Talk:Cibyra

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 7 January 2022[edit]

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: Moved. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kibyra → Cibyra
Cibyra → Cibyra (moth)

– Wiki uses Latin transliteration for Ancient Greek proper nouns, per WP:GREEK. Furius (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Furius (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Furius: Cibyra is currently occupied by an article about a genus of moths. Do you propose to move it to Cibyra (moth)? I think that would be fine in principle, since the ancient city is almost certainly the primary topic between the two. It would require fixing a few links, though. Lennart97 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done this yet, so I may be wrong, but I think the only link you'll need to edit is at Template:Taxonomy/Cibyra, where the speciesbox template derives the link from. The templates which link to Cibyra would then be updated, and those probably make up the bulk of, if not all links. ASUKITE 20:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're entirely right! I didn't know speciesboxes worked like that, but it makes a lot of sense. Lennart97 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennart97: I hadn't realised the moth article was there, sorry (I had just assumed that I was asking to swap article and redirect). If what you propose is acceptable, then I think that's the right thing to do, but if you think it means this is no longer an uncontroversial move, we can go through the proper process. Furius (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: I'm not entirely sure, so I've converted the request into an RM and added the move of the moth article to the proposal. Lennart97 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Lennart97 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of work with insect articles, and conflicts between genus names and non-taxonomic articles is moderately common. Personally, I follow this rule of thumb: if the non-taxonomic article is (A) more than a paragraph or two, AND (B) the *main header* of the article is the source of conflict (i.e., not an alternate spelling or such), then it is preferable to have the genus name article with a sub-header, as in the case proposed here - "Cibyra (moth)". There are relatively few exceptions to this general rule, mostly when the genus name refers to a really well-known insect, or when there are simply so many different articles that essentially ALL of them have sub-headers, or the insect uses its common name as the article header rather than its genus name (e.g., Apis). The present case fits the criteria, I'd say - which it would not if the preferred spelling for the city was Kibyra. As such, I'd support the move, assuming caution is taken to ensure the links aren't badly disrupted, as is discussed above. Dyanega (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and per Dyanega. The city is the primary topic, and the proposed spelling appears to be the more common spelling. BD2412 T 03:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.