Jump to content

Talk:European Union–United States relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2024

[edit]

– Per proper naming convention as the EU is not a country. Was proposed and failed before. No discussion was held after that by consensus to move WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Raladic (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has existed at this name for 3 years, seems a bit of a stretch for an undiscussed revert.
The WP:AT (specifically WP:AND) policy says "It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures. - it's an "especially" not a "doesn't apply in reverse.
So these 4 titles here all seem to be appropriately listed alphabetically. Raladic (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Countries and cultures are not reflected by these articles. This isn't a bilateral relations article were it would make sense. It would make sense if it was about two countries. EU is not a country. And cultures are not applicable to these articles since there is no direct relation or mention of it. Wider consensus needs to be had. And the article was under United States–European Union relations at first. A discussion in point from the US article talk page from 2014 would agree with this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that was 10 years ago, but the AT policy on preferring Alphabetical sorting in general still stands, whether the EU is a county, or culture, or neither. As I already mentioned, that article has now been at this new title for many years without any opposition. So I think if you want these 4 to be moved, holding a full RM and nominating all 4 in a bulk RM discussion will be best to clear up and create clear consensus. Raladic (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Consensus is consensus. No matter how long ago. Please read how consensus works. If it was from 2007 and was changed without a discussion this year when the original discussion said not to remove, then it was violation of consensus policy. "Generally" is not definite nor mandatory. And since these four are part of a series of a broader/larger topic, it requires discussion/consensus. Not one user making changes because of what they feel or relation to policy. You also omit, "However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead." This falls under conventional. And as one voter has stated is the Consistency section. "Titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics." These articles also fall under this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not uncontentious as it pits alphabetical sorting norm against consistency norm, which means that an RM instead of RM/TR is the right venue.
If consensus below now finds that yes, we want to use WP:CONSISTENT over WP:AND then the question is answered and the 4 articles can be moved and this discussion referenced in the future. I don't have a horse in this race, I just clerked the RM/TR request and given the contentious nature, it wasn't uncontroversial, hence I moved it to contentious and started the RM as a courtesy instead. Raladic (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above thread was moved from Special:Permalink/1259060490#c-Raladic-20241123035300-WikiCleanerMan-20241123002900 for context of the contested move request. Please add new comments below.