Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1400)

Requested move 9 January 2024

 * 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: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 10:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

English invasion of Scotland (1400) → 1400 English invasion of Scotland – Per WP:NCWWW. Also, it's a more natural disambiguation than parenthetical disambiguation. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Scotland has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject England has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose It would be the only invasion that will have a title in that form. So it will be inconsistent with all other invansion, as you can see at English invasions of Scotland. The Banner  talk 19:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: The proposal is inconsistent with other articles of English invasions of Scotland. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose What happened is the primary search term. Placing a date first is less search friendly. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the parenthetical disambig is a perfectly natural and easily comprehensible way of dealing with the topic, given that there are numerous invasion events to document. As already mentioned, consider the many parenthetical disambig exmples in use at English invasions of Scotland (currently 7, including this one). I feel that a rename and move would be stretching the interpretation of WP:NCWWW a bit too far. Cactus.man   &#9997;  12:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm genuinely surprised at the level of opposition to this given the relevant naming convention is relatively clear and that basically every invasion list at List of invasions is in the same format (granted, a lot of those link to articles on wars rather than invasions but the established convention seems quite clear). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How very odd. English invasions of Scotland seems to be wholly at odds with List of invasions. Why is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thelinks at List of invasions do not go where they appear to go. Srnec (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ?? @ User:Srnec. What exactly do you mean, I find it hard to understand your comment? The primary links wholly appear to be disambiguated to secondary targets, which in most modern browsers will be revealed upon hovering the mouse over the link, so they go exaxctly where expected. Cactus.man   &#9997;  20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The list lists everything year first, but that is not how the articles are actually titled. Comments here suggest that some readers are seeing the linked text and assuming it represents the article titles. Srnec (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Not confusing at all, really (?) There must be good reasons? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you click on the articles linked within the list of invasions you will find out quickly there is no consensus or commonality for how articles are titled. Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I don't know what bonehead wrote this particular piece of junk, but its mother article, List of invasions seems to have a pretty clear consensus for its page naming convention. I would have thought the former should remain consistent with its parent.  ——Serial  16:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - Please keep your comments civil and not being abusive. Thanks in advance. Newm30 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please clarify to whom, precisely, one is supposed to have been uncivil and abusive. Thanks in advance.  ——Serial  14:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Serial Number 54129 you did by saying someone was a bonehead. That's not civil. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2024 (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.
 * Oppose Date is almost never used to begin article titles. That List of invasions is a chronological list.  The actual articles are not those titles. Walrasiad (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * please clarify who 'someone' is; I assume you refer to who wrote this particular piece of junk? Cheers!  ——Serial  14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)