Talk:Finland–Norway border

Requested move

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. 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: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Norway–Finland border → Finland–Norway border – The article was moved to "Norway–Finland border" due to "West-East country position". As a general rule west-east would lead to all kinds of complications (what if the countries are north/south of each other? or northeast/southwest? one surrounding the other like Italy/San Marino? etc.). Second, the common practice seems to be alphabetical order, judging from the contents of Category:Borders by country; see for example Category:Borders of Mali. As a precedent see Talk:Mexico–United States border#Requested_move.2FDiscussion_about_title. Jmk (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - this is something that should be set as a MOS issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I brought up the general issue on the MOS talk page. (But then somebody said MOS was the wrong place, as it is a TITLE issue. Oh well.) --Jmk (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment people have been renaming bilateral issues and border articles recently to make it that way. As to whether such a convention exists, or whether people are editwarring the titles to get their way... -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, while the idea "West-East" is not a bad idea in general, it can't be followed as easily as the alpha solution in practice. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't see any good source-based reason to start building a convention on which-side-of-a-border-to-name-first, If a rule is to be used to justify moving articles, that rule should at least be documented and supported by some kind of consensus; I see neither. bobrayner (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't bother you, then, that the article was moved without consensus? --BDD (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It does bother me; but although undiscussed moves are usually problematic, I don't see the current title as problematic. I would see another move as a net negative, until there's a genuine reason to move which is actually based on sources or something like that... and if this RM succeeds, sooner or later somebody's likely to start citing it as a precedent in order to move a bunch of other articles for "consistency" (on which issue I agree with Emerson). bobrayner (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, hobgoblins such as myself will continue to cite consistency in RMs, especially since one of the core points of WP:CRITERIA is consistency ("Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles"). Isn't the risk of nationalistic edit warring worse than trying to enforce consistency? --BDD (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Another move" means simply going back to the original title which has been stable since the article was created — which is the default anyway in case of no consensus (Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus). --Jmk (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CRITERIA, WP:NPOV, and reversion of an undiscussed move. Other articles are named in alphabetical order, which is neutral inasmuch as it prevents edit warring over relative importance or favoritism (note that a Norwegian editor made this move). I agree with IIO that this should be codified. --BDD (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I agree that this should be seen as a WP:MOS issue. And checking the borders for about 10 countries, it appears quite clear that the custom is to put the borders in alphabetic order. So, even if nobody has found an official guideline; the custom appears clear. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also, while there isn't a formal policy or a guideline prescribing alphabetical order, there is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. See Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations. Now, I'm the first to admit that "WikiProjects... may not impose their preferences on articles," but absent serious discussion, ignoring this local consensus seems unwise. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with nom that border articles should be in alphabetical order removing bias. Zarcadia (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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.