- 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 on the basis that the good topic titles should match their mainspace counterparts (in this case, an example being Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One, the title for which was settled in an extensive 2019 split discussion which included a colon.) This does not, of course, prevent a wider RM discussion to include all the titles involved, as the inclusion of a colon could still be debated. The closer of the referenced split discussion also left open that possibility. ASUKITE 13:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
– Over the last week, these two good topics and their related categories were moved to include a colon, without discussion. They have had the original names, with no colon, since they were nominated/promoted to good topic (Phase One two years ago, Phase Two one year ago). They are now misaligned from the Phase Three good topic, which still has no colon, and the undiscussed moves were made based on incorrect logic. The argument was that the categories need to align to their eponymous page per WP:C2D, but the eponymous page for these categories is the good topics, not Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One and Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two. This meant the categories were now violating WP:C2D after they were moved, and so the good topics were subsequently moved to include the colon to satisfy WP:C2D properly. Clearly the whole thing was backwards and unnecessary. Having the colon or not having it gives similar meaning in this context, but we should be consistent between the three. We could move the Phase Three good topic to have a colon so it is consistent with the other two, but since these two moves were undiscussed and based on incorrect reasoning I am instead recommending that we move them back to the original names. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- @Favre1fan93, ZooBlazer, Trailblazer101, Bearcat, Gonnym, Armbrust, and Novem Linguae from previous discussion here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Support per nom to restore the long-standing titles without the colon, to maintain consistency. There is no requirement that the good topics must match their subject article titles exactly. This should have been discussed before any moves were made. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 21:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose. The name of the page is Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One not Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One. This follows WP:CRITERIA#Consistency. The fact that Wikipedia:Good topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase Three films was missed when fixing the categories (since this page did not have an associated category) just means that that page should be correctly move as well.
They have had the original names, with no colon, since they were nominated/promoted to good topic (Phase One two years ago, Phase Two one year ago).
The fact that the person that originally created these pages incorrectly created them at a page that does not match the actual article page is not a reason to continue with bad practices. Pages which are sub-set of other pages should continue using the same naming style of the parent page. That is a basic principle on how we name pages on en.wiki. I'd like to see on what guideline do the above supports maintain their vote, other than "IDONTLIKEIT". Gonnym (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
- I would like to see what guideline or policy states "good topics must be named the exact same name as one of their articles". That is your sole argument here and for the original undiscussed moves, and it is not based on any actual guideline or policy. We don't need to cite guidelines to revert undiscussed moves that were based on the personal opinion of an editor. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
- I for one thought the Good topic names flowed nicely as if they were in a sentence (ie. the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One films...), referring to them as a singular compound group topic being highlighted. My sole rationale against the undiscussed moves is that there is no requirement that the Good topics be titled exactly the same as their subject articles. If that were the case, then it would prove more difficult down the line with the inevitable Phase Four topic and beyond. Arguments for consistency are moot when the undiscussed moves resulted in the categories being ironically inconsistent with the parent topics themselves, and with that of the Phase Three topic. My !vote to support the moves back to how they were before the undiscussed moves is not just because I don't like them. It is because there was no consensus for the moves, which have been repeatedly reverted and reinstated in spite of there being a clear opposition to them given it was against the long-standing status quo. As an experienced editor, Gonnym, I thought would know not to let things like this get out of hand and to work constructively with your fellow editors, rather than continuing to restore your contested change, whether you think you are right or not. Trying to cast blame and burden onto others who have provided sufficient rationale and casting aspersions is definitely not the way to go to convince others why your contested rationale should be followed. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 20:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Note: WikiProject Media franchises, WikiProject Film/American cinema task force, WikiProject Film/Comic book films task force, WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group, WikiProject 2010s, WikiProject Disney, WikiProject Comics, and WikiProject Comics/Comic book films work group have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 09:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose the naming should be WP:CONSISTENT, so:
- However, I'd counter with question as to why the parent articles have a colon in the name in the first place. I can't find an official source for it, but it isn't easy to Google.
- Nail down the naming of the main articles and the naming of the films pages resolves itself. Either way, I support the idea that the names should be consistent, although that needn't mean they should have a colon in. Emperor (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- I'd honestly be fine removing the colons from the articles if the titles need to be consistent with what is used for the GTs. -- ZooBlazer 00:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- There was a whole large discussion regarding the naming of the Phase articles back in 2019 (which you can see here). That is separate discussion (if at all) from this one. The important part (I feel) in Emperor's comments is that the titles need to be WP:CONSISTENT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, there is a mention about possibly returning to the name in the future but it seems like a lot of effort for a colon.
- As there is a clear consensus for the colon version, then WP:CONSISTENT means the GTs should have them too.
- If anyone doesn't like it, then they can reopen the naming discussion for the mainspace articles which would then have a knock-on effect on the naming of the GTs. Emperor (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Adding in, if that's the case, then the GTs should match the mainspace articles, not us going backwards to remove the colon to match the GTs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- "To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics." This is good to follow, but I do think different people would interpret this differently. If the Good topic was called "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" then I would agree that it is inconsistent with the main article and the colon should be added for consistency. But the Good topic is about the films, "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" just happens to be the main article in that topic. We can point to numerous good and featured topics where the name of the topic does not match any of the articles in that topic. So I think it is unclear whether WP:CONSISTENT actually does require us to have the colon in both the phase articles and the good topics. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- @Favre1fan93 I agree. The presence or not of a colon is almost arbitrary but the naming of the GTs isn't and should follow the mainspace names, as per WP:CONSISTENT. So I'll switch "comment" to "oppose". Emperor (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose I don’t see any reason why the topic’s name should use a different punctuation than the head article of the topic. BTW the word "films" is necessary in the title of the topics, because there are articles that would be needed for a Phase One or Phase Two general topic (like all existing soundtrack and accolades articles.) Armbrust The Homunculus 14:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Relisting comment: Relisting as discussion appears to be ongoing with the last comment 18 hours ago. TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 14 May 2026 (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.
.svg){kind=small}
