Talk:Sugar Mama

Requested move 22 March 2023

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Sugar Mama → Sugar mama – I was instructed to open a RM since this technical request is now considered "controversial". Problem: uppercase 'M' Sugar Mama is a miscapitalisation of a common noun, and per MOS:AT should be lowercase. The reason this was sent to technical requests first, is because lowercase 'm' Sugar mama already exists as a redirect, thus preventing me from moving Sugar Mama → Sugar mama. Currently, uppercase 'M' Sugar Mama is a disambiguation page that links to the main article Sugar dating, and lowercase 'm' Sugar mama is currently a redirect to the same Sugar dating article. This is effectively backwards. The two Sugar Mama/mama pages should swap places, with lowercase 'm' Sugar mama taking over the role of the disambiguation page. Uppercase 'M' Sugar Mama should either be a redirect from miscapitalisation, or deleted as entirely redundant since the disambiguation page exists. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Vogel and Doomsdayer520: You have taken part the discussion at the technical requested move, and are invited to join the discussion here. It is on Dr. Vogel's advice that this technical request be moved to a full RM since it is contested. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Since I was asked for a vote, I am not necessarily opposed but my assessment is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Every currently existing article (not redirects) on something called "Sugar Mama" has both words capitalized because they are proper titles, so what's the problem with that being the case for the disambig page? The nominator is passionate about caps rules, but they're still just interpreting something that isn't necessarily written in stone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a disambiguation page that lists proper nouns titled "Sugar Mama". The clear primary topic for Sugar mama is Sugar dating and moving this there would be inappropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Any article with the title of Sugar mama using any letter case may be placed here. However I agree with Newystats because they acknowledge that currently "most" of the entries use the proper noun, meaning it's not set in stone to be all proper nouns. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of the topics in this disambiguation page are proper nouns, not the common noun mama. Newystats (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, the naming of this page reflects the fact it has a lowercase primary topic and all entries on it are uppercase. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  What you've described doesn't match what I read at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Redirecting to a primary topic. However, if there is a circumstance in which the pages would be left where they were, it would be to keep lowercase 'm' Sugar mama as a redirect in case in becomes it's own article in the future, separate from the Sugar dating article. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's highly unlikely it will become its own article. If anything, the target could believably be moved to sugar daddy per WP:COMMONNAME since "sugar mama" is a rarer term in comparison. The move discussion away from "sugar baby" was poorly done at best, "sugar dating" seems like a neologism. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal, move to Sugar mama (disambiguation) instead. --Skovl (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're right, Skovl: the (disambiguation) tag is needed. See WP:DABNAME. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC) (struck 17:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC))

• Oppose, keep the title where it is per WP:DABNAME since most of the entries are capitalized. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  You are correct, in regards to adding a (disambiguation) tag to the disambig title. I disagree if it is applied using the "most of the entries are capitalized" argument, but yes – until Sugar dating → Sugar mama, the (disambiguation) tag wouldn't work per WP:DABNAME. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2023 (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.