Talk:Serbia–South Africa relations

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. South Africa and Serbia are equally covered in the article and so the rationale "the more commonly encountered concept explored in the article" is unconvincing. On exclusion of wikipedia mirrors, ghits results do not help in deciding between the two forms. If the project style guide is uniformly applied then the suggested target page is more inline with the article titles policy as it will be more compliant with the consistency criterion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

South Africa–Serbia relations → Serbia–South Africa relations – Guidelines say that entities should be in alphabetical order. I added a db-g6 to the redirect, but that was removed – and the redirect was changed from redirecting to Foreign relations of Serbia to redirecting to this page (South Africa–Serbia relations) – by Panyd with the edit summary "Zero discussion on the matter and looking at the article it appears that South Africa is the the more commonly encountered concept explored in the article". Starting this thread to have a full discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the alphabetical order guideline. Please link it.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are such guidelines, I've seen them, I just can't find them right now. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Found them! WikiProject International relations. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Serbia-South gets 150 google hits, South Serb over 1,500. Common use dictates current title. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the logic of what you just said? Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The two choices are South Africa–Serbia relations which gets 1,570 google hits, and Serbia–South Africa relations with 150. Which seems to be the most commonly used title, based on that information? Apteva (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, so your first statement omitted so much of what you did as to be uninterpretable. Now you clarify that you're basically counting wikipedia mirrors.  Got it.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I know this is not the discussion at hand but... - is this topic really worthy of an article? I can't see that there's anything special about the South Africa / Serbia relations; the article doesn't mention anything beyond normal diplomatic activity, and I'm not aware that it's a policy to have articles for every single pair of countries that have relations with each other. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, fully populated, that would make a category of roundabout 40,000 articles (200 x 200). So I absolutely see your point. But on the other hand, what's in the article is better than nothing, don't you think? And you're right: this is not the place. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He he, if every notability discussion could be reduced to "what's in the article is bette than nothing" then the whole inclusionist/deletionist debate wouldn't really exist. I have no intention of proposing deletion for this one anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - to stick on topic, I will support the nomination to move to alphabetical order per the guideline mentioned above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2012 (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.