Talk:Dynamic causal modeling

Requested move 28 February 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to merge, tags applied. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   18:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic causal modeling → Dynamic causal modelling – I created a Wiki page which passed peer review, and is now at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_causal_modeling. The word 'modeling' in the title is spelt (incorrectly) with one letter L. An older stub page already exists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_causal_modelling (with two letter L's). The reviewer changed my spelling to one L, causing this duplication. I think the correct spelling is two L's, because this is how it was originally defined in published literature - https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00202-7 So, please could you help me to resolve this by moving the page Dynamic_causal_modeling to Dynamic_causal_modelling, thereby deleting the stub content that currently appears on the latter? I am quite new to this, so I don't feel confident doing this myself. Thanks. Peterzlondon (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. X ain36  { talk } 17:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)  --Relisting.   SITH   (talk)   21:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- / Alex /21  06:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As you acknowledge, there is already an article at the proposed target. Should the pages be merged, or should they be disambiguated? Iffy★Chat -- 22:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Modeling" is not an incorrect spelling. "Modelling" is usually British. Both spellings are used in the literature. Nothing of the older stub at Dynamic causal modelling was used in the new article at Dynamic causal modeling, so a histmerge is not required and the stub can be safely deleted. Alternatively, the stub can simply be redirected to the new article. Station1 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge in any useful info and redirect the stub to the better article. Both spellings are fine. Sorry I missed the stub existed - if the title is not exact that can happen. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks all (and thanks again for reviewing the article). I think these pages should be merged, rather than disambiguated, as they refer to an identical concept. As for which spelling to use for the page title - I do not feel strongly. The spelling 'Modelling' with two Ls is the original spelling used in this context from the 2003 scientific publication - so this is my preference. However, I agree that the spelling with one L would also be fine, if that would make life easier, please go ahead. Best, Peterzlondon (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC).
 * Oppose; merge. I agree with Peterzlondon that we have a WP:CONTENTFORK here. The above comments about the spelling are also correct: modeling isn't "wrong" and is well-attested in sources; it's just not the nominator's preferred dialect.  I don't care which spelling is used (see MOS:ENGVAR on that), but we do not need two redundant articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect the newer Dynamic causal modeling to the older Dynamic causal modelling and merge the newer better content. Do not create WP:CONTENTFORKs, you have to improve the old page, not displace it.  Not unless you can make a case at WP:AfD to delete the old and allow re-creation.  As for the spelling, see MOS:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN.  Although unintentional, what we have here is an unallowed attempt at and end run to displace the old stub. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It looks like no one ever followed up on the above discussion after it was closed. I've just redirected Dynamic causal modelling to this article, but no objection if anyone wants to reverse the redirect while keeping the two histories intact. Station1 (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)