Talk:UK miners' strike

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move 21 March 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Please refer to Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85)#Requested move 26 March 2017. --Nevé –selbert 13:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK miners' strike → UK miners' strike (disambiguation) – UK miners' strike should be a redirect to UK miners' strike (1984–85), which is by far the most notorious in living memory. There are about 7,150 results for "UK miners' strike" OR "British miners' strike" in Google Books, that number plummets by over 60% if one is to take out the 1980s, Thatcher and Scargill out of the equation. A WP:PTOPIC is at hand here. The said strike is also the most viewed out of all articles in Category:Labour disputes in the United Kingdom, the daily average being 649 views per day. --Nevé –selbert 07:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there were others. Finding a "primary topic" in historical events isn't helpful. If we applied that we'd probably have "World War" without "II". In ictu oculi (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this appears to be a fair proposal because the majority of searchers for "UK miners strike" will be looking for the 1984-85 strike. All the other events listed in the disambiguation are, with one exception, of minor importance - three of them do not even have articles. That one exception, arguably, should not even be there since it was not just a miners' strike and the link redirects to the 1926 United Kingdom general strike. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case how does taking the year off help them? This move doesn't make sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It makes complete sense. I'm not sure whether or not you are from Britain, but for most us the term "miners' strike" immediately invokes the memory of the 1980s dispute. It was the most cataclysmic labour dispute in modern British history and had a gargantuan impact on the country. It satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC comfortably.--Nevé –selbert 17:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting taking off the year from the title, just making the search phrase "UK Miners' strike" lead directly to the article titled "UK miners' strike (1984–85)" - which is what I assumed the proposer was proposing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

neutral Similar events should be distinguished by years.--Tr56tr (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Tiptoethrutheminefield and Tr56tr: Thanks for the support, but I'm thinking of procedurally closing this move, instead proposing that UK miners' strike (1984–85) be moved to UK miners' strike, with UK miners' strike (1984–85) redirecting. I guess I understand what In ictu oculi was getting at now, as it would make greater sense to move both pages.--Nevé –selbert 06:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No that wasn't what I was getting at. Those with a deeper knowledge of history will know that there are others and removing the year doesn't help. Please don't self-close at this point. @Tr56tr: that is actually oppose removal of the year yes? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued ignorance of the issue at hand remains extremely unhelpful, and yet you are the one boasting of "a deeper knowledge of history". How ironic.--Nevé –selbert 15:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If UK miners' strike (1984–85) is recognized as the primary topic, then UK miners' strike would redirect to it and a name change with the date removed would not be needed. If 99% of those searching for UK miners strike are looking for the 1984-85 strike, then it is just a pointless inconvenience for them to first be directed to a disambiguation page. We also have a List of miners' strikes article which lessens the need to even have a disambiguation page just for "UK Miners' strikes". The title "UK miners' strike (1984–85)" is probably just one for convenience for Wikipedia; very few sources will be referring to it using that exact title - even the "UK miner's strike" part is unlikely in sources, except by non-British media. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ,against the deletion of years.--Tr56tr (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – disambiguation is much more useful than picking one as primary. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2017 (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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a strike in 1953?[edit]

A quick Google and Google Scholar search turns up nothing. Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]