Talk:Red Gate

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

"Red Gates"[edit]

At the moment, Red Gate is this article and Red Gates redirects here...but since the structure was called Red Gates shouldn't it be the other way around? --Syrthiss 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning on Lazar[edit]

To all those linking demolition of Red Gates to Lazar Kaganovich. Please take your time and compare the dates of destruction with Lazar's bio. You'll see that at that time he was stationed in Kharkiv and had other things to do... many things, but not this one. NVO 14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion for "Redgate"[edit]

The usage of "Redgate" is under discussion, see Talk:Redgate (company) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 January 2015[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. The nomination mentions only usage in the article, no other reasons why this should be moved. The single oppose !vote cites WP:COMMONNAME, that the proposed title is not as common in English as the current one. No other discussion after a relist, so closing as no consensus.(non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Red Gate → Red Gates – the article treats this structure as the "Red Gates", not the "Red Gate", so the article is misnamed. Potentially, "Red Gate" might also be better as a redirect to redgate (disambiguation), but primarily, the "s" should be added, per 2006's Syrthiss --Relisted. Sunrise (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support I am the nominator -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no merit in the proposal. "Red Gate" is a better established version. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire text of the article uses "Red Gates", not "Red Gate"; and has since 2005, and you've editted the article many times, using the term "Red Gates", not "Red Gate", so I don't see why you object to a title you yourself has used when editing the article for the last 9 years. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
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.

Split off background material[edit]

I suggest that the Red Gate#Background section be split off into a separate article. It's really too much to have a history of Russian triumphal arches in this article. And we do not have an overview article for the category Category:Triumphal arches in Russia. The other Russian triumphal arch articles do not feature such a large background section, and it isn't necessary in this article. Instead a central article can serve as the background to all the Russian arches articles -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support I am the nominator -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As yet I see no need for the split, since the existing material covers only the early 18th-century arches, i.e. the very limited period preceding the Red Gate. There is nothing about post-1750 triumphal arches. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is inappropriate to host such material in this article, so if it isn't to be split off to a separate article, it should be deleted, since it doesn't really relate to the topic of this article, therefore should not be in this article. Further WP:NOTFINISHED, just because it doesn't contain post-1750 material at the time it is split off does not mean it will never do so, or that the starting point of a new article has to be WP:COMPLETE. This is wikipedia, not a paper encyclopedia, we don't have to be complete the moment something goes live. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing prevents us from expansion during/after split. -M.Altenmann >t 20:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. So, who is up to the job? -M.Altenmann >t 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Comment Narva Triumphal Arch in St. Petersburg is the only article in the category Category:Triumphal arches in Russia not in Moscow, so talking about gates in Russia seems premature.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is that? Al long as there are sources which discuss the general, we can not only talk, but also write an article. -M.Altenmann >t 20:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting tag removed.[edit]

This article had the tag{{copy edit|reason= the use of "Red Gate" v "Red Gates" has been at odds with each other since 2005; see multiple discussions on the talk page|date=January 2015}}, now removed. Copyediting is not the proper remedy for the problem.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Gate&oldid=1207369888"