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: This is complicated. It appears there was a consensus to move as proposed, but as the discussion continued the idea of merging Aa River into AA gained traction. At this point I see a consensus to merge the two articles, but merging really isn't a common outcome of a requested move discussion. Nevertheless, this discussion closes in favour of merging this article into AA. I will attempt the merge, and redirect Aa River and Aa (river) to AA#Rivers. Other editors here are welcome to assist in cleaning up double redirects and double-checking my work. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Brad v 04:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Aa River → Aa (river) – The just previously done (yesterday, 27 December) swap by User:JudgeRM between "Aa (river)" and "Aa River" has to be reverted, since Aa River is an incorrect name according WP:NCRIVER. This was already made explicit by the move before the last one (3 December). All listed rivers refer to rivers/articles which are named without River. River is not part of the name of any of the listed rivers! Therefore it would be more than misleading to call the disambigation page "Aa River". ZH8000 ( talk) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Brad v 02:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment as the person who did the move. The move was requested at WP:RM/TR here as a request to revert an undiscussed move per the rational "an incomplete disambiguation page (disambiguation page Aa exists) / WP:NATURALDIS". Since your original move was contested, I accepted the request and reverted to the old article name. I will not have any say in this other than that, unless WP:SNOW applies, this should run the full seven days. I will also invite the person who made the request to this discussion shortly. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• My, this is awkward. Aa (river) should generally be a {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}} that redirects back to AA, so we would need to merge these dabs. Aa River is a legitimately distinct title per WP:DOUBLEDAB.

If we simply move this to Aa (river) then we will need to have Aa (river) (disambiguation) redirecting to Aa (river) for intentional links to disambiguation; is there any precedent for such titles?

Checking how other languages handle this; in German we have de:Liste der Gewässer namens Aa (List of waters called Aa). I find just two English articles with such a name – List of rivers named Sainte-Anne and List of streams named Fish Creek. But note Category:Set indices on rivers. I suppose Aa (river) would become a set index member of that category. In French, we have fr:Aa (hydrologie) (Aa (hydrology)). – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Neutral does it matter? It's a dab page. Aa River seems more natural. Too long to merge into Aa dab. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC) reply
• Support set index – The article would be more natural as List of rivers named Aa and formatted as a {{ River index}}, rather than a disambiguation page. This also allows us to keep the many rivers added by ZH8000 which do not have an article yet, because red links are normally excluded from dab pages. — JFG ^talk 22:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Support. There isn't anything called "Aa river". The page disambiguates among rivers called "Aa". Maproom ( talk) 22:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Support per usual river naming conventions. Merge into Aa as several suggest. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Convert to set index per JFG. The set index would flow better than dabpage and most likely allows references. George Ho ( talk) 03:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

On second thought, probably keep the dabpage and create a separate SIA instead. See my replies to Andrewa below. Convert to SIA as my second choice. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. This is an unusual case, but the current name Aa River seems the least problematical and will give the best reader experience... our bottom line. Agree that a set index would be better than a DAB, but this is about naming the DAB that currently exists. If it's converted to a SIA then we won't need a DAB at all. Andrewa ( talk) 09:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I want to change my vote, but I am uncertain whether changing it helps. Here are, Andrewa, List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). George Ho ( talk) 10:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

George Ho I am unsure of the relevance of this, can you clarify? Andrewa ( talk) 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

All right, Andrewa. The whole story is complex and long, but I'll make it short. I had the Nightmare dabpage undeleted via deletion review. Then a set index was attempted via a debate on dabpage. While the RM decision favored the set index, the logs of the SIA and dabpage page were merged into one page. The page was the undeleted dabpage for three years until, recently, the page was changed back to set index. I started another RM recently. The recent RM there still favored the set index, but the closer said that a separate dabpage is possible. Therefore, I had the same person who merged the pages re-split the pages back into two separate pages: one set index and one dabpage. While the Nightmare dabpage/SIA thing is complex, I am using this as a precedent to show you all that having the coexistence of dabpage and SIA is possible... unless having both is... burdensome or something? George Ho ( talk) 21:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

It may well be possible, but are you recommending it in this case? Isn't the merge now proposed the obvious solution? Andrewa ( talk) 23:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

If you are discussing the merger into AA (or Aa), the AA dabpage looks too long for Aa River. However, if merger is highly favored, I won't stop the merger then. George Ho ( talk) 23:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Aa redirects to AA, the first section of which is Aa#Geography which contains links to Aa, Indonesia, Aa, Estonia, and Aa River (disambiguation) (and others which aren't relevant here). A subsection Rivers, replacing the entry Aa River (disambiguation), would be entirely appropriate. Agree that it will be a longish DAB but disagree that this is a problem, the TOC handles that well. Andrewa ( talk) 01:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply

But now support the proposed merge rather than SIA, see below. Andrewa ( talk) 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Aa. As wbm1058 points out, the proposed title cannot be the home of a dab page, since it's partial dab. We'd rather just put all entries over on Aa in a "rivers" section if that's the case, and that woudl also reduce a click for people who typed " Aa" into the search box in the first place. I don't think it works as a set index either, since other than their name, and maybe the origin of the name, the rivers have nothing else in common with each other. There would be little value in the Set index article, readers just want to get to teh Aa river of their choice as quickly as possible.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 15:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support the merge. Well analysed. And that makes this RM moot (in the US and Australian sense), as the end result will be that both titles redirect to the same place in any case. Andrewa ( talk) 20:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Support. River Aa is much, much commoner than Aa River, which would generally be seen as an Americanism. Ergo the original name was better. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment River Aa is as wrong and inappropriate as Aa River is ( WP:NCRIVER). River is not part of the name! -- ZH8000 ( talk) 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Even if that is so, doesn't the merge proposal solve it much more neatly? Andrewa ( talk) 16:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think I said it was. I didn't suggest it should be moved to River Aa! I was, in fact, supporting your proposal! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Even if that is so, doesn't the merge proposal solve it much more neatly? (Yes I know I've said that twice... because it cuts both ways.) Andrewa ( talk) 16:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The merge proposal would be acceptable, but would create a very long disambiguation page. I'd be happier with retaining separate pages. There's certainly considerable precedent for this. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Can you be specific as to precedents? Andrewa ( talk) 14:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Amakuru; both "River Aa" and "Aa River" are incorrect.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Alternate proposal of merge to Aa

The proposal to merge instead to the existing DAB at Aa seems to have some traction above.

Obviously the redirects would need to point to AA, rather than Aa, to avoid double redirects.

Questions... would it be appropriate for them to point to AA#Rivers? It seems so to me. If so, then is the R to section template also appropriate, as well as the templates already proposed above? Andrewa ( talk) 18:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Andrewa: yes to all the above. Normally this sort of thing is quite routine, per WP:PARTIALDAB. I'm not sure why this issue is being treated differently.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 16:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Agree, and thanks for the link to that essay. IMO it's just because this RM was raised. As soon as it's closed (unless there are some valid objections raised, and I can't imagine what they might be) we can do it. I think we should hold off until then, however.

The one objection so far seems to be the length of the resulting DAB. But it's not going to be large to load by article standards, and the TOC will make navigation easy and as fast as a hierarchy of DABS so far as clicks goes, and faster so far as load time goes. I can't see the problem. Interested to see what precedents there may be, as claimed above. Andrewa ( talk) 15:04, 12 January 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.