Talk:Ilica (street)

Croatia: Zagreb Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Zagreb task force.

Requested move 20 June 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There isn't a consensus that this is the PTOPIC, and also no agreement on whether the current parenthetical disambiguator, or "Ilica Street", is better, given that it's disputed whether the latter is a common enough name. So we just stay where we are. — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilica (street) → Ilica – The dab page is unnecessary, disambiguation can be done simply by a hatnote Daß Wölf 00:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the topic seems to be Ilica Street. —Guan aco 03:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose checking "Ilica" in books shows that the five Turkish places (ılıca means "spa" in Turkish) get as many mentions taken together as the street. as regards whether "Ilica street" would be more natural, no it probably wouldn't. Not broken no need to fix, leave as is. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the Turkish places is "Ilıca" (note the lack of the dot on the i); Ilica the street is the only place that is spelled with the dot. Daß Wölf 19:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. We spell Turkish names correctly but do not disambiguate by minor font differences not always present in English books. Hence Oppose In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a font difference: ı and i are different letters with different pronunciations in Turkish. Daß Wölf 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Indeed, I don't think MoS says similar-looking titles should be disambiguated. Ilica Street might not be a bad solution either - it does appear in sources - but it sounds unnatural to me (cf. Stradun Street or La Rambla Street). GregorB (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Ilica Dtreet. Google gives me 1.5 million ghits and the first few pages all look relevant. The proposed title, on the other hand, is ambiguous and unrecognisable. Andrewa (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree that Ilica Street is a good choice. Even if a lot of English-speaking sources use it for clarity, it is an incorrect title, much like Broadway Street, Strand Street or Unter den Linden Street would be. Besides, the street is the primary topic for "Ilica" -- out of the first 100 ghits I've counted 63 referring to the street and 25 referring to any of the five different places called Ilıca in Turkey. Daß Wölf 00:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples you give are all irrelevant IMO, as none of them are used by a lot of English-speaking sources. The shorter title Ilica is more concise, but at the cost of being unrecognisable. Ilica Street is perfectly correct in terms of our article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand what you mean by unrecognisable. The article starts with "...is one of the longest streets in Zagreb, Croatia." I don't see how someone could continue past that sentence believing they're reading about a Turkish beach. As for Ilica Street being more common, 5,830 vs 177 results for Ilica vs Ilica Street in GBooks (I added "Zagreb" to discriminate from Turkish results, which coincidentally number about 1,880). Daß Wölf 02:21, 29 June 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.