Talk:Dynamic causal modeling

Statistics C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Requested move 28 February 2019

It has been proposed in this section that Dynamic causal modeling be renamed and moved to Dynamic causal modelling.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Dynamic causal modeling → Dynamic causal modelling – I created a Wiki page which passed peer review, and is now at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_causal_modeling. The word 'modeling' in the title is spelt (incorrectly) with one letter L. An older stub page already exists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_causal_modelling (with two letter L's). The reviewer changed my spelling to one L, causing this duplication. I think the correct spelling is two L's, because this is how it was originally defined in published literature - https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00202-7 So, please could you help me to resolve this by moving the page Dynamic_causal_modeling to Dynamic_causal_modelling, thereby deleting the stub content that currently appears on the latter? I am quite new to this, so I don't feel confident doing this myself. Thanks. Peterzlondon (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Xain36 {talk} 17:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterzlondon:As you acknowledge, there is already an article at the proposed target. Should the pages be merged, or should they be disambiguated? Iffy★Chat -- 22:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Modeling" is not an incorrect spelling. "Modelling" is usually British. Both spellings are used in the literature. Nothing of the older stub at Dynamic causal modelling was used in the new article at Dynamic causal modeling, so a histmerge is not required and the stub can be safely deleted. Alternatively, the stub can simply be redirected to the new article. Station1 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in any useful info and redirect the stub to the better article. Both spellings are fine. Sorry I missed the stub existed - if the title is not exact that can happen. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all (and thanks again for reviewing the article). @Iffy: I think these pages should be merged, rather than disambiguated, as they refer to an identical concept. As for which spelling to use for the page title - I do not feel strongly. The spelling 'Modelling' with two Ls is the original spelling used in this context from the 2003 scientific publication - so this is my preference. However, I agree that the spelling with one L would also be fine, if that would make life easier, please go ahead. Best, Peterzlondon (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose; merge. I agree with Peterzlondon that we have a WP:CONTENTFORK here. The above comments about the spelling are also correct: modeling isn't "wrong" and is well-attested in sources; it's just not the nominator's preferred dialect. I don't care which spelling is used (see MOS:ENGVAR on that), but we do not need two redundant articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]