Talk:Red Stone

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Stone → Red Stone (video game)Red Stone (video game) – A number of toponyms with obviously greater long-term significance listed at Red Stone (disambiguation) have the same name formatting, and the term Redstone is likewise likely seen as a synonym by the average reader, so it is a violation of the principle of least astonishment to have this video game in the primary topic position. When I search for the same term in Google Books, I don't seem get any mention of the video game. A general search brings up mostly some random Neal McDonough movie. --Joy (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Something is missing from this move request: if this move is performed, are you intending for Red Stone to be retargeted to Redstone (a disambiguation page)? Steel1943 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Joy (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:SMALLDIFFS and WP:OVERPRECISION. There is no other article titled precisely Red Stone (two words, capital S), so no need for artificial disambiguation. This article averages only 7 views per day, well below the average for 10 other video games checked at random, and comparable to the 6 per day Red Stone (game) got during the 3 weeks this article existed at that title, indicating there are not significant numbers of readers landing on this article by mistake; a hatnote can take care of the few who might. Station1 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How are Red Stone River (Wyoming and Montana) and Red Stone Creek (South Dakota) and Red Stone Gorge not overprecision, then?

  This argument about how very few viewers look here and therefore we should pretend that there's a primary topic - is incongruent to me.

  Here's the monthly page views for just "Red Stone" items. That's all without a hatnote. Here is what happens when you add Red stone and Redstone to it - the number suddenly becomes tiny in comparison, and yet many of its spikes track the other one.

How do we know that all these readers distinguish these concepts based on precise spelling? I don't think we have reason to believe they do. The idea that the number of readers who happened to land at the video game article is representative of anything - is not based on the available data. --Joy (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those would seem to fall under WP:PTM so they would not qualify for a rival primary topic to this game that is only called "Red Stone". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I would add that Red Stone River (Wyoming and Montana) is only a redirect, and Red Stone Creek (South Dakota) is in fact overprecision and could be moved to the more concise Red Stone Creek. - Station1 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If English speakers call these the Red Stone River and the Red Stone Creek, then Red Stone is the specific part of the name, per WP:PTM.

And the idea that a novelty foreign entertainment topic qualifies for an English-language primary topic when English-language place names don't - sounds quite extraordinary to me. --Joy (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does something being "foreign" make it less of a primary topic? jlwoodwa (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just thinking in probabilities. Thousands of people, some definitely English-speaking people, have probably heard of these geographic features that are local to them, since probably many decades ago. Thousands of people, not necessarily English-speaking people, have probably heard about this video game since the release two decades ago. Millions of people have probably heard about the various Redstone topics.

Why would there be a primary topic here? Who are these readers of the English Wikipedia who would be astonished that Red Stone doesn't go directly to the video game?

Readership of the Redstone disambiguation page compares to Red Stone very favorably. Likewise for the readership of top items linked from there (based on WikiNav for Redstone). When you have to turn on logarithmic view to see the video game readership on the graph, and the data is consistently like that, that's hardly an indication of a primary topic.

It doesn't seem likely to me that the average reader associates this term strongly with any one topic. --Joy (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Station1. Only topic that is written "Red Stone" so a hatnote to the disambiguation page is the proper form of disambiguation per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you actually read the linked policy, it says The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for. Why exactly is it reasonable to expect that they're looking for this one topic, and not all the various others with basically the same name? All of the examples listed there where we decide small details suffice to distinguish topics involve reasonably well-known topics. None of these Red Stones are well-known, AFAICT. --Joy (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]