Talk:Currie
Latest comment: 6 months ago by 1isall in topic Requested move 3 December 2025
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | On 3 December 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from Currie (disambiguation) to Currie. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Mis-Spelling of Names
editHI All:
I stumbled upon this page, but was unable to find what I was looking for . I added the See Also link as a bulleted list item for the last name of Curie. Yes, I am a bad speller, but I thought others would be as well, so here the link is added for the disambiguation page to [ Curie (d..) ]. You get the idea.
Requested move 3 December 2025
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. (non-admin closure) Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 03:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
– No primary topic. According to pageview data Currie Cup, Currier, and Currie, Tasmania get more views, and there are some people on the surname page that get even more than that. Duckmather (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support the Scottish one has 436 views but the Australian one has 403, the North Carolina one has 268, the surname has 194, the Minnesota one has 106 and the Nevada one has 87[]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Clearly no primary topic and should be disambiguated.
- As usual, we just have to look at all-time mass views from this list and in turn from the surname list to see that this term is most likely strongly associated with a surname, not a single place. The difference is several orders of magnitude, so any argument for the status quo would have to be explicit. (Support) --Joy (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2025 (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.