Talk:Kou (name)

Requested move 5 November 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: There is a weak consensus for Option B: to merge the articles. I will place merge tags on the relevant pages. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

– Overlapping disambiguators; Kou (name) covers both given names and surnames. Extended rationale below with multiple proposals involving merges/splits and moves; of those, I prefer Option A. Additional proposals welcome. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  Megan B....   It’s all coming to me till the end of time  22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Kou (name) → ?
 * Kou (surname) → ?


 * Option A repurpose Kou (surname) to cover anyone with a surname spelled that way in English (not just the one Chinese surname spelled that way in pinyin); split the surname content from Kou (name) to Kou (surname); move Kou (name) to Kou (given name); point Kou (name) to Kou (a disambiguation page) as R from incomplete disambiguation
 * Option B don't move any articles; merge Kou (surname) to Kou (name)
 * Option C split the non-Japanese people from Kou (name) to Kou; move Kou (name) to Kō (name) following Hepburn romanization; don't move Kou (surname)
 * Option D split the non-Japanese people from Kou (name) to Kou; move Kou (name) to Kō (name); redirect Kou (Japanese name) and Kou (Japanese surname) to Kō (name); move Kou (surname) to Kou (Chinese surname); point Kou (name) and Kou (surname) to Kou as R from incomplete disambiguation 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

!votes
Relist comment Since there is no consensus yet... relisting -- Megan B....  It’s all coming to me till the end of time  22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option D while it has a long description, it makes things systematical: longer subjects have separate articles, the rest are lumped into the "remainder" pages'. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B. There are too few entries to really need separate pages here. The distinctions in origin can all be explained on one page. BD2412  T 20:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment I'd be fine with Option B as well. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason this question is tricky is because name articles serve a dual purpose: providing encyclopedic content about the name, and serving as a navigational aid. If you see a name as an encyclopedic subject, then each name should have its separate article as it's a distinct topic; therefore D, and to a lesser extent C, would be preferable. If, on the other hand, you see those articles as akin to dab pages, then B, and to a lesser extent A, would mean the pages would be better placed to help with navigation. – Uanfala (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B 162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)