This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gaul, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gaul 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.GaulWikipedia:WikiProject GaulTemplate:WikiProject GaulGaul articles
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.
Saône → Saone – I actually don't care if we move this page or Rhone, but it's weird that one has the hat (circumflex) on top of its o and one does not. As per WP:CONSISTENCY let's move one of them. My guess is that the circumflex is probably less well-attested than the plain version (plus the Rhone is the bigger and better article), so my modest proposal would be to move this one. If the request fails to reach consensus to move, then I will, God willing, head to the other river's article and propose a move there. So tell me. Is the diacritic mark Saone-thing we can do without? Or will all roads lead to Rhône? Red Slash 06:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - But I agree with proposer on WP:CONSISTENCY. The Rhône article had a French accent consistent with WP:FRMOS like every other France article, but it was removed in an undiscussed move and should be restored. As noted many times Google Books OCR searches often don't pick up accents like ô, which means that when clicking through to the actual page the ô is almost always present. Unless a very old ASCII-type source. I just did a river Rhone -Rhône search and the first page of results for "Rhone" (sic) are every single one of them OCR errors. It would have to be a really shit source to deliberately mispell a major French river. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just open discussion on Talk:Rhone to restore the title there? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not think consistency is a strong argument because different rivers can be treated differently by different sources. I do not know WP:FRMOS but if it is OK with an accent then I think it is better to keep the accent. Sitta kah (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but for the sake of consistency, move Rhone to Rhône instead. It keeps the proper French spellings and conforms to consistency. JIP | Talk 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a separate WP:RM page for that? Sitta kah (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2013 (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.
