Talk:Glutonny

Requested move 6 October 2020

 * 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: Consensus to not move. (closed by non-admin page mover)   SITH   (talk)   18:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Glutonny → Glutonny (gamer) – It's hard to imagine that this isn't a common misspelling. As such I'd imagine there are a lot of WP:SURPRISE instances when someone searches for the sin and happens upon... some pro gamer. Unlike the typical uses of WP:SMALLDETAILS, we aren't talking about a proper name here, but a basic word. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Glutonny" doesn't show up in the Gluttony article and we don't usually disambiguate because of misspelling. Although a Google search for Glutonny does say "Showing results for "Gluttony" when you click on "Search instead for Glutonny" you only appear to get this topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The hatnote at Gluttony could have been clearer and I have boldly changed that into a, but there's nothing else to see here. It isn't anything to do with WP:SMALLDETAILS, it is down to what is the WP:TOPIC for the headword "Glutonny"? In the absence of Glutonny (disambiguation) etc, we don't add a disambiguating phrase just so readers can find the wrong article quicker. For if not, you're implicitly requesting that beomes a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT as  to Gluttony? That is the implication. Otherwise this is just not the way we disambiguate things... 84.236.27.182 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)  WP:SOCKSTRIKE. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 00:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I am proposing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * note that this new IP account is from the first edits an experienced user. Can we ask what previous/main account is? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support This is a minor spelling difference that is defiantly not WP:OBVIOUS and should be stated to provide clarity to the title. blindlynx (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the lone topic called "glutonny", I think the hatnote is good enough. I fail to see any WP:SURPRISE here, since this article is not highly viewed. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support the primary topic for glutonny in books is the mispelling of glutony (suggest anyone saying otherwise test this), extremely common misspelling, and the gamer himself may not have realised his name was mispelled. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this appears to be the primary topic of this spelling from a cursory search. The hatnote takes care of the misspelling and should alleviate any confusion that may arise. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, assume someone who types this is looking for this, not something they didn't type. Also this looks like it would be pronounced differently. Gluton redirects to Gluten, with no hatnote; other misspellings such as Gluttany don't exist. Peter James (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS, I think a hatnote is enough.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Misspellings should not generally be considered primary topic over a genuine use for that misspelling. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Gluttony" and "Glutonny" are spelled differently. The hatnote is sufficient to differentiate between the two. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This has two misplaced letters compared to gluttony; it should be considered a distinct topic. Hatnotes should be sufficient. kennethaw88 • talk 03:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hat notes exist for a reason. -- Calidum  01:15, 19 October 2020 (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.