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: After a month of discussion, there a consensus to move. Primarily, the supporters argue that the article that holds the title "Muscle" should be one that describes the concept generally, rather than redirecting to one singular topic (a form of WP:CONCEPTDAB). Amakuru's argument of skeletal muscle being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant and was considered, however the contradictory argument—that using page views in this scenario is ineffective—was more substantive.

The history at Muscle will be moved to Muscle (muscle). There is no prejudice against that page being moved to a more suitable name, should one be found. Anarchyte (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle tissue → Muscle – There is a need for its own page. A previous page Muscle was merged and redirected to Skeletal muscle but a more general umbrella page is needed, and the content of this page would easily accommodate this. Iztwoz (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle tissue could redirect to Tissue (biology)#Muscle tissue.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't think muscle should redirect to skeletal muscle, because there are several types of muscle, and skeletal is just one type, no more special than the other types, except perhaps that it may be what people think about when they picture a muscle. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the mandatory requirement that this becomes a WP:CONCEPTDAB Red Slash 20:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  do you mean that muscle tissue becomes a concept dab? Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Muscle should link to an article describing all types of muscle tissues. What ends up happening to the 'Muscle tissue' page is a different discussion, but redirecting to Muscle is likely fine. ― Synpath 23:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no reason why muscle has to "link to an article describing all types of muscle tissues". It should link to the primary topic for this term, which is what it currently does. See also heart attack, which is a primary redirect to myocardial infarction even though it could also refer to a cardiac arrest.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination and discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment does the old edit history at Muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) need to be moved as it was merged? Such as moving it to muscle (muscle) and tagging it with ((R with history)) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Muscle tissue has always been an independent page so its history will follow any move to a renamed page. Iztwoz (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iztwoz:, what you've just said, in other words, is that the history of muscle tissue will overwrite the history of muscle (if no other action is taken; other action should be taken). Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, or understand, the history of the previous Muscle page follows the merge with Skeletal muscle, which generally results from any text to text merge. The page history for Muscle tissue if it changes to Muscle will not change - I cannot see that any change of redirect will need further action as to its history. But if I am wrong I'm sure there will be somebody with a better understanding who can step up. Iztwoz (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAD: if the page was merged/copied, you cannot delete the edit history of the source page. It needs to be renamed to a different pagename, if the name it currently occupies is usurped by a different page. Thus if the content that was on what is now a redirect, was copied/merged, then the edit history of the redirect needs to be retained, so the redirect needs to also be renamed. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, skeletal muscle isn't the only type of muscle, and muscle should not redirect there. Page history for muscle should be preserved somehow; probably a WP:HISTSPLIT of the version of muscle prior to the merge.Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: While there was a clear consensus at the time of closing, a deeper look brought about some conflicts and the closer reopened. Relisting so it doesn't get closed prematurely. UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose and move skeletal muscle to Muscle. The material now at skeletal muscle was merged from the muscle article last year, and is the main material which should be presented to readers on this topic. Muscle tissue is a separate matter, and the proposal in 2013 to merge the two was expressly rejected. I would definitely support a move of skeletal muscle to muscle though, that's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, with the information that readers will be seeking if they search for muscles, and as noted this page was the home of that content until last year. Links to cardiac muscle, smooth muscle or muscle tissue can be provided in a hatnote. Skeletal muscle has [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Muscle_tissue%7CSkeletal_muscle around four times as many views as Muscle tissue so is the page that readers want to get to here.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletal muscle had less than half the total page views to skeletal muscle+cardiac muscle+smooth muscle+muscle tissue+muscle. It isn't a topic that is "more likely [to be sought] than all the other topics combined". And a page view analysis is fundamentally flawed when a more general title redirects to a more specific title; people who are searching for the more general title may end up viewing the more specific Wikipedia article if they arrive via an external search engine, even if the more specific article was not what they were looking for. Plantdrew (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Anatomy has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 21:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 21:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Now WikiProjects were notified. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The primary topic of 'muscle' is not 'skeletal muscle'. We can see that in the perennial news of heart disease and that it's common to eat crab/lobster/shrimp/etc. It is more appropriate to summarize information on all types of muscle and link out to those large, well-researched articles, as is currently the case with Muscle tissue (though, the lack of info on invertebrate muscle tissue is a sore spot). The rejection of the merge of Muscle tissue to Muscle back in 2013 was justified as the article essentially did not not do this at the time (Muscle tissue, Dec 2013). Lastly, while I agree using pageviews to establish what is primary is flawed in this case given the redirect from the general Muscle, I would argue that the current stat of 25000:12000:12000 views over 30 days for Skeletal muscle:Cardiac muscle:Smooth muscle supports that they're more or less equally important and viewed. ― Synpath 21:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Synpath and nom. I agree that muscle should be about contractile tissue generally, so I do not support keeping it as a redirect to the skeletal muscle article. Instead, the current muscle tissue seems to fit that scope. I'm ambivalent about whether we should leave the actual article at its current name and change the target of the redirect, or page-move it there. If it's moved, I would keep muscle tissue as a redirect to it. I do not support having muscle tissue point to Tissue (biology)#Muscle tissue, since that is just a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE entry for which our current muscle tissue article (that would move to muscle is the identified subarticle. However, muscle tissue definitely needs major work. DMacks (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]