Talk:Sourcebooks

links

External links modified

Requested move 18 February 2026

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. Rough consensus to move. Editors opposing this move argue that the title is ambiguous, but editors supporting the move counter with arguments that editors are already linking to Sourcebooks expecting the publisher, that WP:SMALLDETAILS permits Sourcebooks to be the primary topic, and that this topic is overwhelmingly primary by use. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sourcebooks (publisher) → Sourcebooks – Only use of "Sourcebooks" in the plural. All others are "Sourcebook" or "Source Book". Per the precedent of Peanuts and Friends, I feel like the S is sufficient difference per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath ^talk 05:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose. Clearly highly ambiguous. Retain the primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support -- checking page views, this page has been accessed 3 times as often as Sourcebook over the past month, and that's a period when Sourcebook has been subject to active editing. As such, even if the other page had an s at the end, this one would appear to be the primary page, even if WP:SMALLDETAILS was not sufficient. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose the generic meaning uses the plural form and may if anything be primary by long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
• I'm torn. But just as a historical note, until Jlwoodwa changed the target in 2024, Sourcebooks redirected to the publisher. There are a lot of incoming links from references that were not fixed until Dingolover6969 did a run today. Sdkb ^talk 22:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  Yep, true! I went through today (ignorant of the existence of this RM, actually!) and was surprised how many links to Sourcebooks were meant for the publisher. That said, there were still quite a few intended to go to Sourcebook (gaming). Mostly caused by text like "blah blah blah [[sourcebooks]] blah blah blah". If all the links were "Sourcebooks", that would clearly unambiguously be the publisher, but wikilinks are case-insensitive on the first letter. So, I pondered the OP question a couple times while doing this. I could go either way. The "Peanuts" point by User:Ten Pound Hammer is good, although I think Peanuts and Friends are more famous (i.e., likely to be referred to) than Sourcebooks, which I hadn't heard of before getting involved with that dab. The fact that Doubleday is Doubleday (publisher) consoles me, although arguably that's even less ambiguous and should be changed! Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose per above. 162 etc. (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support. Examining the guidance at WP:DIFFPLURAL, and the inconclusive thru-traffic data at WikiNav [1] [2] (remember that Sourcebook was not a dab until recently, although its hatnotes did serve a sort of dab-like function), and the results of a google scholar search and a google web search for "sourcebooks", I could go either way on this. Since it's somewhat ambiguous I think it's better to have it be a dab, so that when people meaning the other sense of "[[sourcebooks]]" try to link that, they'll get some kind of error notification about it. This may rely on a somewhat rosy picture of editor conscientiousness. However, I think User:NatGertler's argument is pretty conclusive. The publisher has twice the pageviews of the other page(s), what more do we need? https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2025-02&end=2026-01&pages=Sourcebooks_(publisher)%7CSourcebook%7CSourcebook_(gaming)%7CSourcebook_(textbook)%7CSource_Book%7CSourcebook_Project. Since "A plural form is treated like any other topic", that settles my mind.

Dingolover6969 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: WikiProject Literature and WikiProject Companies have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath ^talk 05:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support per WP:DIFFPLURAL. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • How on earth does this apply? It's not an especially well-known publisher; far more people are going to recognise the word as the plural of sourcebook. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    Judging by the number of people coming to this page versus the number coming to sourcebook, far more people are looking for this article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    Which is a completely unscientific method of assessing significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    It's a good measure for "the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", as raised as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

    Meanwhile, searching through newspapers.com for the most recent uses of "sourcebook" as a single word, all of the first 100 results are "Sourcebooks" (their search does not separate singular from plural), and all are referring to the publisher. If you search for the term in periods before the publisher existed, you get fewer results total, despite there being more newspapers at the time (in 2024 -- the earliest year where I confident the papers will have aged to newspapers.com, which doesn't get the latest batch-- the five US states with the most results added up to 924; in 1986, 503. In 1966, 98.)

    As for complaints about "unscientific", I've seen no science from you, merely claims. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    Remember that English Wikipedia is not American Wikipedia. This publisher may be well-known in America, I don't know, but it's certainly not particularly well-known anywhere else. And, as pointed out, pageviews are not the be-all and end-all of primary topic determination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    When I limit the newspapers.com search to England, I find the term "sourcebook" is rarely used... it finds 1 usage in 2026 (The Guardian), one in 2024 (The Evening Standard), two in 2023 (both The Guardian), 4 in 2022 (two The Guardian, one The Northern Echo, one The Mail), and three in 2021 (all The Guardian). Of these 11 most recent uses, four of them -- including every one with the s on the end -- are the publisher.

    Limit it to Canada, and the first 100 results (which only takes us back to 2022) are all the publisher.

    "it's certainly not particularly well-known anywhere else" Source? Or do you just mean "I haven't heard of it"? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose Peanuts and Friends are fairly well known, so it's easier for them to meet PT Sahib-e-Qiran , EasternShah 07:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Support per evidence raised by Nat Gertler. He has convinced me that perhaps even sourcebook should redirect to the disambiguation page rather than the section of the textbook article. It is clearly more prevalent. As for long-term significance? I think the basic concept of sourcebook wins out Sahib-e-Qiran , EasternShah 16:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]