Talk:Feroze

Proposed merge

 * Oppose: name article and disambiguation page should not be merged in any event. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I indeed overlooked this, since i had placed the tag in the other article. If the other article needs to exist, it is better to move it to feroze (disambiguation) than feroz (disambiguation) since the former is more common and it will become consistent with this article. Doorvery far (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The two articles that are actually ambiguous with the various spellings both use the Feroz spelling, so that appears to be the ambiguous title. (The reason that the discussion is here is because this is where you linked the merge templates' "Discuss" links.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way is fine, but keeping one feroz and another feroze results in different search-results for users on google search. I would like to move that to feroze temporarily, if required, both articles can be moved to "feroz". Two disambiguation pages on single subject is not advisable, more pages confuse users, single page will make the picture clear for the user. Doorvery far (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, feroz is more common with 11m while   just 700k. Doorvery far (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The ambiguous term is "feroz", and both Feroz (a redirect from the term to the article on its primary meaning) and Feroz (disambiguation) exist. This is not an unusual arrangement of dabs, redirects, and primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, few names listed in page dont have Feroze as Given name as specified in template below, instead have it as middle name. So changing it to disambiguation page would be better option. Doorvery far (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Middle-name-holders are also not ambiguous: they are not commonly referred to by the single name. Given name also indicates that middle names are sometimes given names. If that's not the case here, either the middle-name-holders should be deleted or this anthroponymy article could be recast to make whatever distinction is necessary clearer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)