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.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((movereq|Template:Autoroutes (France)|other places have "autoroutes". Infact, there's another template called "((Quebec Autoroutes))" because this name was occupied. Quebec's Autoroutes are "autoroutes", not "quebec autoroutes".))

Template:Autoroutes → Template:Autoroutes (France) — other places have "autoroutes". Infact, there's another template called "((Quebec Autoroutes))" because this name was occupied. Quebec's Autoroutes are "autoroutes", not "quebec autoroutes". Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 76.66.193.224 (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose Unnecessary move. It's not a visible page name, it will achieve nothing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to ((French Motorways)) to match the name in the template for the included roads. per nom. Given the need for the template to have a ((confused)) hat note, the need for a rename is established. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Agree with Vegaswikian that the hatnote establishes a need -- the fact that the name is not visible to the reader does not mean that there wouldn't be confusion among editors. I'm not sure why the title is "French Motorways" when it links to the Autoroutes of France article -- I would stick to the template name suggested by the nominator. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. 'Autoroute' is much more firmly connected to France than to Quebec. There's no need to make this move, it's obvious to anyone that this is the template for French autoroutes. Changing the name will just confuse people who want to use the template, they'll have to hunt around to find what title it is under. Fences&Windows 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • p.s Autoroute+Quebec gets 16,900 hits in Google Books; Autoroute+France gets 105,000. In Google News, the figures are 10,700 vs 27,200. Scholar gives 5,790 vs 21,100. Fences&Windows 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is a word used in both locations more firmly connected to one or the other? That's like suggesting "road" or "bed" is more firmly connected to the United States than to the United Kingdom. Is what you are saying is that the autoroutes in France are the primary topic? If that were the case, wouldn't Autoroutes of France be at the plain title Autoroutes or Autoroutes? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all relevant, this debate is about a template name not an article name. Someone looking for a template about autoroutes for French articles will probably assume it will be under the present title; someone looking for a template about autoroutes in Quebec will probably be aware that French autoroutes are better known, so will know to look for a more specific template. Ease of use is what matters with template names. Fences&Windows 19:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Autoroute is a dab page, clearly showing that the French type are not primary topic. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

• Do we keep a redirect, or not? If not, the uses will all need changing. If yes, the disambig function of the move is diminished. Fences&Windows 23:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When this is moved, the redirect should be expunged, and a bot or AWB change to all the transclusions. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions
  • @Fences and windows, do you have a solution to how a disambiguation should occur? It might be okay to say no, however, solutions seem to be required.
  • To others, have their been specific issues with the misuse of this template or confusion over the two? billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 5 July 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.