Talk:Waters (name)

Requested move

 * 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: Moved; there is near unanimous support for moving this as long as the disambiguation page is moved to Waters. Per BDD's note, I'm moving to Waters (name). ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Waters → Waters (surname) – The natural primary subject of waters is the plural, which is common, of water not an Anglo-American surname. Waters (disambiguation) is a better pick-up from broken links, and that too probably needs merging with Water (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Water is generally uncountable, so Waters is rarely the plural of water. However, it is often used to refer to Body of water. Dekimasu よ! 07:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dekimasu. You have to go beyond English, say into biblical theology to see something different.  And so, "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."  While, in Semitic languages water may be presented in the plural, we use English.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Dekimasu, generally, but not "rarely", so not true. Not true in Google Books, not true in en.wp, for example the second hit for Waters in the search box is


 * The fourth hit is


 * Additionally User:Gregkaye the dab includes links related to "waters break" "take the waters" "head waters" etc., and other expressions which are clearly English not Semitic. But even if it was true that "the waters" "waters are" is old fashioned, the question is: is the surname Waters more long-term significant and notable than all other plural waters put together? Looking in Google Books at "waters are" it isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Gregkaye actually I misread Dekimasu above because of your following "agree" comment. Dekimasu said "However, it is often used to refer to Body of water. Which is true, "waters" in en.wp articles is used to mean waters, these waters, those waters, not the surname. None of our river or waters articles are using Semitic language they are all written in standard English. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOTADICT and, IMHO, the proposer should be banned for repeatedly making these frivolous, disruptive and time-wasting dictionary-based proposals. This article has been a dab page a page about the surname for eight years without any issues. No policy-based reason is cited, nor exists, for moving it.  --В²C ☎ 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC) corrected from saying it was a dab page to a page about the surname. --В²C ☎ 22:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy, evidently is (a) WP:TITLE, the Wa[l]ters family name is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Waters and (b) fails WP:DISAMBIGUATION. That aside User:Born2cycle you appear to again be the only User objecting to a new title Waters → Waters (surname) and Waters (disambiguation) → Waters. Why? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Waters (disambiguation) is the disambiguation page, which has existed for 5 years -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The disambiguation page Waters (disambiguation) should be moved here. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE this position is similar to AjaxSmack's I also support moving the "Waters (disambiguation)" to "Waters" when "Waters" is moved to "Waters (surname)". It however is not conditional on moving the disambiguation page, but as it the result will end up pointing "Waters" to the disambiguation page, the dab page would subsequently be moved by malplaced dab page anyways, so the revised proposal is just formalizing that. So I do also support the revised proposal. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, it is obvious that water can have a plural 24.131.80.54 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well then, it seems like I need to oppose. Water can have a plural, but that doesn't automatically mean Water is the primary topic of Waters. Since "waters" usually refers to bodies of water, if anything, Waters should redirect to Body of water, not to Water. Dekimasu よ! 05:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment i mean if the dab page is moved there, not redirect to anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.80.54 (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose a move unless "Waters" is to be the title of the dab page and not a redirect to another article or dab page. In other words, I only support a multimove of Waters → Waters (surname) and Waters (disambiguation) → Waters .  —  AjaxSmack   04:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse the proposal by AjaxSmack. The use of the plural form likely displaces the surname as a primary topic, leaving the term ambiguous. bd2412  T 18:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also would be happy to have the dab at the plain title and would support AjaxSmack's proposed moves. Dekimasu よ! 19:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also support the alternate suggestion proposed by AjaxSmack.Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Revise proposal, I also would prefer the solution proposed by AjaxSmack and endorsed by User:Dekimasu User:Egsan Bacon User:BD2412, and would have proposed myself if I had thought it would receive support. User:Gregkaye can you comment. I do not know how to ping the IP users. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not just merge Waters (surname) and Waters (disambiguation) → Waters ? GregKaye  ✍ ♪  13:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Gregkaye fair question since dab pages often have a surname section, why are some surnames notable for WP Anthroponymy articles? I suppose the notability issue for surnames is the same as every other. Surname pages are supposed to have a lead paragraph saying the derivation of the surname and at least one reference. This doesn't and it should have, since as it stands it is playing at being a person dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it can work to merge the two documents then this should be done. GregKaye  ✍ ♪  14:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two issues with that. First, a surname article will ideally have some referenced information about the surname itself, such as its origins (see Farquhar) and its popularity of use (see Johnson). Second, many surnames are partial title matches, and do not belong on a disambiguation page at all. For the same reason that we don't include Baltimore Zoo on Zoo (disambiguation), we aim to not include people with a particular surname on disambiguation pages unless the subject is commonly known by the surname alone (see Reagan (disambiguation), which notes that this was the surname of Ronald Reagan, but otherwise excludes human names including the surname). bd2412  T 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Gregkaye, yes additionally as BD2412 says. Dabs are not really meant to accumulate non-matching people who just happen to have the surname. I have added some temporary fix refs to show what the lead should more look like. I hope someone will switch those for better refs later. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alternative as: Waters → Waters (surname) and Waters (disambiguation) → Waters, thanks chaps for your patience.  The rules seem crazy to me but I'm really not fussed as long as there is a rationality involved.  I hadn't previously !voted anyway but am happy to add to your rational proposal.  GregKaye  ✍ ♪  15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support moving to Waters (surname) and moving Waters (disambiguation) to here. The surname does not have much of a claim for being primary topic. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support revised proposal. The surname doesn't make sense as primary topic. We routinely redirect plurals to singulars, and quite a few of those plurals coincide with surnames. This is rather routine.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * n.b. Though I'm not sure how strongly this is backed by consensus, MOS:APO says name articles should be disambiguated with (name), resorting to (given name) and (surname) only when there are two separate articles. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2014 (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.