The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Looks like the article was split which was one possible outcome that has some consensus. If this had been moved, it is likely that the article would have still been split. So I'm electing to leave this as it is. If the split is wrong, then it becomes an article merge discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with surname Weeks → Weeks – This is really a disambiguation page, including all articles that bear "weeks" in the name. Please move the article so I can stamp a ((disamb)) template at the bottom and change the format. Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Weeks" is the plural form of Week and should redirect there as the primary topic. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an English dictionary, there is already a note at the top of the page directing readers to Week. This page lists cases where "weeks" is not the plural of anything, like Mount Weeks, USS Weeks (DE-285) or Steve Weeks. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; I agree with the IP user. The primary topic for "Weeks" is Week. Support move -- or, preferably, a split -- of this article to Weeks (disambiguation). Powers ^T 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the same reasons as the other 2 posts.

Hum... so... it would be ok to move this article to Weeks (disambiguation), and then redirect Weeks to Week? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:DABNAME, such lists should not be in a dab page. —  AjaxSmack  01:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article is clearly mistitled, as it contains a lot more information than just people, so it is a clear disambiguation page, not a list of people. Article thus needs retitling as either simply Weeks or Weeks (disambiguation). Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-surname entries can be moved to a separate dab page. Problem solved. —  AjaxSmack  01:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.

Per usual, a simple matter of administration is somehow problematized. <sigh> At first glance the RM seems in order as an open and shut Disambig page. On closer scrutiny a peculiarity emerges. The ::title of the page is radically inconsistent with the content of the page. To wit, the title indicates a List of persons...but the page itself is, per movant, more of a disambig page, albeit heavily weighted to ::proper names.

Thus the RM appears to be reformulated. There is no authority in WP history, policy or guidelines which, to my knowledge, forbids reformulation or modification of proposals. In fact, they are quite common. However, they tend to confuse matters; in some cases people find them annoying and harden opinion against a movant whom they might under other circumstances supported. Also, the proponent/movant, Enric Naval, states that subject page includes "all articles that bear 'weeks' in the name". That may or may not be the case; no search result is proffered in evidence. Moreover, some persons may like to have an encyclopedic source for lists of persons bearing a particular name, separate from a disambiguation page. The IP user (65 etc) states that Weeks is a plural form of Week, and then asserts that redirection to that as primary topic is in order. However, s/he states no rationale in support of that conclusion. Simply because X is a plural of Y does not indicate a need for redirection. All of this amounts to a ball of conclusion. No opinion is going to be offered at this time and it is requested that this RM not be closed until more argument and possibly facts have been entered of record. However, my inclination at this time is Split with Disambig + List of names. Note: concur as i have consistently argued, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a genealogy tool. Arguably, the original request is superior in that it aggregates all known relevant pages onto one disambiguation page.Bard गीता 03:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article is clearly a disambig. No need to have "weeks" redirect to "week", hatnote is sufficient. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. If changed to disambig and if the WP templates are to be retained they need to be changed from List class to NA or Disambig as appropriate for each template. SBaker43 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. What's wrong with the current title? It is perfectly in line with MOS:DABNAME guidelines. If some action needs to be taken, merge this article with Weeks (surname) since neither are particularly long articles (once again, per MOS:DABNAME). For the few other entries not related to people with the surname, create a Weeks (disambiguation) or Week (disambiguation) (now a redirect to week). I'll be happy to do the work if needed. —  AjaxSmack  01:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there seems to be no awareness/mention of the MOS:DABNAME guideline on keeping surname lists out of dab pages, I'm going to go ahead and split the article per WP:BOLD. Please feel free to change or undo and, of course, continue the discussion particularly in regard to where "weeks" should redirect. —  AjaxSmack  22:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your boldness, but it isn't a little confusing to do this in the middle of the discussion? Powers ^T 14:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's for long lists of surnames. This list only has like 30 surnames. To me, this is short enough to fit in the disambiguation page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Weeks (disambiguation) - Redirect Weeks to Week. Marcus Qwertyus 01:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.