Talk:First Period architecture

On 22 May 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from First Period to First Period (architecture). The result of the discussion was moved.

"First period" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect First period has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14 § First period until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 17:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 May 2025

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: moved. Consensus to rename the article with a preference for First Period architecture as opposed to target in proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) CNC (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Period → First Period (architecture)First Period (architecture) – The phrase "First Period" is too common a collocation, and therefore too ambiguous, to occupy a primary topic at any capitalization. BD2412 T 19:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943, Pppery, and Thryduulf: Pinging participants in the recent RfD regarding First period. BD2412 T 19:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the nomination and my comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14#First period. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the base pagename should become a disambiguation page, by redirecting to First period -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS. I support the Rfd outcome of disambiguating at First period, but the article at First Period is the only entry as the disambiguation page that is a proper noun and capitalized. A hatnote to the disambiguation page is the correct form of disambiguation in this case. Also, the status quo features consistency with Third Period, which albeit has fewer possible other meanings, but these are similarly disambiguated via a hatnote. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6: One would think from your comment that First Period and Third Period are instances of the same thing, but they are unrelated. I have now added an additional capitalized "First Period" sense to the disambiguation page. BD2412 T 15:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to First Period architecture. Article titles for architectural styles tend to use WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, e.g., Federal architecture, Jeffersonian architecture and Beaux-Arts architecture; I can't think of any that use parenthetical disambiguation. Ham II (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm equally supportive of that and the original suggestion Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no immediate objection to this alternative. I assume sources can be found using that phrasing. BD2412 T 18:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to First Period (American architecture), As I'm sure other types of architecture have first periods. First Period architecture as 2nd best. These are classic examples of where the caps are needed. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Are there, in fact, other types of architecture have first periods? BD2412 T 02:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my searches, no. When I googled for "Frist period" "architecture" -Wikipedia -Massachusetts -"New England" -"Colonial" I did get some results unrelated to other architectural styles but of those where it is being used as a specific term for a type of architecture (not "during the first period of operation", "first period class", etc) I found three individual works: A 2023 journal article relating to Balkans, [1] an 1844 journal article about Mediaeval ecclesiastical architecture in Paris, [2], an 1887 five-volume work on Scottish architecture [3] and a 1972 journal article about Turkish architecture [4] - it's also worth noting that it's only in the first of these can I actually verify that "First Period" is being used as a specific term. If I remove any of the exclusions from my search term, results about American architecture are the only ones that are relevant, meaning that at the very least the New England style is the absolutely overwhelming primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf:: I assume "Frist" is a typo in this post. BD2412 T 14:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Out of curiosity I repeated the search with the typo, told Google I didn't mean "First", and got two pages of results one of which [5] might be relevant, the term used is actually "Sedad Eldem Frist period" Sedad Hakkı Eldem#First period does exist but doesn't appear to be a specific term and would not make a good target for the search term "First Period architecture". Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. First Palace Period is certainly a big thing in Minoan architecture, and Minoan archaeology generally, which is probably close enough to risk confusion. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase redirects to the article, but is not itself mentioned in the article, which raises the question of whether it is actually called that in a widespread manner. BD2412 T 16:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"First Palace Period" is not "First Period", at most it would warrant a hatnote or a see-also on a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.