Talk:Counts of Montfort (Swabia)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved for lack of any ambiguity that cannot be resolved in a hatnote. bd2412 T 03:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Counts of Montfort → Counts of Montfort (Vorarlberg) – Disambiguation. I messed up when sorting this out, accidentally creating a redirect at the target page, which I now cannot replace. Bazonka (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This move would create unnecessary disambiguation as there are no more articles in Wikipedia with "Counts of Montfort" in their title. This would only be a technical move if the opposite move was requested. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • But there are other Counts of Montfort, e.g. those of Montfort-l'Amaury. No generic article exists for these, but they do not (as far as I can tell) fall under the title of Counts of Montfort (Vorarlberg). Bazonka (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    • You seem to be missing the point. Titles with parenthesis exist when there is more than one article (not counting redirects) in which the subject is specifically called the name of the article, and in this case, that would be "Counts of Montfort". In Wikipedia at this present time, there are no more articles that exist with that name in the title, so thus, making the main name of the article have disambiguation parenthesis is trivial, and unnecessary disambiguation. If there comes the time when someone creates an article that refers to the "Counts of Montfort" in "Montfort-l'Amaury", then this move would be valid, but that has yet to happen. Right now, the way that "Counts of Montfort (Vorarlberg)" redirects to "Counts of Montfort" makes sense, and when the day comes that another "Counts of Montfort" article is created, the move you are proposing would make sense. Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Rename the title is ambiguous. The fact that people have not created the other articles yet will not prevent people from creating links and these links being misdirected. I have seen to many links that went to the wrong place because a common name was allowed to be used for an article on someone who was not widely known enough to dominate the use of the common name had been placed there. We should start with articles with unambiguous names and not wait for a mess to be created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal for rename. Johnpacklambert, if that is the case, I have an idea that might allow this move to happen. If there are at least two other examples of possible articles that could also be created with that have several redlinks throughout Wikipedia that include the "Counts of Montfort" title, (Or if a list of articles that currently have a link to the wrong "Counts of Montfort" can be found,) what I (or someone else) can do is created the article Counts of Montfort (disambiguation) that would include the other two instances where there could be another article titled "Counts of Montfort" could be made. Then, this move can happen with the topic being properly disambiguated. Steel1943 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is what hatnotes are for. If there is more than one article with a similar name, the dab suggested by Steel1943 may be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2013 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.