View source for Talk:Divide and conquer

{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Business|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Marketing & Advertising|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Science-and-technology-task-force=yes|Classical=yes}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Latin|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(365d)
| archive             = Talk:Divide and conquer/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 2
| maxarchivesize      = 150K
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 1
}}

{{old move|date=26 March 2025|from=Divide and rule|destination=Divide and conquer|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1283177114#Requested move 26 March 2025}}

== Recent  move ==

I'm questioning the recent undiscussed move from '''Divide and conquer'''. Isn't that by far the most frequently used expression in English? [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 13:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:That is what my original move to [[Divide and conquer (aphorism)]] tried to address, before it was reverted. Maybe "Divide and conquer (political science)" would serve better? [[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder|talk]]) 15:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
::A move request (renaming) of this article should he been made, for discussion, if the first line is not going to read '''Divide and conquer'''... etc. We use the most common form of any item as an article name. I will be moving this back to ''Divide and conquer'' unless it can be shown reliably that ''Divide and rule'' is the more frequently used term in English. It is not, I firmly believe. Rignt now, the first line of the article is a perfect example of a confusing disaster. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 18:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
::PS we don't use bold type ''with'' quotation marks added. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 18:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I rolled back 3 edits which were flagrantly non-Wiki. This should be moved to '''Divide and conquer''' which by far is the most common term. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Please see [[WP:PCM]] for the instructions on opening an RM discussion. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 18:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::'''This was moved arbitrarily without that''' and should just be moved back. Maybe an administrator will see this and help with that. I dare not use a ''help tag'' 'cause I always get scolded when I do that.--[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 00:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::[[Divide and rule]] is the stable title.  The article has been at this title since 2003.  It should not be moved without a discussion.  Please see [[WP:RM]]. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 00:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone - '''anyone?''' - contest the fact that '''Divide and conquer''' by far is the most common term? How did the article ever get it s current name? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 01:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

== Requested move 26 March 2025 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|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.''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Frost|<span style="color: #4169E1; font-family: Bahnschrift; font-weight: bold">'''Frost'''</span>]] 16:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
----

[[:Divide and rule]] → {{no redirect|Divide and conquer}} – Far more common term relating to this subject, per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. I doubt many users look up "Divide and rule" when looking for this article. [[User:PhoenixCaelestis|PhoenixCaelestis]] • [[User talk:PhoenixCaelestis|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PhoenixCaelestis|Contributions]] 13:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

*'''Support'''.  While I see that "divide and rule" is the literal translation, and has some historical use, "divide and conquer" seems to have been the more common phrasing in English for a long time.  While both are correct, I was only familiar with the expression as "divide and conquer", and I imagine most of our readers will either expect to find this under that title, or be equally familiar with both.  That favours the move, and the current title will still go there.  It also probably explains why this move has been proposed twice in the past; I gather that one of those discussions ended because there was already a disambiguation page at the proposed title, which has since been moved, and at that time the editors were confused or intimidated by the process of swapping multiple pages, as well as the challenge of improving what they felt was a messy article.  The other discussion doesn't seem to have gone very far.  I see no real objection to moving it now.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 14:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per rationale of PhoenixCaelestis and P Aculeius. [[User:A. Randomdude0000|A. Randomdude0000]] ([[User talk:A. Randomdude0000|talk]]) 15:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per all, although there may be an argument that Indian English differs from other varieties in this respect. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per all. [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 00:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' due to obvious frequency of use. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 12:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''{{snd}}Per nom. <big>[[User:Yue|<span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>]][[User talk:Yue|🌙]]</big> 20:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:'''Support''': MW gives "[[mwod:divide and conquer|divide and conquer]]" as the headword and "divide and rule" as a variant. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">[[User:Howardcorn33|<b>Howard</b>]] • [[User talk:Howardcorn33|🌽<sup>33</sup>]]</span> 20:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' as unnecessary. According to the [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=divide+and+rule%2Cdivide+and+conquer&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false Ngram], there is no great difference in frequency between the two variants. Cambridge dictionary (UK) has an entry on [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/divide-and-rule Divide and rule] and gives a variant ''Divide and conquer'' (mainly US), which suggests that this is an issue between different English variants ([[WP:TITLEVAR]]). [[Special:Contributions/84.251.164.143|84.251.164.143]] ([[User talk:84.251.164.143|talk]]) 07:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
*:As a further observation, most of the sources currently in the article use "divide and rule". Pages linking here also do not show preference for ''conquer'' in redirects ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Divide_and_rule&limit=100 What links here], where 10 article pages link to [[Divide and conquer]]) or piping ({{Source links|Divide and rule}}, where only 1/5 of the links are piped from ''conquer'' to ''rule''). I admit that the latter is a biased measure, as the article name influences the links, but in clear cases, there is typically a lot of piping. [[Special:Contributions/84.251.164.143|84.251.164.143]] ([[User talk:84.251.164.143|talk]]) 11:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
*:This is misleading.  The phrase is clearly not an Americanism; it was used rather famously by [[Samuel Johnson]] in 1751 ([https://books.google.com/books?id=0GVUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA418&dq=%22divide+and+conquer%22+Samuel+Johnson&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPzOaGna-MAxXMD9AFHTq4OuUQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=%22divide%20and%20conquer%22%20Samuel%20Johnson&f=false "''Divide and conquer''], is a principle equally just in science as in policy." [emphasis in original]), and we find it quoted in 19th century treatises, reports, and parliamentary debates from around the English-speaking world.  Neither the original OED nor Webster's 3rd have an entry under either title, presumably as the sense is already covered under "divide".  The ngram supplied above is faulty, in that limiting it to 1950 and after gives the impression that "divide and conquer" has only recently become more common; but if you [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=divide+and+conquer%2Cdivide+and+rule&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true begin the ngram at 1800], as would normally be done to take in the period for which most English-language works scanned by Google are available, you'll see that "divide and conquer" was predominant for the entire period prior to World War I, while "divide and rule" was slightly more common during the interwar years, before "divide and conquer" again became more common in works published from 1939 to 1954, and much more common beginning in 1987.  I knew this to be the case because I checked before posting my "support" above.  Since it's ''not'' a variant between different dialects of English, it should be at the predominant form.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 12:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
*::In the Ngram, one can select the corpus. In American English corpus, conquer is 1.1–3 times more common. In British English it is the other way round: rule is 1.5–9 times more common between 1950–2024. I set starting point to 1950 simply because we usually base the considerations on modern usage. Other editors can judge whether the above is enough of an difference so that [[WP:ENGVAR]] is applicable. I think this at least demonstrates that "divide and rule" is not some obscure variant, like the earlier !votes seemed to imply. [[Special:Contributions/84.251.164.143|84.251.164.143]] ([[User talk:84.251.164.143|talk]]) 13:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::Again, I wonder if [[Indian English]] is an issue here - they seem to use "rule" more, and the phrase is extremely common in Indian discussions of history and politics. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
*::::That's a good observation. How should we factor the Indian English into this discussion? Which way would it balance the scales? [[Special:Contributions/84.251.164.143|84.251.164.143]] ([[User talk:84.251.164.143|talk]]) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::::The only South Asian English dictionary available to me is ''Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary South Asia Edition'' (2003), which only gives '''''divide and rule''''' under '''''divide'''''.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/cambridgeadvance0000unse_p3w5 |title=Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary South Asia Edition Hardback with CD-ROM |date=2003-08-01 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |others= |isbn=978-0-521-83200-7 |page=356}}</ref> ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">[[User:Howardcorn33|<b>Howard</b>]] • [[User talk:Howardcorn33|🌽<sup>33</sup>]]</span> 21:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
{{rlt}}
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>