Talk:Queen's University at Kingston

message: Universities Canada (https://www.univcan.ca/universities/facts-and-stats/enrolment-by-university/) and Queen's own Planning and Budgeting site (http://www.queensu.ca/planningandbudget/institutional-data/enrolment) peg the instiution's enrolment at over 27,000. Perhaps they are using a different way of calculating enrolment.
However, Queen's Common University Data Ontario gives a different number, at around 23,000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.2.22 (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct student enrolment 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Tea Room. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  DMacks (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Tea Room" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :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. 
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. This discussion happened very quickly after the previous move request, and since this discussion failed to develop a clear consensus one way or the other after having been relisted, I also considered the comments from the previous discussion, which did form a reasonably clear consensus in favour of the current title.  Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen's University at Kingston →  – While I'm not opposed in principle to the legitimacy of moving this to a disambiguated title, the title that actually resulted from the earlier discussion is not the right one on WP:ENGVAR grounds. "Queen's University at Kingston" is not its proper name, or even its common name, in any context whatsoever, so it's not the right choice on "proper name" grounds — but even if "at Kingston" is meant purely as a disambiguator, that's a characteristically British construction not reflective of Canadian speech. Canadians never speak of "[Institution] at [City]", except in a couple of very isolated unusual cases where that actually is the thing's proper name — if we have to disambiguate something by location, we say that it's in the city, not "at" it. So the appropriate new title here is parenthetical disambiguation by location, not an inaccurate proper name with an "at" in it. I accept that it was a good faith request by a speaker of British English, but as a Canadian university this article's title and text should preference Canadian usage over British usage. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what it says in the university's charter — for Wikipedia's purposes, the common name that people would actually use in everyday speech is the canonical title that takes precedence over any overly formalized alternative. Regardless of what the university's constitution does or doesn't say, the proper name for our purposes is always the thing the general public would call it — so if Joe Blow on the sidewalk wouldn't say "Queen's University at Kingston", then that's not the appropriate title for our article about it. Bearcat (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well this seems to be a matter of misinterpretation than. I assumed by proper name, you meant the institution's formal name, and not a "proper name" for a Wiki article (based off WP:COMMONNAME I assume). I'll retract my opposition to it than. Leventio (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Our naming conventions on Wikipedia are not governed by the thing's official name, they're governed by the thing's common name. The thing people would call it on the sidewalk trumps what is or isn't in its constitution, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Our naming conventions on Wikipedia are not governed by the thing's official name, they're governed by the thing's common name. The thing people would call it on the sidewalk trumps what is or isn't in its constitution, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. But when disambiguation is needed (as it is here) then defaulting to the official name is often better than using a convoluted disambiguator. That serves no one. Also, your proposal was inaccurate as it suggested that the current title was a "characteristically British construction", which is, as I have pointed out as a native speaker of British English, utter rubbish. This is merely the official name in Canadian English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hardly call the city (Kingston, Ontario) a "convoluted disambiguator", I think it is quite logical. Don't get too hung up on the exact wording of the nomination, even if the nominator was wrong about British English. Now it's clear that the current title is awkward and unnatural in both variants of English! BLAIXX 18:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, it is very clear that British English does use "at" in many places in speech where Canadian English would use a different preposition instead. But I digress. The thing is, invoking the city's name parenthetically is hardly a "convoluted disambiguator" — in fact, it's far more "convoluted" to invoke "natural disambiguation" as a reason to force a title that virtually nobody would recognize as the normal name of the topic in everyday speech. In an ideal world, either everything would have a unique name and we'd have no disambiguation conflicts at all, or there would be some other way of handling disambiguation so that all the Queen's Universities could be titled just "Queen's University" without actually colliding — but in the world we actually do live in, there's no reason whatsoever why an officialese name that virtually nobody would recognize as a normal or expected way of referring to the topic is in no way more "natural" than an alternative that is much more consistent with the "common name followed by a parenthetical clarifier" way that our readers expect a topic with a non-unique name to be disambiguated. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And still you insist that it's common British English. <sigh> I really do not know where you've got that from. If a native speaker can't convince you that it isn't (and that I've moved a number of articles about Eastern European buildings because it isn't instinctive usage in any variety of English) then I give up. About the rest I maintain my stance that use of the official name is best if we need to disambiguate per WP:NATURAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And I maintain my stance that WP:COMMONNAME is the final word in any naming disagreement. The thing the average reader would recognize as the usual name of the subject in everyday speech takes precedence over official forms, not vice versa. Parenthetical disambiguation is not "unnatural". Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

text: 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.
*I did, however, create a redirect to this article at . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 February 2020