Talk:George Puscas (sports writer)

Requested move 1 December 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

George Puscas (sports writer) → George Puscas – Only person specifically named "George Puscas". Not to be confused with George Pușcaș, who has accent marks in his last name. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 01:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Contesting, some English references list the footballers name without diacritics.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd note that the footballer gets 12,418 views compared to 88 for the sports writer [|George_Puscas_(sports_writer)]. Normally I support WP:SMALLDETAILS but given the harder to type one gets more views I think this would inconvenience too many readers especially given as noted some sources (all that I can see) don't use diacritics for the footballer as can be seen from a simple Google search. However we could disambiguate the base name without diacritics which I support.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per the statistics cited by Crouch, Swale, the other one seems dominant, and this is the English Wikipedia. English doesn't ordinarily have diacritics. Many people who read and write in English can't even figure out how to type them, and generating them can be difficult even for those who can figure it out. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Crouch, Swale and Page views isn't what matters. What matters is a correctly disambiguated title. Of course, in English sources, they are going to latinize the names and not use diacritics in order for the average reader to better understand and comprehend how to pronounce the person's name and also because the English language doesn't traditionally use diacritics. I still feel that "George Puscas" is the correct title for the sports writer and that "George Pușcaș" is the correct title for the footballer per WP:SMALLDETAILS as Mr. Crouch mentioned. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 04:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "George Pușcaș" may be the correct title for the footballer but the problem is that he is commonly written as just "George Puscas" and he gets more views therefore the footballer is ambiguous with "George Puscas" to and must be subject to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SMALLDETAILS is used when a topic is the only (or primary) usage of that exact term but is very similar to another topic. In this case there is no evidence the sports writer is primary for "George Puscas".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest to review WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, which seems to support having be a redirect to . —BarrelProof (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above but still weakly support disambigating the base name of "George Puscas".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Silly me I had only thought that the numbers were a factor of over 10x but 12,418 views compared to 88 is actually over 141x! so we could inconvenience around 99% of readers only to benefit 1! Given the sources that don't use diacritics and the difficulty with them anyway I think we should leave it as is. The footballer is likely to be overwhelmingly the most likely target for even the title without diacritics so we probably shouldn't even convert "George Puscas" to a DAB. There may be recentism with regards to the footballer but views of over 4 years show 404,720 v 2,136 which is over 189x [|George_Pu%C8%99ca%C8%99] so I don't think that's a strong point.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:23, 4 December 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.

Not primary topic for unaccented
hi Crouch. You just pinged me on a discussion mentioning this page, I can't anything remotely problematic in the above close and stable status. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the close is correct, I was just including it in a discussion on primary redirects and I would be interested to see what Station1 thinks of it.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)