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: not moved. No consensus that the proposed title is an improvement. Joy's suggestion may be worth taking forward though. Number 5 7 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Most religious US states → Religiosity in the United States – Current title is awkward and does not reflect WP:NDESC, since it uses the word, "most" and refers to states as if a state as an entity could be religious, absent a constitutional clause declaring it so. In the US, only the inhabitants can be regarded as religious to some degree. User:HopsonRoad 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per NPOV PearlSt82 ( talk) 16:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Oppose since the article is very state focused and the proposed new title seems to suggest a scope that the article is not. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• The current title has two issues - it seems a bit too much like a newspaper headline, and, given the entrenched separation of church and state, it can also seem too vernacular. A phrase such as "Religion in the United States by state" could also work, we use that form ('in the US by state') in numerous category names. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom and improvement of encyclopedic tone, and this also fixes the WP:ENGVAR / WP:TIES problem that the dominant abbreviation for United States within the United States is "U.S.", not "US". Dicklyon is correct that this may suggest a change of scope, but that doesn't necessarily seem like a serious problem, and it is reasonable for an article about something in the United States to be structured according to the States of the United States, as they are the primary segmentation of the country in practice (or at least they are a reasonable one), and it would also be reasonable to include information about non-state territories (e.g., Puerto Rico). The table in the article already uses the heading "State or territory". Also, the article mentions the state listed as least religious, and the states in the middle of the religiosity poll results, and lists the measured degree of religiosity in every state, none of which strictly fit within the scope of the current title since they are not discussions of just the most religious states. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, there is already an article on Religion in the United States and I think that the current title best describes and differentiates content. Greg Kaye 13:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• See Religiosity, which emphasizes that the term "deals more with how religious a person is." User:HopsonRoad 17:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• See Religion in the United States, which is about the distribution of religious beliefs within the population. User:HopsonRoad 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Another model for a title is, Importance of religion by country, which could translate to Importance of religion in the United States. However, that would describe the importance of religion aggregated above the individual level, e.g. of religions, whereas religiosity simply aggregates individual feelings on the subject. User:HopsonRoad 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I think such a title has a serious problem. We can attempt to measure the population statistics of how many people think religion is very important, but trying to establish the actual importance of religion seems like it could invite unwanted fervent debate. To some true believers, religion obviously has the utmost importance – above all other considerations. The one true religion, once you have decided it's actually true, is extremely important, as a matter of objective fact – regardless of whether only a few people think it's true. — BarrelProof ( talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I concur. The article has viable means of measuring religiosity at the personal level. Measurement of the importance of religions would be measured by the number of adherents, as is already done in Religion in the United States. User:HopsonRoad 00:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Moreover, there is a difference between popularity and importance. The number of adherents is only a measure of popularity. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Regarding the comment that the title seemed like a newspaper headline, in fact it was based on one. See: Newport, Frank. "Mississippi Is Most Religious U.S. State Vermont and New Hampshire are the least religious states". gallup.com/poll. Gallup. Retrieved 13 October 2014. User:HopsonRoad 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• The current title also cries out for a WP:HYPHEN. This article is not about "most" of the "religious US states" – it's closer to being about about the "most-religious" of the "US states". — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Regarding the comment that Religion in the United States exists and that "the current title best describes and differentiates content," a "not to be confused with" entry could occur at the beginning of each article. Religion and religiosity are different concepts. User:HopsonRoad 23:19, 1 February 2015 (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.