Talk:Red Ash

Requested move 11 January 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: moved per WP:DIFFCAPS -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Red Ash (disambiguation) → Red Ash – Per WP:DIFFCAPS. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)  —Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 15:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support although Fraxinus pennsylvanica gets over 14.5x [|Red_Ash,_Virginia|Red_Ash,_West_Virginia|Red_Ash] the views of the 2 places DIFFCAPS seems reasonable since most readers will probably not capitalize the "A" when looking for the plant. maybe we need to have a look at Mountain Ash (which I have wandered about before) and River Otter.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  17:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I don't think the tree is the primary topic of "Red Ash". Move the disambiguation page to the base title. Plantdrew (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support though I think we deserve more explanation than "Per WP:DIFFCAPS". In this case, Red ash redirects to Fraxinus pennsylvanica via a primaryredirect claim; I'd prefer that it go to the disambiguation page, numbers notwithstanding.  Nom is suggesting that the caps are enough distinction that Red ash and Red Ash can go to different pages, and this I Oppose. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They should go to different places namely "Red ash" should continue to go to the plant as the only usage of the lower case and likely primary anyway (based on views and long-term significance).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And where skould RED ASH go? If you type it in the search box, it go via Red ash, which seems arbitrary.  Distinguishing by case alone is seldom a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting is called "RED ASH" and there is no page there so as noted at Talk:Friendly Fire it takes you onto Red Ash but if there was something called "RED ASH" then we could have it there like MAVEN/Maven. Distinguishing by case alone is a good idea since readers searching by different cases could be looking for different things.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to Red ash. Per I'm sceptical that the tree is the primary meaning of this term for any capitalisation. There seem to be numerous coal mines called Red Ash in the US and Wales, and also something called a "red ash test" which people run when surveying their house. The tree does not feature in most of the results for either a regular google search or a book search.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree this is the better idea; so my support is hereby so modified. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alphitonia excelsa gets 367 views compared to 1,434 for Fraxinus pennsylvanica, this doesn't seem like a significant order of magnitude for the "much more likely than any other" and indeed my Google search returns nothing for this (even though those are probably mainly proper nouns that do come up) so I weakly agree for that reason that there might not be a primary topic after all for the lower case never mind it being the only usage.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Anyone typing in "red ash" or "Red ash" is almost certainly looking for Fraxinus pennsylvanica. If they type in "Red Ash" they might be looking for one of the places, but they're so obscure the user is still probably looking for the tree. Leave well enough alone. The tree is the primary topic. Hatnote links to the dab page are fine. WP:TITLECHANGES - no good reason to change. --В²C ☎ 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * look at the page views including Alphitonia excelsa [|Red_Ash,_Virginia|Red_Ash,_West_Virginia|Red_Ash|Alphitonia_excelsa|Red_Ash:_The_Indelible_Legend]. And it doesn't look like there so obscure (similar to the uses of Friendly Fire) noting Red Ash: The Indelible Legend gets more views (though its no longer a separate article and isn't just "Red Ash"). You have strongly supported removing Title Case redirects when proper nouns exist with such name so I'm really surprised you oppose to this and TITLECHANGES doesn't really apply here since there is a good reason to move, this only removes a redirect and "(disambiguation)" from the title and its not controversial enough that TITLECHANGES applies anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red Ash is an appropriate WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to its primary topic article whose common name is Red Ash. Nothing is broken. There is no minimum level of controversy required for TITLECHANGES to apply. Any title controversy makes the title of the article in question controversial, by definition, and TITLECHANGES applies.  —В²C ☎ 07:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Anyone typing in "red ash" or "Red ash" is almost certainly looking for Fraxinus pennsylvanica". What's your evidence for this? As discussed above, I don't believe that's the case. That plant is not even commonly known as the red ash, and the mining concept appears far more in the literature than the tree. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that. Just an assumption on my part because I've heard of "red ash" (trees, or wood), but not "red ash" in mining. Moot if I'm wrong since I'm the only oppose so far. --В²C ☎ 18:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I think the views but that into question and indeed if its not clearly primary for the lower case its surely not primary for the Title Case version. And no I don't think that any title controversy makes TITLECHANGES apply and as noted all that this is is removing a PRIMARYREDIRECT and "(disambiguation)" from the title. You could just as easily argue that every redirect change or content change should also be subject to this but it isn't. And if we took SmokeyJoe's view that all DAB pages should have the "(disambiguation)" even with no primary topic we could just change the redirect to point to the DAB.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:34, 28 January 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.