Talk:Corvus (disambiguation)

Requested move 28 April 2016

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: pages moved. wbm1058 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus → Corvus (disambiguation)
Corvus (genus) → Corvus

– All the names listed stem from wikt:corvus, Latin for 'raven/crow', which is also the source of the genus name, and are not too prominent. (Corvus (constellation) is about the best known term, also derived from the same root). This, I think that the genus is the WP:PRIMARY use of the term (and serves as our main article on crows/ravens). The move has been briefly discussed on Talk:Corvus (genus)#Requested move 31 March 2016, and I'm opening a formal debate now. No such user (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The genus is the primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It looks to me that with this many relevant meanings and articles, the disambig page is best for the root name. It's not clear to me either why we have separate articles for the genus and the bird Crow, which is really just a list of species in the genus. Shouldn't those be one article, titled Crow? Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Crow and Raven should probably just merge to and redirect to the genus article (whether it is at Corvus or Corvus (genus). They are not actually taxonomic groups, but just two common names with different roots, with "raven" usually being applied to the larger species. Both of those articles are basically short stand-alone lists, based on a WP:DICDEF approach we should avoid, with some intro material tacked on. There's really no clear distinction between a raven and a crow, unlike that between, say, hares and rabbits. It's much more like the non-distinction between salamanders and newts (the latter simply being a term for some-but-not-all aquatic salamanders that are not all closely related). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been trying to say. I actually proposed moving the article on the genus to "crow" as COMMONNAME, plain English, what have you, but that didn't carry consensus. The discussion resulted in consensus to create a set index article, which is more akin to a disambiguation page than a full article, but allows more flexibility in structure and content. It seems a solid solution, because someone looking up "crow" may be looking for a specific species, and sloths SIA will get them there the fastest. And then there's those who argue that Corvus is only "70% crows". Well, no, they're all crows, it's just that only about 70% of the species' common names contain the word "crow", which is taxonomically meaningless. I tried, in writing the lead of he SIA to make that clear, but the sheer volume of discussions over the years from people who just don't get that has been ridiculous and not worth fighting. (Seriously, look at Talk:Crow, Talk:Raven and Talk:Corvus (genus) and their archives.) oknazevad (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Crow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) got created as a {{Set index article}} just a few days ago, but I disputed the idea on Talk:Corvus (genus). No such user (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dicklyon suggestions. Corvus as a Latin term has too many meanings which aren't literal crows. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please enumerate them? Because I don't see any. No such user (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about you check the page that we are on??? this is the dab page for Corvus after all. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have misunderstood the comment, thinking he referred to things "not named after crows". Now that I reparsed it, it makes even less sense – of course that a disambiguation pages lists things with different meanings, that's its very definition. I didn't expect someone of In ictu oculi's RM experience to make that kind of argument, without even addressing WP:PRIMARY assertion in the nom. No such user (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The birds are clearly what readers are looking for. Even in a deep field, this article gets 84% of the page views. When you consider that readers searching for both crow and raven get list-stubs that direct them to the Corvus article for the full information, the trend is even more clear. Nothing else on the dab page remotely compares in terms of either traffic or significance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The genus is vastly more notable and primary topic-worthy than the rest of the entries put together. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per primary importance. bd2412 T 14:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Corvus Umbranox

Why is it that Corvus Umbranox from The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion can't be mentioned on this page? Who came up with the whole "can't be listed because it's not mentioned on the article" rule, anyway? Mentioned or not, Corvus isn't just some minor NPC with one or two lines of dialogue, he's an important part of the Thieves Guild questline! He's the Gray Fox! His wanted posters are all over the place in the game! He's already listed on the Grey fox disambiguation page, so why is it that he can't be mentioned here? EldritchNexus (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are non-article pages designed to help a reader find the right Wikipedia article when different topics could be referred to by the same search term. You can see the manual style about Disambiguation pages at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. That says if there is no information at the linked article then the entry does not belong. The simple solution is to add sourced content to the target article. Just because a different disambiguation page doesn't comply with the manual of style does not mean this one shouldn't. ~ GB fan 22:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are two very simple solutions to this: One, add new sections briefly describing the guild questlines to the Oblivion article so that Corvus/The Gray Fox is mentioned on the article. Or two, make a character page for The Elder Scrolls like we do for Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc. EldritchNexus (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at Grey fox (disambiguation) and removed two entries that were not mentioned in the linked article. ~ GB fan 22:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]