Talk:Mustang (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mustang horse which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Second move discussion
Talk:Mustang horse. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2015

 * 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: not moved. Clearly no consensus on whether the horse is the primary topic or not. Also no consensus for the alternative proposal of Mustang horse, nor the moratorium (although another RM shortly after this probably wouldn't be looked too kindly upon anyway). Number  5  7  12:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
– The primary topic grab for the horse article at Talk:Mustang#Alternative_proposal was ill-advised and ill-formed, especially coming as it did as a late alternative proposal within a losing RM discussion. The data presented there make it clear that the horse topic gets about an order of magnitude less traffic than the car. Given those stats and the huge number of topics on this disambig page, the right thing to do is not claim any primary topic. The previous horse title, Mustang horse, was objected to by some as redundant and unnatural; the parenthetical disambiguator is more standard, and has no reason to provoke any objections. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mustang (disambiguation) → Mustang
 * Mustang → Mustang (horse)
 * The horse breed articles all use natural disambiguation where there must be a dab, the (horse) parenthetical disambiguation is used for the articles about individually-named horses. That one is a longstanding consensus and one that is seen in some (though not all) other animal breeds, particularly ones where there are lots of named individuals.   Montanabw (talk)  06:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the alternate proposal should have been started as a new proposal, so was procedurally deficient. If the bot doesn't list the proposal (I assume it hasn't since the original proposal would have had the move banner; and this page did not receive an automated notice) with the proper origination pages, then people who thought they knew what the proposal was from the RM-listing summary would have completely missed this alternative, since it involved moving more than one page, whereas the summary form listing only listed the horse. Further, the stats given in the discussion of the alternative already showed the horse was not even close to being the primary topic. It was in fact a minor topic. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, Other articles that use the name Mustang also take their name reference from the mustang. The relevant question here relates to user experience.  When readers comes to Wikipedia looking, for instance, for a specific car, would they prefer to go to the Mustang page with it sleek images and hatnote or to a more thoroughly presented disambiguation page?  GregKaye 11:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support If  and I agree, it must be the right thing to do, LOL!  Seriously, the car is the primary topic (sought much more often than other uses of "Mustang", including the horse one).  If people object to it being at the base name, fine, then have it redirect to the dab page, as Dicklyon proposes.  And we should prefer natural dismabiguators when they are, you know, natural.  "Mustang horse" is not natural, so we should use the parenthetic disambiguator for the horse article, again as proposed.  --В²C ☎ 18:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B2C, see above comment to Dicklyon. We have about 300 breed articles, and all use "horse" if dab is needed. (horse) is for the thousands of articles we have on named horses, especially race horses.   Montanabw (talk)  06:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, thanks for your support, but I'm certainly not going to agree that the car should be primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your own words, "the horse topic gets about an order of magnitude less traffic than the car", demonstrate the car is the primarytopic. I think where we disagree is about whether being primarytopic is sufficient to be placed at the base name.  But anyway I'm not here to proposing that, and have no intention to ever do so.  --В²C ☎ 23:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even recognizing that you are "Born2Count", you are not counting all the alternative topics; Ford Mustang get less than half the traffic, so even on the counting basis the primarytopic claim would not hold up. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? That's surprising.  But I'll take your word for it and concede the point.  --В²C ☎ 02:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 50%...(Mustang (disambiguation) → Mustang) seems like the way to go. Common sense usage would seem to tell us that both the car and horse are often used definitions of the term Mustang. One def might get used more than the other depending on what circle of peers one is around, such as ranching in Montana or Santa Fe, or living in downtown San Francisco. Neither getting the primary topic moniker is what's called for here. As far as Mustang → Mustang (horse), that is a job the WikiProject Equine is in place to decide. So no on that part. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WPEQ has a longstanding consensus to use natural disambiguation, so Mustang horse please. Montanabw (talk)  00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You opposed the alternative. So what name do you suggest we use for the horse article?  I'm OK with whatever you and/or the equine project prefer, it if fixes the primarytopic problem.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, have the Equine project come up with something reasonable. Give 'em a week to come up with something if this gets ok'd to moved to the dab page. If I were to do it (with no equine background other than riding them) I don't care if it's Mustang (wild horse) or Mustang (feral horse), but if the equine project hates the term Mustang (horse) because they use the term (horse) for named equine, we should not move it there. Projects need more, not less input. And "Mustang horse" as a title, makes it sound like that is the preferred way of referring to the animal... and that is just plain weird to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See below. See also Arabian horse, Shetland pony and dozens if not hundreds of other examples.WP:NATURAL permits this.  We also just beat the general concept of it to death a couple months back, somewhere... (I have 4000 articles on my watchlist, I can't recall where that debate was).  Montanabw (talk)  00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They can propose an alternative now or later. I don't see them doing so.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And why should they? They prefer Mustang to remain where it is, as it appears many do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If Mustang moves to become the dab, then the second choice for WPEQ, consistent with other articles, is Mustang horse, which is where is was immediately before becoming the primary link. You can post the question at WPEQ, but most of the participants are not going to wade into this morass again, you can review List of horse breeds and see we've got 400 breed articles, those that need a dab use with this standard.  Montanabw (talk)  00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. No clearcut primary topic; the fighter is a strong third choice as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fighter? You mean the WW2 plane I assume? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - clearly the subject with the long-term educational significance. Red Slash 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the long-term historical significance complication rears its ugly head. One of the worst policy changes in WP history.  Let's have two contradictory rules and duke it out based on personal preferences every time!  Great idea!!!  Not.   --В²C ☎ 02:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * В²C, hey, I wouldn't be against changing the criteria a bit. But that second criterion seems to have fairly wide-spread support, and I think it rules here. If you want to change it, perhaps the best place to start would be at Talk:Apple. Red Slash 00:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be very difficult to argue that Apple computers have more common usage than the fruit, to be honest. That situation is not in any way similar to the Mustang situation, where the car has clear primacy in common every day usage, particularly outside North America. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The cars are known as Ford/Shelby Mustangs. The fighter jet is a P 51 Mustang. The horse? Plain old Mustang. Also note this was discussed in July, with conensus in favor of making the horse the primary topic. What's changed since then?  -- Calidum  02:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the ill-formed RM that I linked; the change to a primarytopic claim occurred midstream, on the horse page, so may not represent an actual consensus. What changed is that I noticed.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , the cars are most commonly known as Mustangs (but also referred to as Ford Mustangs in some contexts). Similarly, the fighters are commonly referred to as Mustangs, but the P 51 is added (or used instead) in some contexts.  But in both cases the most common name is Mustang.  More importantly, people are likely to search with just "mustang" when seeking those articles.  --В²C ☎ 02:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Which is what disambig pages are for.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. WP:COMMONNAME tells us what the base page name should be, an analysis that precedes whether we disambiguate it or not. Thus is has no bearing on the question here. We might conclude that the common name of all three (horse, car, plane - there are more, but let's keep it simple) is "Mustang", but all that tells us is that we have to disambiguate, it doesn't tell us what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. WP:COMMONNAME tells us what the base page name should be, an analysis that precedes whether we disambiguate it or not. Thus is has no bearing on the question here. We might conclude that the common name of all three (horse, car, plane - there are more, but let's keep it simple) is "Mustang", but all that tells us is that we have to disambiguate, it doesn't tell us what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on the merits and the target dab should be "(horse)" as given in the nomination. The horse is an important topic, maybe the most important, but it is not primary.  The car alone challenges the horse's primacy in quant terms./  In addition, when stripping away geobias and recentism, the plane and Mustang, Nepal/Mustang District are quite important as well.  —  AjaxSmack   04:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support There are clearly a number of very high profile articles that claim prominence and consequently there does not appear to be a primary article. I'm not a car guy and the Ford Mustang still comes to mind before the horse. Adding the qualifier (horse) to the horse article seems most appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is the third time in three years this has been suggested and I think there have been repeated attempts farther back. And anyway, we also don't use parenthetical disambiguation for the horse articles even if this does get moved (see above).  The car was named after the horse (ever notice the logo). Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, quantification in Google is a factor, but not the only one.the deciding factor is "not "what first comes to (your) mind" - factors also include long-term significance.   Montanabw (talk)  06:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Mustang (horse)" is the style of an article about an individual horse named "Mustang".  In terms of long term significance, the "mustang" is what is described in this article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SmokeyJoe, and especially per Calidum; the Ford Mustang is the Ford Mustang, not a mustang, etc. An order of magnitude more things use the word "chicken" to refer to a foodstuff (compare "pork", "beef") than to a creature (compare "pig", "cattle"), yet we would never think to move Chicken to Chicken (animal). The fact that people unfamiliar with horses often mean a car named after the horse doesn't obviate the necessity to apply some WP:COMMONSENSE here. And contrary RMs should not be launched this soon after the closure of one that concluded the opposite way. Finally, going with the car would be a huge WP:NPOV problem. The Ford Motor Corporation would  it if the character string "Mustang" were almost entirely associated with their product line, but a) it's not true, and b) it sure isn't WP's job to try to help make it true.  In this regard, note that Office does not go to an article about a Microsoft product, and Apple does not to to an article about a computer and phone manufacturer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding those examples!  Montanabw (talk)  23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, I happen to agree with you in this case and I respect you greatly in general--but I do want to mention one thing about the timing of this requested move. The previous RM was not initially intended to give the horse page primary topic, and the discussion was basically hijacked by a few of us (I think I was a part of it) to grant the horse primary topic - I can easily understand how that would be unsatisfactory to someone. Again, on the merits of the case I agree with you, but I'd absolutely defend DickLyon requesting the move even this soon. Red Slash 00:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All move discussions that are not unanimous are unsatisfactory to someone. I'm not accusing the nominator of anything, I'm observing that we generally don't re-open RM discussions shortly after they close. When we actually (rarely) need to do so, there's a separate process for this, WP:MR. Making a procedural observation is not any kind of assumption of bad faith about, though I see one or two others here making such assumption without justification, out of what appears to be a desire to see the discussion be at Talk:Mustang, the horse article's talk page. Having it there, however, would probably strongly bias the outcome.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * S, you're probably right that WP:MR would have been a more appropriate venue, since the July 2014 RM was procedurally flawed (which I presume the closer did not notice); but it was long enough after that it seemed a new discussion made more sense. And I appreciate your acknowledgement of the bias of having the discussion at Mustang (horse), and your attempt last time to reduce that bias by posting the notice on Talk:Mustang when it was the disambig talk page.  But that didn't go far enough.  The editors of the other affected pages were kept in the dark, as the primarytopic-grab alternate proposal was never listed at WP:RM, so nobody who cares about such things would have noticed.  Most of the editors of the car, plane, boat, city, etc Mustang pages probably don't have the dsambig page on their watchlist.  That's why I am trying to get some of them to come here and offer their perspective at least.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To suggest that the mustang horse has the same long term significance as apple fruit or offices is a little churlish. Those are items that pervade every day life across the world, which this horse clearly isn't. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This discussion is about mustangs. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: One point of confusion here may be due to the fact that some horse people like to capitalize "mustang" as "Mustang", but it is not properly capitalized, as mustangs are not a formal standardized breed, but several populations of free-breeding feral horses. I.e., there is a difference between "Mustang", which some might argue is ambiguous (a Ford vehicle line, an aircraft, etc.), and "mustang", a general word in English, from which the capitalized uses derive. That word is obviously the WP:PRIMARY topic, and both it and the derived usages are vying for the necessarily capitalized WP article title Mustang.  Comparing source usage of "Mustang" (capitalized) with regard to horses vs. vehicles is an incorrect and misleading analysis.  A correct one will find that the capitalized-in-running-text usage most often refers to the car (barely, and only comparatively recently), while the lower-case one almost always refers to the horse. This N-gram demonstrates that capitalized usage has shot up since reintroduction of the car line; even so, many of the capitalized usages are actually also references to horses, because horse people usually capitalize it (the same WP:Specialist style fallacy issue that was at the heart of bird species common name capitalization in WP:BIRDCON, concluding against capitalization in WP articles). This N-gram, using a phrase less likely to skew toward product advertising, shows the usage about neck and neck  the car's popularity and despite the fact that so many of the capitalized uses are not referring to the car. This third N-gram really drives (rides?) the point home, especially given that people don't even ride feral horses much!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Smc - and anyone else who ares - the capitalization issue is being discussed at the Mustang talk page, so that discussion should be struck here and moved to there.  Montanabw (talk)  23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. I don't strike my comments unless I change my mind or have written something that turns out to be factually incorrect. Thanks for the pointer, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as before. A mustang is a horse. First and foremost. The car, plane etc are named after the horse and are not terribly well-known outside North America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Calidum and Necrothesp. Mustang should be about the horse, Ford Mustang the car, and well, I'll leave it to the MilHist guys to come up with the proper terminology for the plane. A hatnote at the top of each page can help out the people who have come to the wrong page.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, seems pretty obvious that the criteria for primary topic conflict. The horse is clearly not the primary topic based on page traffic. Whether it is primary based historical significance is debatable. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A mustang is a horse. A Ford Mustang is the name of a U.S. car which uses the connotations of the mustang horse to gain commercial advantage. Wikipedia is or should not be an advertising arm of the Ford car company. Nor should Wikipedia be distorting and damaging the English language by allowing commercial strategies like these to take precedence over the root meaning of words. A parallel discussion concerning the corvette (a boat) and the Chevrolet Corvette (another U.S. car) can be found here. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you support titling our articles in an effort to accommodate how users search? Regarding the Corvette malady on WP, see: WP:OTHERSTUFF.  --В²C ☎ 17:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B2C, it's also Apple, Office, Brahma, Centaur, and a zillion other things, and speaking of cars, this includes Pinto (and [{Ford Pinto]]). How users search is one criteria that can be used, but there are others that can be applied, particularly historic origins and original meaning. In the English language, most uses (cars, military equipment) were inspired by the horse.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a mustang is a horse, other things are named after it. I said it before, and others said it above better than I can. We have redirect Mustang (car) and the dab page, that should be enough to find the car and the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ps: The construction Mustang (horse) would mean an individual horse named Mustang, not the subject of mustang, - I believe I said so also before, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Originally I expected to support this; however, as convincing as both sides can be, I find the "oppose" arguments to be more convincing. ( was perhaps as clear and concise as any). To further my thinking I note that there is more than just "Mustang (car)"; but Ford Mustang, vs. Shelby Mustang as well.  Also as a S.O.P. (rather than "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) I note the following: Javelin, Cobra, King cobra, and Cougar (a FA by the way).  Finally, N.B.: while consensus can change, bringing this up every 6 months just because someone WP:DONTLIKE it is IMO very poor form.  All things considered, there is no way I can support this. — Ched :  ?  23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The car, or the plane, seem to be equally viable as primary topics. Actually, the car is much more sought after than the horse in pageviews, if the previous commenters are to be believed.  I would say, while the horse has a long and distinguished history, so does the car (unless you're mopar] or something).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Calidum. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not again! Bloody hell! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The issue is that historically the name Mustang was applied to the horse; the rest, cars for example, have have been named after the horse. An encyclppedia should reflect origins of words and so their primary importance in the naming of everything else with that name. We can't start claiming popularity is of primary importance in an encyclopedia first, because popularity wanes and second. because we'd have video games and tv shows and not much else.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC))
 * Oppose Let me recap: A mustang is a horse. The North American P-51 Mustang is an aircraft named for the horse. The Ford Mustang is an automobile named after either the horse or the aircraft, but which uses the horse as its emblem. The Shelby Mustang is a variant of the Ford Mustang. No-one talks about a "mustang horse" the way they talks about a "quarter horse"; they say "mustang" and mean the horse. Are you next going to propose moving Jaguar Cars to "Jaguar" and jaguar to Panthera onca? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I still have a strong respect for metrics that are not based on popular usage and not based on digital usage. The word mustang was first used to refer to a horse, and that usage was paramount in the world for many decades, until the fighter model entered the scene in the 1940s, and then again until the car model in the 1960s. I think the original usage still has legs (see what I did there) – it's not archaic or so unpopular that people don't understand what it means. A parallel case: The Madonna (entertainer) article should be moved to Madonna if the mustang move suggestion is carried forward. Interested parties can peruse the past RMs to see how unlikely that move will be. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? This seems anti-parallel if related at all. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I'm not sure I share Bink's opinion on the Madonna move :), I agree with the thrust of his argument. I think the natural pagename for the horse is Mustang. Hatnote the others, & dab with makers names. Until, unless, there's a horse named Mustang of sufficient fame, in which case, hatnote it, too.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  16:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all of the reasons I listed on the page where this discussion should have taken place. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  18:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. The proposed title for Mustang is not in accordance with the naming convention established by the horse WikiProject, which is, as says, that "(horse)", in parentheses, is used only for individual horses and horse-related topics, while horse breeds and types have "horse" or "Horse", without parentheses (as time goes on I like this convention less and less, but that is what has been agreed). Our article title policy specifically allows for WikiProjects to decide what form of disambiguation to use: "... exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects". Without a change in either WP:EQUINE consensus or the article title policy this move cannot go ahead - so there isn't much point discussing it. But, just for the record, I oppose it; there is no other candidate for the title Mustang, as the other kinds of mustang are already stable at other names, so ... no, wait, I oppose it for all the good reasons that led to the recent move; there's really no need to repeat them here. Why was this move proposed here rather than at Talk:Mustang? It presumably wasn't the intention, but that looks rather like an attempt to game the system. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While I'm !voting the same direction Jlan is, I have to point out that some wikiproject's preferences are not of particular interest here except where they fill a void; RM is based in article naming (and, where relevant, other) policy, and site-wide guidelines like WP:MOS and WP:WikiProject Council/Guide. Of especial relevance in the latter is the section WP:PROJPAGE: "Many large WikiProjects eventually collect some advice about how to apply Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and essays to their specific subject area. ... An advice page written by several participants of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay." The fact that Mustang (horse) implies an individual horse named "Mustang" has nothing to do with any WP:EQUINE naming "convention", and everything to do with WP's general article titling practices. In any case where a parenthetical disambiguator can reasonably be interpreted to refer to an invidiual rather than a mass classification, it is very likely to be interpreted that way by readers and editors. There is no void to fill here with some PROJPAGE.  Furthermore, there is no such WP:EQUINE convention anyway; I'm a participant in that project, and we don't have a naming convention PROJPAGE. (WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds alleges the existence of a "guideline" about this, but it does not actually exist.) One editor in that project asserts such a convention in discussions like this, but there's no need to do so, since we already name articles this way, site-wide, by default anyway: A title like "Monkey Knees (band)" is going to be interpreted by everyone as a band named Monkey Knees, not a type or classification of band, and so on. Some projects, like WP:DOGS defy this practice for no good reason (Billy (dog) being the worst example, perhaps the single worst attempt at disambiguation on the whole system), but that's another matter for another forum. Anyway, I have to concur with Montanabw's observation "The horse breed articles all use natural disambiguation where there must be a dab, the (horse) parenthetical disambiguation is used for the articles about individually-named horses." This is an accurate description of the titles of these two categories of horse (and most other domestic animal) articles, and is what we'd expect from how we name articles generally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: I don’t believe the word has a primary topic, and a wikiproject’s preference doesn’t really override any other concerns. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support absolutely. Worldwide, Mustang generally means Ford Mustang to most people, an iconic car. The horse may be the *original* usage of the word, but it is not longer the most common. And both will be significant long term, going into the future. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Worldwide? Really? I don't think so. Not to any non-American who has seen a western. I wouldn't even know what a Ford Mustang looked like. Beyond being aware it's a car I really haven't a clue about it. I suspect most other Europeans would agree with me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support either (horse) or + horse - and perhaps reword WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and retitle shortcut as WP:MAJORITYTOPIC so it is more clearly saying what it already says. As User:Dicklyon says "The horse was never primarytopic before July 2014.", and is not now: there is no primary topic. - as is more often that not the case for any term. Mustang (horse) is not 60-70% of all Book hits, so why is it squatting in an absolute majority spot? Why was it moved in July 2014? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Epipelagic and SamBlob's arguments. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that neither of them had anything sensible to say, that does sound like your usual pattern. What the heck was SamBlob even referring to?  And how can Epi think that making a disambig page is catering to commercial interests?  Craziness abounds.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The car and the WW2 fighter were both named after the horse (the car's logo is the horse), therefore it should be blindingly obvious that the horse is the primary topic. The current dab notice at the top of the horse article is sufficient for people looking for other topics. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , there is no question that the car and fighter were named after the horse, but what does one topic being "named after" another have to do with determining whether any of these topics is most likely to be sought by someone searching with "mustang"? --В²C ☎ 22:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Page view count is not a basis for determining WP:COMMONNAME. Anyone seeking information on any topic under the heading "mustang" will be directed to the disambiguation page as appropriate. One topic being named after another topic has everything to do with which topic is to be considered "primary". The name of the car refers to the horse. The name of the airplane refers to the horse. The name of the US Navy ship refers to the horse. And so on. Even the first definition in any dictionary refers to the horse. Those facts are themselves acknowledgment that the horse is what the name is about, i.e. the primary topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
Alternative: move Mustang to Mustang horse instead of Mustang (horse) as some editors find that preferable. The key thing to remember is that the disambig page should be put back at Mustang, where it was until the improper primarytopic grab last July in the late alternative revision at Talk:Mustang/Archive_2. That RM proposal started out by acknowledging that the previous RM discussion had failed to find support for the horse being primarytopic; this remains a bizarre stretch, since it gets less than 1/10 of the traffic, as the stats in the previous discussion show. This alternative proposal simply undoes that procedurally flawed RM. Please review it before commenting. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. Any alternative for the horse is better than treating is as primarytopic.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as alternative if article is moved. All the horse breed articles have natural disambiguation, not parenthetical disambiguation. (And we have roughly 400 breed articles, though not all require disambiguation of "horse")  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose that is the only problem the last RM solved . Mustang horse is as awkward as Madonna person or Mustang car would be.  Please let us not reinstate this weirdness to WP.  --В²C ☎ 02:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - gotta agree with b2c here. At least that got fixed before. If it gets ok'd to moved to the dab page have the equine project come up with something... or try Mustang (wild horse) or Mustang (feral horse). Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that it's awkward; but I stand by "Any alternative for the horse is better than treating is as primarytopic." Any other proposals?  Maybe Mustang (horse type)?  Are there really no other horse types that deal with this question?  Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that B2C's Jul 2014 proposal to move from Mustang horse to Mustang (horse) was pretty widely opposed. It was only after  converted that RM discussion to a primarytopicgrab proposal that it got any support.  Of course, that was only among the horse fanciers.   That was highly improper.  And I'm sorry that my original move rationale here failed to fully account for what happened.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the opposition to Mustang (horse) is because of an internal convention to use the horse parenthetic disambiguation for titles of articles about specific horses. That's not only a lame argument, but even if accepted as reasonable WP:IAR should surely apply here, because who is going to mistake Mustang (horse) for an article about a horse named Mustang?  --204.115.183.4 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because we have several THOUSAND individually named horse articles dabbed with (horse). See Category:Thoroughbred_racehorses for the first 2,800 or so, more are in other categories such as Category:Horses_in_the_Olympics.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NONONONONONONOOOOOOOO: Do the dab if you must, (at this point, I have ceased to GAF) but please no parenthetical disambiguation.  This has been beaten to absolute death a dozen times.  WP:NATURAL has been well-established for the horse breed/horse type articles, of which we have roughly 400 or so - ALL with natural disambiguation where disambiguation is needed!!!!  It literally has taken about 8 years to get these all consistent. In contrast, we have about 9,000 articles tagged for WikiProject horse racing, a signifiant number (probably a majority) of which are named individual horses such as Eclipse (horse).  We even have a few cases where there is a named horse and a horse breed as well.  And frankly, most breed registries are the Foo Horse Association or the Foo Horse Breeders or whatever.  We also have a ton of pony articles (e.g. Shetland pony) as well.  This was just thrashed out again a few months back (somewhere, I can't even remember where that fight started...) and settled for the umpteenth time.    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, but enough with the bullshit. Really.  It has been pointed out to you multiple times that WP:NATURAL applies when the phrase in question is a, you know, natural disambiguation for the name in question.  WP:NATURAL explicitly states: "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources".   It does  not say "choose an alternative name that the subject is occasionally called in English reliable sources".   At best, the subject here is called "Mustang horse" only very rarely in reliable sources.  So it's not a WP:NATURAL disambiguation.  Stop contending that it applies in this case.  It doesn't matter if it applies in 99.99% of other horse breed cases.  IT DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE.  Mustang horse is NOT an acceptable disambiguated title for this article. Not per WP:NATURAL nor per any other policy or guideline.    Mustang (horse) IS an acceptable title for this article, per WP:NATURAL: "If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name."   ✅  --В²C ☎ 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I always believe the individual projects should have more say in naming articles when there is any iffiness to it. They have more and better knowledge of the subject. But it has to be an alternate that is common. If the equine project has deemed through consensus that (horse) is only for individual named horses then that's what we should stick to and honor. But Mustang horse is not a common term... I don't think I've ever heard it referred to that way. We should not use that. Our young readers will think it's called a Mustang horse instead of a Mustang. So it simply needs a further disambiguation such as (wild horse) or (feral horse) or something else that the equine project comes up with. This is going to be a rare instance that it needs further narrowing of the parenthetical, but it happens sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, please re-read WP:NATURAL: "... In a similar vein, mechanical fan and hand fan are preferable to fan (mechanical) and fan (implement)." I am applying the same principle here.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not the same as those are common terms. We could use Wild Mustang but why am I the only one coming up with alternatives? Consensus is supposed to be a way to find common ground that all can live with, not a "my way or the highway" proposition. If it doesn't stay at Mustang we have reasonable reasons not to put it at Mustang (horse) or Mustang horse, so rule those choices out. Lets find an alternative that all can live with in case it needs to move. I've made several suggestions and I'm sure there are more probably better ones. I swear, sometimes I think many editors here need a timeout for not even trying to find a compromise. We are supposed to be a team of editors who have our readers needs first and foremost. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, ? "Mechanical fan" and "hand fan" are commonly used in reliable sources to refer to their respective topics.  These terms are even commonly used in product description titles on shopping sites like Amazon.   Mustang horse is NOT commonly used in reliable sources.  You are not applying the same principle.  Please stop insisting that you are.  Why is this so hard for you to understand? , the problem with giving more weight to the individual projects with respect to title decisions is that they tend to be focused on their particular area and not on the "big picture" of consistency in naming across all of Wikipedia.  Titles like Mustang horse (and Yucca brevifolia instead of Joshua Tree) exemplify what happens because of that.  --В²C ☎ 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't just an individual project issue with naming problems. And I never particularly cared about consistency as opposed to getting it correct for our readers. Mustang horse is poor but with regards to horses with names like Trigger, Mustang (horse) is also poor. Gotta be some other choices out there and i named three of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mustang (horse) IS getting it right for our readers, and it happens to be consistent with our title policies and guidelines. The only argument against it is because it is inconsistent with a project-specific convention, yet you just claimed that you "never particularly cared about consistency as opposed to getting it correct for our readers"... which is it, ? Horse is also an excellent disambiguator for Trigger (horse).  There is no reason whatsoever that horse can't be used to mean "the horse" in one title and "the horse breed" in another.  The only context that matters, in terms of getting it right for the users, for deciding how to disambiguate, are other uses of that same name.  How other titles of similar topics are disambiguated is not relevant.  We disambiguate the city Portland with ", Oregon" (Portland, Oregon, and the city Cork with the parenthetic disambiguator "city" (Cork (city).  It's not a problem at all to use different disambiguation styles - the most appropriate in each situation - within one area of articles.  The resistance here to the natural and ideal Mustang (horse) is really bizarre.    --В²C ☎ 00:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care about consistency. (horse) works fine... as does Wild Mustang, Mustang (wild horse) or Mustang (feral horse). Those are all fine for our readers. Now we also add the caveat that the Equine project has a nicely done compromise of using (horse) for horses with names. No problem since we have equally good choices we can make. It's called compromise. Mustand (horse) is a choice, i simply don't agree with you that it is the best choice. It's one of many reasonable choices. Mustang horse is not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wild Mustang" is used more commonly than "Mustang horse", to be sure, but I don't think it's used sufficiently commonly to warrant its use. Plus, it favors a side in the wild vs. feral debate, as do your two other suggestions.  No alternatives are necessary; Mustang (horse) is available, unambiguous, precise and simply not problematic in any way.  Every other alternative is problematic in some significant way.  --В²C ☎ 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose by B2C, add Mustang plane as another example of what not to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - There would not be a Ford Mustang (the formal name of a car for license and title purposes an office of motor vehicles) if there was no real "mustang" or a type of horse. CZmarlin (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Soliciting from editors of related Mustang articles
I have placed a notice on the talk pages of many of the other articles that could be called Mustang, since the current primarytopic scheme is making it harder for the vast majority of people who type "Mustang" to find the topic they seek among those. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So you propose renaming the horse article by placing a discussion on the dab page where none of the dozens of people from those other discussions will see the activity. Then things turn sour, so you canvas for support. Classy. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  18:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, all RM discussions are listed at WP:RM. We have a centralized listing for a reason. It's also routine to notify talk pages of pages that would be affected by a move discussion, since the discussion can only happen on one page. I personally would not have done this one the other way around, listing it on the horse article's talk page, because it would attract an undue percentage of horse-focused editors, and bias the outcome. It's better to have the discussion on the neutral DAB talk page, and notify the actual article talk pages equally rather than make this seem like some especially horse-related debate (especially given the unusual level of rancorous contention about domestic animal article naming over the last 6 months).  I say that as someone opposed to the move, too.  There is no need to assume bad faith and make accusatory insinuations about the nominator just because you disagree with the move request and/or would have listed it differently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess this means it's not canvassing to put notices at the animal project pages too, then.   (There already is one at the Mustang page). What frustrates me here, beyond reason, is that there was a time when the dab page was "Mustang", then it got moved to a dab, and every time a name change is proposed, there is always another sub-rama about parenthetical disambiguation.   Can't this thing ever just be left to rest? I oppose this move, but more than anything, I'm just tired that it keeps coming up over and over and over again.  Consensus can change, but this is ridiculous.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that it keeps coming up is indicative of the fact that it is wrong. Where there is a lack of a clear primary topic, it is always best to have a disambiguation page as primary, and once that happens, the issue would very rarely arise again - most people would not propose moving "Mustang (horse)" to "Mustang" if the dab was already there. A similar case was seen at Washington, which for several years was the home of Washington (state). Eventually, however, common sense prevailed and it was realised that the state is not the primary topic, and now the issue does not raise its head any more. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * All I know is that years back this article was at "Mustang horse" (or (horse), I think both at various times) and somewhere along the line someone - and I don't think it was me - put in the RM to make Mustang primary for the horse (which predates the car by decades). So frankly, I'm just tired of the damn thing coming up over and over again in EITHER direction. But the horse predates the car by decades, and my frustration here is that this is one of those classic cases of google hits and recentism run amok.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  20:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * When the primarytopic grab was first proposed and discussed at Talk:Mustang/Archive_2, it was rejected. It was snuck in again in July, in an "alternate proposal"  in a losing RM discussion.  The fact that the discussion was at the Mustang horse page means that editors on the affected other topic articles were never notified.  I agree with you that it's annoying that it keeps coming up, especially the way it did; now it just needs to be fixed.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2013 one is about the third RM I can recall (I think we've had  (horse) to horse to no dab to this, which has come up 2 more times, I think) It needs to be let well enough alone.  Mustangs are horses, the planes and cars were all named after the horse.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong. I find no earlier moves or discussions in the various page logs and archives.  The horse was never primarytopic before July2014.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Could be the parenthetical dab issue too, I have been in more RM discussions about the Mustang article than any other horse article on wiki and at this point in time I am so sick of the whole damn thing that I'm ready to just scream. Can't anything be left well enough alone?  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't they show up in the talk page archives? Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I can't recall. I have 4000 articles on my watchlist, we've had this hit at WPEQ, at the various article names, etc... but at this point, I've ceased to GAF about the dab, just for crying out loud, DON'T move it to Mustang (horse), move it to Mustang horse so we don't have to go through a second RM after this one.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; you don't recall. If there had been prior discussions and/or moves, they would show up in the archives and/or logs. This started in 2013, when nothing happened, and in 2014, when the primarytopic grab was made.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to close Withdrawn, let the drama continue
*The proposal above is generating more heat than light. It is clear that unless Mustang (disambiguation) becomes Mustang, anyone looking for cars or airplanes could just crank this up again, this is the third time in a year the issue has come up already, and it won't end. So I give up on the dab issue and will support a move Mustang (disambiguation) to Mustang horse. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Mustang (disambiguation) to Mustang, and Mustang to Mustang horse. I'm fine with that; it undoes the problematic July result, which was my alternative proposal (which B2C won't like).  Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct, that's my proposal.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I very strongly oppose these moves. But given Montanabw's countless edits and efforts to the topic at hand, I will fold and concede in the interests of collaboration. — Ched :  ?  05:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I opposed this move myself,, but the drama is never going to end and WikiProject Equine is not inhabited by members who enjoy drama and want to fight these battles, so I don't think there is a choice.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Observation - Only 12 out of 30 support the moving of Mustang (disambiguation) → Mustang, and I think only 11 out of 30 support Mustang → Mustang (horse). More people here want Mustang kept at Mustang, of course the closing editor has to weigh the pros and cons carefully, not just count. As it stands right now... nothing changes with the article. If a closing editor decides to close in favor of the RM it would be to Mustang (horse) as that is what the discussion and !voting was based on. To simply put it at "Mustang horse" seems strange as that was one good change that happened in a previous RM, and I'm not sure that placement would be supported at all. I know I wouldn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right; it's complicated. The closer could say no consensus; or could agree with my original complaint that the previous RM discussion that changed direction in midstream to be a primarytopic grab without notifying the other affected articles was wrong, and could just roll it back.  There's no in-depth discussion here of the two ways to disambiguate, since that's not what editors were called here for; but rolling back the primarytopic grab is important, even if there's not a clear majority about that.  We'll see.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Given you are now supporting this somewhat thoughtless move yourself Montanabw, I also concede despite my otherwise strong opposition. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Mustang horse. I makes as much sense as Nightingale bird would, - never got an answer to that question. I believe we should rethink "Primary topic" if it leads to nonsense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose restoring the status quo ante. Bad idea,, please reconsider (though I do understand that anyone would do just about anything to be shot once and for all of this endless fiddling around with article titles by those who contribute nothing to the articles themselves). The proposed name for the Mustang page is not used in real life or in other sources, and attracted very considerable (and to my mind, justified) opposition in the previous move discussion. We've managed to achieve a reasonable compromise, fully in line with our policies and guidelines, and there's certainly no consensus above to change that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mustang horse. This bad title is really not used in common English and was one of the reasons it was moved the last time. Wild Mustang, Mustang (wild horse), Mustang (feral horse) would be much better choices. Though it is against Equine Project consensus, so I would not support it, even Mustang (horse) is better than Mustang horse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WITHDRAW MOTION AND RESTORE PREVIOUS POSITION THAT MUSTANG IS PRIMARY: Fine, people, if the count is going the way you think, then withdraw my position for a truce.  It was a vain hope to ratchet down the drama, but if we are going to go from bad to worse, then I withdraw my proposal and we can go back to debating if Mustang should be Primary.  I do maintain it should be, but I was getting worn down by the bullying and intimidation on this page.  I am absolutely sick to death of all these stupid naming dramas, sick of bullies, sick of tendentious editors who do nothing to add content but argue only for kicks and giggles.  Go for it.  But I am fucking done with this goddamn drama.  Let someone else give a shit.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, lots of horse drama. The only way the horse fans could agree was to grab the primary topic, which they did in a sneaky way.  That needs to be undone, and then you guys can go back to working out the best disambiguated title.  We don't need that drama on top of the main issue here.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you have withdrawn your motion Montanabw, I reinstate my opposition. Dicklyon, please try and find something more constructive than insulting people who don't agree with you. Instead of saying they are crazy with nothing sensible to say, and that they are sneaky, why don't you see if you can find an actual argument to support your position? That you are not a fan of horses and have never contributed anything to a horse article is not an argument. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was sneaky. The primary topic grab was done at the horse page, without involving or notifying the car and other topics, and under cover of false advertising at WP:RM.  That grab was fraudulent, and the ideas in support of it are lame.  That's my opinion.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Calidum wants to keep them in the dark; he reverted by attempt to explain the issue at Talk:Ford Mustang. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (moved from above where nobody is looking, about the so-called Primary) Imagine a singer called herself Nightingale, would we think of moving the bird to Nightingale bird, Nightingale (bird) or Nightingale (bird type)? Would we do so if the singer became famous? How famous? - Perhaps we should reconsider Primary and make it more literal: If A (whatever) is named after A, it should not be A that gets disambiguated. In Classical music, we follow that, it's (consistently) "Wachet auf" and Wachet auf, BWV 140, although the derived work gets more "hits". The title translates to Wake up. ( --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC) ) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for moratorium
Propose a moratorium on further RM discussions on mustangs for 24 months. It is painfully obvious that these long running recurring discussions are disruptive, and there is no solid case of any problem with the status quo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support — Ched : ?  16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Calidum  17:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There was one in 2013, and one in 2014 that grabbed the primary topic, and this one to fix it. That doesn't not seem like "recurring".  The problem with the status quo is that an article with a tiny fraction of the traffic grabbed the primaryname position, and did so in a sneaky way, never advertising that intent either at WP:RM nor at the many affected articles.  It should be fixed.  Then, the horse people may still want to discuss optimizing the disambiguator; why deny them that?  Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a previous improper RM? Use WP:MR to establish that fact.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "horse people" (editors genuinely interested in imporiving horse articles?) want these RMs? I don't see that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think for you this is just a proxy-battle following defeat on the same issues on Avatar. Long term significance is important.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean about Avatar; is that something I was involved in some time ago? You seem to be missing the point about what was improper; do you consider it proper to do an RM to grab a primarytopic status without letting it be seen in the listing at WP:RM?  If you do, I'm surprised and confounded by you.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon. On whether the original use of a term speaks strongly to PRIMARYTOPIC, I see strong parallels in positions here as with Talk:Avatar.  I see a philosophical battle between supporters of page view statistics and supporters of "long term significance" occupying a lot of space on article talk pages, not contributing to article content, and upsetting article-interested-editors as collateral damage.
 * Ah, that old thing. At least it was advertised at WP:RM and acknowledged as a primarytopic issue, even though the closer revealed no particular awareness of that as the main issue.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On whether there was an previous improper RM, I am leaning to agree with you, but in the interest of higher-level chastisement, and precedent setting, I think it would have been better that this complaint were raised at WP:MR. In this discussion, the point is lost in other details.  I see this RM going to go nowhere, and suggest taking up criticism of the improper move at WP:MR.  It may take months, but the result will be more meaningful in supporting proper process.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I might try that if this closes without fixing the primarytopic grab. Won't that make me popular!  Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, as far as the typical sneaky, improper grab goes, Talk:Mustang/Archive_2 is not so horrible. The proposal was well discussed, and it is hard to see how the closer could have justified closing otherwise.  There were (the infamous) "strong" supports from prominent titling aficionados, but your point that an entire section of interested editors were not advised seems correct. The best thing to do was what you did here, 04:37, 12 January 2015.  It is a clear test of whether mustang is the PRIMARYTOPIC for mustangs.  If this discussion ends as "no consensus", there is a strong case that it should be moved back to the first non-stub version.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Judging from the top of the page, it looks like December 2013, July 2014, and now January 2015. That looks like roughly one every 6 months in the last year or so to me. — Ched :  ?  17:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Three move discussions is still not a recurring problem, especially when one is procedurally corrupt so another is needed to right it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support (ec) - I am not horse person, I see wasted time for little gain. The status quo doesn't hurt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Epipelagic (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this and all moratoriums. Moratoriums on proposals are the antithesis to one of Wikipedia's great attributes... WP:CONSENSUS.  --В²C ☎ 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To a large extent we have consensus. We're sick and tired of this and we want it to stop. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen consensus reached (meaning no more serious challenges) after eight RMs over as many years, through discussion. We're not even close to anything like that here, by number of RM or number of years.  --В²C ☎ 21:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A moratorium has uses if repeated disruptive RMs keep getting proposed, but I don't see that as the case here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - two years!?! Way too long. I've seen RM's on tennis pages 3x in 6 months. Usually by the last RM the requester is labeled as disruptive and the RM is speedily closed. I don't think we need an actual moratorium. Is every single 6 months too often? Of course it is, but we don't know if this is some long term pattern or as Dicklyon states, an error that needs correcting. We'll see where this RM goes. If someone reopens in 6 weeks or 6 months without any new hard facts, it'll probably be speedily closed as disruptive. But perhaps some "new" info could come to light in 8 months that we should look at. Or maybe someone could invent some new amazing "global warming eliminator" that they call the Mustang that would skew everything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - people have a strong tendency to revert to inertia anyway. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 02:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red Slash. Do you therefore admit that repeated attempts at this face increasingly unlikely chances of success? Do you disagree that repeated contentious RMs, especially where motivated by philosophical views unrelated to the article topic, do collateral damage to article-interested-editors?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ?? What are you asking? Repeated attempts at what?  Nobody has ever before tried to undo an improper primary topic grab here.  Yes, there were two attempts to move from Mustang horse to Mustang (horse) and I regret that I opened this RM on that wrong side of that one, not understanding the failed history.  But I can see that some people still want to try to do that switch, or to argue about it.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, I am asking Red Slash: Doesn't "repeated attempts at this face increasingly unlikely chances of success" just add weight to the notion that a very similar follow-up RM is even less likely to be productive than this one? Repeated attempts at making any change to the title of the article about the mustang.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say maybe and maybe not. In disputes I've seen like Burma and Ivory Coast and Yogurt and Taiwan, etc... sometimes persistence pays off. Of course if someone involved in prior attempts brings it up too soon after a close and simply won't let go, they can easily be labeled a troublemaker or disruptive. Administrators here seem to look unkindly at those who can't move on. But maybe Red Slash feels differently? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support moratorium or close as Not Moved, and the actual result would be the same. Considering all the bad faith accusations flying around here ("Sneaky", "topic grab" and such,) it is past time to let things simmer down.  Maybe 12 months.  There was an official RM in December 2013, arguing for Mustang as primary, and after an equally long and heated debate closed as no consensus, I don't think it went anywhere, but all the same stuff was raised, then the second RM in July 2014 (here ) where the move occurred. Both RMs were "official, both generated huge discussions, both got so confused by the end that no one knew which end was up.  The move from Mustang (horse) to Mustang horse occurred (I think) in 2011, and it was among a bunch of other horse breed articles moved from (horse) to "horse" titles around the same time.    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  08:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget "procedurally corrupt"; certainly not in the spirit of collaboration that we look for on wiki. While I didn't expect this moratorium with a two year limit pass, I think anything less than a year may need some administrative attention.  Editors who are willing to violate policy (WP:EW) in order to push a preferred version of a guide are not here for the right reasons.  Hopefully this will be the end of it regarding Mustang issues for a while though. — Ched :  ?  12:41, 27 January 2015 (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.

The demand for discussion just means it's not necessarily settled yet.
I just want to reiterate and expand on some of the moratorium discussion above. Not only do repeated RM discussions in apparently pointless situations "pay off", but the "pay off" is true consensus and resolution - where the resulting title is stable and remains unchallenged and undiscussed for years, once resolved. Yogurt is a classic example. The perennial attempts to move it from Yoghurt to Yogurt failed to achieve a local consensus for eight years. But once it was finally moved in 2011, there have been no serious attempts to move it back. That was over three years ago. The only (non-serious) attempt was soundly shutdown, unanimously. It's as solid a consensus as one can hope to achieve on Wikipedia, and this was a situation in which people argued for years that the previous title was fine and should be left alone. We've seen similar results at many other titles that were controversial for a long time, like this one currently is, and then finally consensus/resolution was reached. Let people work it out with discussion. That doesn't mean the eventual stable result means a change to the current status quo. The demand for discussion just means it's not necessarily settled yet. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then let's try again in eight years. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Amatulic, from your keyboard to the eyes and ears of the deity of your choice! (praying...!) LOL!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I know you're kidding, but it's not time passing that results in eventual resolution - it's the evolution of the perspectives due to the discussion. One thing that seems to help a lot is a table that shows the pros and cons of all the different relevant options - but that's a lot of work and nobody has done that here, yet.  --В²C ☎ 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm kidding, although I'll observe that time passing can resolve issues like this. Who knows, eight years from now a "mustang" might come to mean a wildly popular and inexpensive antigravity backpack or household fusion reactor &mdash; and I'm sure we'd get an entirely different consensus then. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, of course it takes time for significant change in usage to occur, just as it takes time for the discussions to occur that will change perspectives. But it's not time passing that causes the resolution in those cases - it's the usage that changes and ultimately resolves the situation.  --В²C ☎ 01:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope no one objects if some of us choose to actually edit the content of the article itself for a while, now that this drama is momentarily settled? That OK with y'all? Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * By all means. But there still has never been a consensus among editors of relevant article that your one on the horse should be primarytopic for this term.  It ought to be fixed.  Whether the RM that made it so was sneaky intentionally or not, it failed to alert editors of the affected pages.  If mainly the horse fans are the ones participating, or course they will grant themselves primary topic status.  That's why it is normal to advertise that intent centrally, which was never done in this case.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is fixed and I wish people would just leave it be. RMs are generally posted in whatever place that RMs go and those who worry about RMs always seem to show up.  There was nothing underhanded or sneaky about this.  And the bot notifications seem to drag in more people with every passing month.  All I know is that this now makes three RMs since 2013 and each ran on with virtually identical arguments, to much sound and fury.  It would be nice if people just dropped the stick for a while.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When the primary topic is not clear people generally fall into one of two camps - 1) it should definitely be a dab page if there is no clear primary topic vs. 2) it doesn't really matter as long as the topic at the base name is relatively commonly used and there is a hatnote link to the dab page and perhaps other common uses. I used to be firmly in Camp #1, and thus supported dab pages for Corvette, Cambridge, etc. But now I'm pretty much in Camp #2.  So I'm fine with the status quo, but remain strongly opposed to the unnatural title of Mustang horse.  --В²C ☎ 01:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if we are in agreement that Mustang is primary to the horse, then the rest is moot.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Issue may not be dead, but this discussion has outlined the main parameters. No need to continue beating on this particular horse. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)}}

Is the horse the primary topic for "Mustang"?
(Sorry for starting a new section but has inexplicably archived the above section and admin has inexplicably declared that reopening the above section will result in a block.)

The finding of the RM is clear: there is no consensus on the question of whether the horse is the primary topic for "Mustang". However, I think part of that is due to disagreement about what primary topic means.

For example, just above, after I declared I was "fine with the status quo" (the article about the horse is at Mustang) wrote to me:

For the record, I do not agree that the primary topic for "Mustang" is the horse. That would be true only if the horse was much more likely to be sought than the other uses, which it is not. I just don't think that it's necessary for a topic be the primary topic of a given ambiguous name to have that name as its title, when none of the other uses are the primary topic either, and the use in question is widely recognized, which of course is the case here. Some people argue users are better served by placing the dab page at the basename in such a case. After all, now those searching for other uses (a majority since this use is not primary) need to click on the hatnote link to get to the dab page, and then find their use and click on that. With a dab page at the basename, everybody will be one click from their desired article. I see merit on both sides, in theory. But since most people are finding pages via search engines that take them directly to their desired page, it really does not matter in practice. This is why I'm fine with the status quo, not because I agree the horse is the primary topic for "Mustang". --В²C ☎ 18:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a point or are you just here to be Pointy? Oh, wait.  You just need to be WP:LAST, I guess.  Never mind. Carry on. On second thought, just drop the stick.  We all understand what you are saying, and you are beating that particular poor horse to death.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * When I think of a Mustang the first thing that comes to my mind is the car. I feel It depends on what surroundings you are in, to keep it WP:NPOV I would not have mustang redirect to the horse. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps enthusiasts of this Ford-built automobile should notice and examine this model's logo. A miniature replica of a horse appears prominently on the car, as well as its promotional materials and website. Perhaps there is a reason for this galloping animal to be associated with this car, as opposed to some other symbol or graphic? The real horses were not named after this vehicle. I hope that helps! CZmarlin (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call myself an "enthusiast" I agree the car was named after the horse but it is what readers first think of that matters the most. There are too many things out there as well that the word mustang can be connected to as well worldwide that isn't narrowed down to an American horse. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, this was just closed with a comment, "Clearly no consensus on whether the horse is the primary topic or not. Also no consensus for the alternative proposal of Mustang horse, nor the moratorium (although another RM shortly after this probably wouldn't be looked too kindly upon anyway). Number 57." So, per " another RM shortly after this probably wouldn't be looked too kindly upon anyway", it's time to ratchet down this drama for a few months, not start it up again.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Born2cycle that the status quo is fine. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to know, ., no dead horse is being beaten here.  This is not about starting a new RM; it's about raising awareness of the reasons to not have another RM.  If you keep claiming the horse is the primary topic, which is false, then that is fodder for a new RM.  But if you concede it's not the primary topic, and argue it is the appropriate topic for this title anyway, then you've got a more sound argument favoring the status quo.  --В²C ☎ 22:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * B2C, that sounds like you are setting things up for another RM, which is not the best approach to take here. (If you have no intent to start another RM, do say so - clearly and unambiguously) IMHO, there is no need for a false "consensus" on a unified reason.  You know my feelings on the matter, but frankly if you can get to the same place with a different reason, fine. I favor it per WP:PRIMARY based on long-term significance, and you favor it per "nothing else is primary either and any likely use is a click away" (Not sure the shortcut to that).  Fine, why are we dragging this out? We don't have to have unified reasons.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  23:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I mean with an edit summary like "Issue may not be dead, but this discussion has concluded" implies that this will just start up again so we need a firm consensus to ensure it doesn't. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If we have consensus on outcome, I am OK with people having different reasons for being OK with that outcome. Keeping the status quo for multiple reasons is a good enough reason for me so long as we get to the same result?  I realize this may be like a coalition government, where different factions work together, but I can live with that.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  23:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, Montana. If you think anything I've posted "sounds like [I] am setting things up for another RM", you are totally and completely missing my point.  I HAVE NO INTENT TO START ANOTHER RM. Is that clear and unambiguous enough? That said, that RM was closed with the finding that there was no consensus on the question of whether there should be a moratorium.  I, for one, am opposed to discussion moratoriums on principle.  Others may be opposed to a moratorium for other reasons, but there is no consensus for a moratorium. Is that clear?  While I do support the status quo it would be fraudulent to claim there is a consensus supporting keeping it (or that there is a consensus favoring change). As long as we have consensus on those three points, I'm done here.   --В²C ☎ 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved primary topic
I for one don't understand what B2C is saying above. Clearly, we have an unresolved primarytopic question. Probably another RM is needed to try to resolve it. The question is when, and where. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the primary topic question is irrelevant. When a use is commonly known and recognized by a given name, and that name is the WP:COMMONNAME of that use, and all the other uses have stable naturally disambiguated titles, it should be fine to leave an article like this at the base name title, even though it is not the primary topic. This is the principle behind titles like Corvette and Cambridge.  Does that make sense?  --В²C ☎ 18:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And based on B2C's clear explanation here, I agree that the commonname argument is a good reason to keep that article and the dab as is. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let this be a lesson to all involved here. There is a reason we develop consensus through discussion - because often that's what it takes to even understand each other.  Jumping to conclusions, closing discussions, threatening to block editors for re-opening discussions that were inexplicably closed, and actually blocking such editors, is all total anathema to how consensus is developed on Wikipedia.  Not to mention that such tactics are all classic WP:Status quo stonewalling.  What happened here is shameful.  Meanwhile  remains blocked.  Ridiculous! --В²C ☎ 00:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And now, just when I extended an olive branch of goodwill, you're back at it, creating drama, misinterpreting the actions of others and obliquely casting aspersions on other editors. This is why "consensus" is a code name for anarchy and bullying on wikipedia.  But now I've replied, so of course you must get in your WP:LAST word.  Could you be so kind as to do so in a manner that doesn't WP:BAIT other users?   There is zero need for this continuing drama.    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys, for helping me understand why Dreadstar might have wanted to close this off as tendentious. But I still have a response I've been wanting to get in, re B2C's theory of "it should be fine to leave an article like this at the base name title, even though it is not the primary topic.  This is the principle behind..."  Is this principle articulated some place?  Or did B2C pull it out of his ass as a corollary to his theory of "title stability"?  Just wondering.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clumsily (IMHO) articulated as the "long-term significance" criterion of primary topic. Personally I think it makes more sense to word it the way I did, using primary topic only in the traditional sense (much more likely...),  but the underlying principle is essentially the same.  Regardless of how it's expressed the community's support for it is expressed in titles like Corvette, Cambridge and... Mustang.     --В²C ☎ 06:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you routinely vilify the "long-term significance" criterion, I didn't think that was it. Sounds more like you made this up.  And I have not seen community support for Mustang; not sure about the others; looks like they were also more like no consensus.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes my views on PT have evolved. I still abhor the contradictory definition nature of long term significance. I think we can get a similar result without that ambiguity.  I think it's okay to give long term significance weight, but only when there is no clear primary topic. But if a topic remains at the base name for that reason, it's confusing to call it the primary topic when other uses of the name are more likely to be sought. If we restored PT to a single definition I would recommend adding something like this: if there is no primary topic but one of the uses has long-term significance then its title should be the base name, unqualified.  --В²C ☎ 07:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There are things to be said here, but the appropriate place is WP:MR (regarding Dicklyon's question of process and advertising), or WT:D (regarding PrimaryTopic). Not here. Continuing here is disruptive to mainspace editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We've moved from talking about how the general affects this specific situation to the general being the topic of discussion. --В²C ☎ 14:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The horse is obviously the primary topic as whether directly or indirectly all the other 'Mustang's are named after it. This ought to be fairly obvious.


 * ... and it is rather laughable that some users are expecting a 'Mustang' search to go anywhere else other than here, as not everyone using Wikipedia is a car or aviation anorak and I suspect that 90% of the world's population have never even heard of either the car or the aeroplane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)