit → |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
|
|
|
|
== Should the title be Meshblock or Mesh Block? == |
|
== Should the title be Meshblock or Mesh Block? == |
|
{{rfc|style|rfcid=E82E3FC}} |
|
|
I think that this article should be moved to the title ''Meshblock'' or possibly ''Mesh Block''. Where an article is about something that can be both singular or plural a singular title is probably a better title. From what I can tell, the term '''meshblock''' is used by Statistics New Zealand, while the term '''Mesh Block''' is used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They have fairly similar definitions. The only articles that currently link to the article about '']'' are all related to Statistics New Zealand surveys. Also this article is ranked as a ] New Zealand article. Currently there are two(2) Misplaced Pages articles relating to Australia that use '''mesh blocks''' or '''Mesh Blocks'''. Also when it is used elsewhere it is usually written as a proper noun '''Mesh Block''', often as a pural, from Australian sources mostly concerning the Austrailan Census. However, there are at least ten(10) New Zealand related Misplaced Pages articles that contain '''Meshblock''' or '''Meshblocks'''. Elsewhere the term '''meshblock''' is dominated by material from New Zealand sources and while these are also generally related to the New Zealand Census, the breadth and scope of these sources are far wider than for Australia. There is no obvious evidence that ''meshblock'' or ''mesh block'' are used elsewhere in the world. Although other agencies may have a similar concept, they use different names and definitions. Considering this, my preferred title is ''']'''. At this stage I don't think there is a need for a separate '''Mesh Block''' article, as I suspect the Australian term has been borrowed from the New Zealand usage. Does anyone have any other thoughts before I move the page? - ] (]) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
I think that this article should be moved to the title ''Meshblock'' or possibly ''Mesh Block''. Where an article is about something that can be both singular or plural a singular title is probably a better title. From what I can tell, the term '''meshblock''' is used by Statistics New Zealand, while the term '''Mesh Block''' is used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They have fairly similar definitions. The only articles that currently link to the article about '']'' are all related to Statistics New Zealand surveys. Also this article is ranked as a ] New Zealand article. Currently there are two(2) Misplaced Pages articles relating to Australia that use '''mesh blocks''' or '''Mesh Blocks'''. Also when it is used elsewhere it is usually written as a proper noun '''Mesh Block''', often as a pural, from Australian sources mostly concerning the Austrailan Census. However, there are at least ten(10) New Zealand related Misplaced Pages articles that contain '''Meshblock''' or '''Meshblocks'''. Elsewhere the term '''meshblock''' is dominated by material from New Zealand sources and while these are also generally related to the New Zealand Census, the breadth and scope of these sources are far wider than for Australia. There is no obvious evidence that ''meshblock'' or ''mesh block'' are used elsewhere in the world. Although other agencies may have a similar concept, they use different names and definitions. Considering this, my preferred title is ''']'''. At this stage I don't think there is a need for a separate '''Mesh Block''' article, as I suspect the Australian term has been borrowed from the New Zealand usage. Does anyone have any other thoughts before I move the page? - ] (]) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
*'''Either''' I think either singular works for now for the move, but I'm always leery about adopting style guidelines from outside sources unless a consensus among Wikipedians is reached for a new guideline in the ]. Additionally, unless this has been properly adjudicated, within the MoS or village pump or other venue (which requester's research suggests it hasn't been), citing other Misplaced Pages articles may be counterproductive because those editors were also adopting the outside sources' styles. However, this phrase seems to not be in wide use, in general; is this assumption true? If so, my qualms are mitigated. Also: this is a mid-importance stub, so it's a minor issue at the moment. The move, though, is needed. ] (]) 18:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
*'''Either''' I think either singular works for now for the move, but I'm always leery about adopting style guidelines from outside sources unless a consensus among Wikipedians is reached for a new guideline in the ]. Additionally, unless this has been properly adjudicated, within the MoS or village pump or other venue (which requester's research suggests it hasn't been), citing other Misplaced Pages articles may be counterproductive because those editors were also adopting the outside sources' styles. However, this phrase seems to not be in wide use, in general; is this assumption true? If so, my qualms are mitigated. Also: this is a mid-importance stub, so it's a minor issue at the moment. The move, though, is needed. ] (]) 18:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
