Talk:Titulus

Move request

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.

The result of the move request was: moved both articles. Aervanath (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

---

• Titulus (disambiguation) → Titulus
• Titulus → Titular church

– "Titular church", which redirects to Titulus (church), is the usual modern name for these. In any case this is not primary for "titulus", which should go to the disambiguation page. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose based on incoming wikilinks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Titulus and absent any other indication that this is not the primary topic. NB: it is perfectly possible for a title to be a redirect (e.g., Titulus might redirect to [[[Titular church]]) without changing that the primary topic for the title is (e.g., the primary topic for "Titulus" might still be Titular church, if the naming conventions determine that that is the better name for the article on that topic). See WP:D#Redirecting to a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  That means nothing as Titulus has been the title for the churches while the other titles have been disambiguated for a long time. "Titulus" is not even primary for the churches, only being correct in the context of Late Antiquity. Note that "Titular church", though only a redirect, has more incoming links than Titulus (church). An example of "any other indication" is that I'm telling you. You might also see how dictionaries treat the word. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  What links to "titular church" is immaterial to determining what the primary topic for the title "Titulus" is. (A) what to title an article on a topic and (B) what topic to serve up for a particular title are two separate questions. This is a non-obvious point of the disambiguation process, which is why I call it out. Different titles might end up with different decisions for primary topic. Elvis, for instance, has a primary topic, while Madonna does not. Since the choices here for topic are Titulus (church) and Titulus (inscription), the church seems like a good choice, based on incoming wikilinks and absent in contra-indication, even if the topic should be titled something else. The other entries here are partial title matches. And by "other indication", I'm referring to the guidelines for primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  No, because many links to titulus are piped from "titular church". Many others make to what I think is an incorrect use of "titulus" for the person who is Titular (Catholicism). Most others are unecessary & pretentious use of Latin for what has a perfectly good English term. You are clearly not referring to the guidelines, which cannot decide what is primary in a vacuum. On a google books search, the church meaning gets only 2 of the first 20 hits, whereas the inscriptions get 3. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, even though piped. Except for the antagonistic presentation, thank you for finding the Google books search, which is in line with the non-vacuum guidelines I was clearly referring to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  How on earth do you reach that conclusion? You had better start again, clarifying whether you are opposing both moves or not, and giving coherent reasons. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps you had better start re-reading again, and perhaps responding without the antagonism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  I take people as I find them. Have you made a comment on the 2nd move nom, and if so what was it, and did you have any reasons for it? You might also reread my comments, which you have clearly not understood. When "titular church" is piped to "titulus" such links say nothing about the primary meaning of titulus. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  Good luck with that approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Very strongly support. So far is this from being the primary English meaning of titulus that the OED doesn't even list it as a definition; whether it is the principal meaning in Latin is the Latin Wikipedia's problem; and la:titulus is, quite properly, "a name of honor or dignity". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  BTW, primary topic isn't determined by the English meanings of titles, but rather by English Wikipedia readership usage of titles. So the OED doesn't factor into it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  I suggest you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If a meaning of a word does not exist per RS in English, it cannot be primary. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  I have read that many times. (A) I did not say anything about the existence of meanings, and (B) please quote whatever line or lines you're reading to glean that, and (C) if the topic is in English Wikipedia, then it's a meaning of the word in English. The OED doesn't figure into it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a WP:RS for that or anything else. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  Please quote whatever line or lines you're reading about reliable sources for primary topics. I suggest you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  Well, let's all read it together:

Is there a primary topic?

"Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic (or should redirect to an article on that topic that uses a different, more appropriate title). If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page where more than one term is disambiguated on one page). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article as mentioned above.

There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to importance, if it is has significantly greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

In many cases, a topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to importance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary importance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic."

"Determining a primary topic

There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors) include:

• Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
• Wikipedia article traffic statistics
• Google web, news, scholar, or book searches (NOTE: adding &pws=0 to the google search string eliminates personal search bias)"

-Now where exactly does that say anything resembling "primary topic isn't determined by the English meanings of titles, but rather by English Wikipedia readership usage of titles" or "if the topic is in English Wikipedia, then it's a meaning of the word in English"? It doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I read that as showing that usage does determine primary topic. But at least now you see that it mentions nothing about the OED or reliable sources. Thanks for finally reading that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Which bit exactly? "Usage" is mentioned as one "major factor" that is "commonly discussed", but there is nothing about this being restricted to "English Wikipedia readership usage", and the OED is clearly a key resource for general usage. Don't worry, I was always well aware what the policy said, which is why I have been unimpressed with your distortions of it. Your interpretation is (not for the first time) clearly contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the policy. It simply doesn't say what you claim. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The current title is a Latin word that is confusing even when you know it's Latin meaning. The scholars certainly use titulus and tituli, see here, here, and here. But in major media, this subject is invariably referred to as a "titular church". This term has the advantage of being a relatively self-explanatory, as it is origin of the English word "titular". See Daily Telegraph, Washington Post, or New York Daily News. Kauffner (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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.