This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography 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.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
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.
Comment. "Austria-Italy relations" doesn't even figure in English sources - see ngram viewer here (nor does "Italy-Austria relations"); whereas both adjectival forms do; "Austro-Italian relations" being way the more common. So looks like that needs changing too, but that's a separate debate. Bermicourt (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The well attended RfC failed to find a consensus in favour of either consistent adjectival or nounal forms. As the closer said, no consensus that one pattern across all bilateral relations article currently exists on Wikipedia that is so dominant that it is the be-all-end-all in every discussion on naming bilateral relations articles. As such we need to consider all of WP:CRITERIA, not just WP:CONSISTENT, and due to the increased naturality of the proposed title WP:CRITERIA as a whole supports this move. BilledMammal (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to the clone of this comment at this parallel discussion here. Bermicourt, I would advise to nominate multiple pages using WP:RMPM in the future, to avoid duplicate discussions like these. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: Moved. I just closed the RM proposal discussion at Talk:Franco-German_border where the arguments presented were essentially the same as here, and even by the same editors, so look there for more details. The main difference is that the COMMONNAME argument favoring the move is not as strong here, but over there it's overwhelming ("36 times more common"), while here it's "just" very strong ("4-5 times more common"). So here too the COMMONNAME position must prevail over the CONSISTENT argument relying on consistency with a convention that consensus could not find even exists in a recent RFC. В²C☎05:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
