Talk:Iran Air tour

Requested move 12 March 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Don't see anything in this discussion that tops the ambiguity I've read in reliable sources. The names I've seen include: So these can either be treated as separate names for the same entity or they can all be treated as COMMONNAMEs. Either way, unless editors can introduce a stronger argument for any one title, I see only one way ahead, which is to keep the present title at this time. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may strengthen their arguments and attempt another requested move in a few months to garner consensus for the highest and best title for this article. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 13:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Iran Airtour
 * Iran Airtours
 * Iran Airtour Airline
 * Iran Airtour Airlines
 * Iran Air Tours

Iran Air Tours → Iran Airtour – According to the website of airlines and Airbus Company website the correct name of the airlines is Iran Airtour. W.nimanimaei (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Both sites cited appear to use Iran Airtour Airlines rather than the proposed title. Dekimasu よ! 00:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like "Iran Airtour" is a branding and the official name used on the website is "Iran Airtour Airlines", we have moved airlines to the "branded name" before so it may not be an issue. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: Neither this nomination nor the discussion to date appears to be based on the article title policy. The article should not be moved without such discussion and evidence. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
...we have moved airlines to the "branded name" before so it may not be an issue... , can you give any examples of this? It is possible that they were moved for other reasons, such as that the branded name was also the common name. This would be a valid argument. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * KLM is one that comes to mind (the full name is KLM Royal Dutch Airlines), but as you say it could also be considered the common name. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No could about it,  07:03, 11 November 2006 DB (talk | contribs | block) . . (17 bytes) (+17) . . (moved KLM Royal Dutch Airlines to KLM: Although KLM Royal Dutch is the full name and should be displayed as such, Wikipedia specifies to use common names (i.e. KLM)). So that particular move was away from what is (arguably) the official name (in English) in favour of the common name. It seems to be an example contradicting your claim rather than supporting it.
 * Any better ones? Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lost me somewhere, I said it was not unsual to use the branded name rather than the official name. If you are tying to make a case one way or the other I cant tell. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A branded name is a type of official name. One of the problems with official names is there can be several different names all in some sense official... for example the legal name, the branded name, the name as it appears on their website, the name as it appears on the website of an organisation of which they are a member... lots of possibilities! See wp:official names. But we don't generally care whether any of these is more official than others, as in any case we prefer common names such as KLM (which can coincide with an official name and often do).
 * I'm not trying to make a case for or against the move. I'm making a case for whichever way we go to be according to the article naming policy. (And the first step might be to read it, and I recommend wp:official names too which is not itself policy but which makes the same points and hopefully more clearly.)
 * Primary source is also recommended reading. Our policy is to decide the common name (and other things) primarily from evidence in secondary sources. The airline's own website, for example, is a primary source not a secondary source.
 * While I'm not trying to make a case either way, it's also policy that if the closer can't see a policy-based consensus to move, there is no move. So the onus of proof is on the proposer and supporters of the move, and so far, we see no valid arguments at all IMO. That's for the closer to determine of course, not me, but I raise the point here (and above) to make sure the move supporters are aware of it. Andrewa (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2018 (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.