Talk:Jordan College, Oxford

Article title

Wouldn't this page be (marginally) better placed at simply Jordan College? That's the more "common" reference, and the conventions for titling real institutions expressly don't apply to fictional ones. Alai 01:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is in the same style as the real-world colleges' articles (see Trinity College, Cambridge or Exeter College, Oxford), so I suggest we leave it as is, with the redirect. -Erolos 01:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely why I'm suggesting we do move it. Alai 06:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Move

"Jordan College" is the more common reference. Fictional places expressly need not (and I think for the sake of clarity, should not) use the same naming conventions as their real counterparts. Alai 18:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with this move. The article itself states clearly that it is a fictitious institution, but the entire point of Philip Pullman's creation has been to create a fictional world similar enough to our own. It is not just Jordan College, which in the English educational system would mean it was a sixth form college, it is a college of a university - Oxford - i.e. Jordan College of Oxford University; Jordan College, Oxford. If you can find any other articles on fictitious university colleges, that are not made with the comma followed by their university name I might see your point in terms of standardisation, but otherwise I;d prefer to keep the article here. -Erolos 01:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are plenty of real Jordan Colleges not in Oxford [1].--Audiovideo 13:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you name three fast? As none seem to have WP articles at present, surely that's a rather pre-emptive disambiguation strategy. And were disambiguation necessary, I'd still argue this is not the best way to do it. Alai 00:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Only real colleges should go by the naming convention. As and when any other real colleges appear then the naming can be reviewed. violet/riga (t) 15:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 15:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moved back since there clearly is not consensus.--Audiovideo 19:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't remember when an Admin counted for two votes. -Erolos 21:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be in equipoise (and a disappointing lack of votes). BTW, I note that the article itself fails to use the current page name as its bold title. Alai 02:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As no place/college articles do. -Erolos 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is 2 for and 2 against. I decided that the arguments against the move were not particularly strong and thus went ahead with the move. To move it back and then recommence discussion is a little rude. Do note that consensus is not required for a page move. violet/riga (t) 21:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Page moves requested on this page may be actioned if there is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator."

Now 2 for and 3 against. Keep the Redirect and it will be all good. Just because it doesn't exist, doesn't mean we need to change it for differentiation. It gives a frame of reference. Also, with the Redirect, who cares? at least it prevents amibguation down the road. Sardino 04:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)