Talk:Corvette/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. While there is a huge amount of discussion here (often circular), the number of actual distinct arguments on both sides is limited. Arguments for the move are fairly strong based on the letter of the guidelines, but oppose arguments are not so obviously against policy as to be discountable. Numerical distribution of opinions is strongly in favour of the status quo – indeed so much so that if I were to close it on a simple !vote count this would come out not just as a "no consensus" but as a clear "consensus against". The repeated relistings have not led to a significant shift of this balance. On strength of arguments, it's a "no consensus". Even if I saw a fully compelling preponderance of the support arguments, given that this whole decision is not a matter of life or death, i.e. there is no argument that a "wrong" decision either way would seriously compromise core values and policies of the encyclopedia, I have no reason to make a closing against the wishes of the great majority of commenters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Corvette → Corvette (ship) – Relisted. Allowing more time, but as of this point there is no consensus that there is a primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Per Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines, a key goal to disambiguation -- including titling articles about disambiguated terms -- is to "[ensure] that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." I believe that a user who searches for Corvette is most likely to be looking for the Chevrolet Corvette, and that the former should thus redirect to the latter, per the definition of a "primary topic." The previous naming discussion included little mention of these guidelines or of how users are actually best-served, focusing instead on arguments of far less significance (see below). Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Previous arguments for keeping the ship article at this title:
  1. We would have to add a disambiguator to the ship article's title. Yes. That's a very minor concern compared to the goal of getting users to the article they want, rather than some other article. By that logic, rather than redirecting Shakespeare to William Shakespeare, we should make Shakespeare the article about the Mercurian crater so as to avoid the immense affliction of titling the latter article Shakespeare (crater). (Although we also have Shakespeare (programming language), so I guess we're doomed to suffer in any case. Maybe we should delete one of them.)
  2. "Corvette" is only part of the full name Chevrolet Corvette. It should be evident that people refer to the "Chevrolet Corvette" as just "Corvette" all the time, almost certainly more (in regular speech) than they use the full name. Some examples from a Google News search: "Lents house fire damages '68 Corvette." "[She] smiled and waved while riding on top of a Corvette." "Santa Clara Corvettes is pleased to announce our 35th Annual Corvette Spectacular Car Show." "Little Red Corvette Safe For Now." "...that Corvette they've heard Grandpa reminisce about for years." "He and wife Angela own a $60000 Corvette."
  3. The Chevrolet Corvette article only gets 2x more page views than Corvette. I don't understand why this is an argument against redirecting Corvette to the car, but it was presented as such. And clearly some significant number of the views for Corvette must be for people who are looking for the car.
  4. The ship is older than the car, and that matters more than which article people are actually trying to read. This is an irrational and counter-productive perspective. Why should users be hindered from reaching their desired article simply because another topic is older? Ferrari is the article about the car, not about its namesake Enzo Ferrari, although Enzo was 30 years older. Ford redirects to Ford Motor Company, not Henry Ford or the millennia-old concept of Ford (crossing).
  5. "Corvette ship" gets more Google hits than "corvette car." I don't know if this was accurate then, but in any case it's not true now. I get about 7 million results for "ship" vs. 30 million for "car." And when I search Google for just "corvette", there's nothing about the ship in the first 40+ results, which appear to be all about the car. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

  • As much of a fan of the car as I am, corvette is the complete and full name which describes the ship. In addition, if you look at all other car pages, the consensus is pages should be manufacturer_model. By your arguments, Ford Mustang and many, many others should be changed as well. I'm not particularly moved by the above arguments, so I'm opposed. —Mrand Talk • C 18:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    BTW, whatever the car topic article should be named is a separate question from what is the primary topic (if any) of this name. If the car were the primary topic of "Corvette" but properly titled "Chevrolet Corvette", for instance, the proper arrangement is to redirect Corvette to Chevrolet Corvette and disambiguate at Corvette (disambiguation) linked by a {{Redirect}} hatnote on the primary topic article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The evidence strongly suggests that the car model is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Corvette". Dohn joe (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mrand, and the arguments made in the previous move request. Benea (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Centuries of ship usage cannot be tossed aside for the one car model. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:PRECISE. Those searching for Chevrolet Corvette will follow the hatnote. Shem (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Use the hatnote, change it to: This article is about the type of warship. For the car, see Chevrolet Corvette. For other uses, see Corvette (disambiguation). —Diiscool (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. But what about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? If you search for "Corvette" in Google Books, 96 of the first 100 results are about the car. That seems about as dominant a usage for a term as there can be. Dohn joe (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would only come into play if both the ship and the car were simply called "corvette". They are not - they car is properly a Chevrolet Corvette, and the ship is a corvette. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a red herring. And please read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers before shouting about Google hits. Shem (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I did read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers. And it says: Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar provide results that are more likely to be reliable sources. You may have noticed that I used a Google Books search. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC very much comes into play - if you look at the Google Books results, quite a majority of them simply use "Corvette" in referring to the car. The car may or may not be "properly" called a "Chevrolet Corvette", but it is commonly called a "Corvette". Dohn joe (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you and I are reading Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers quite differently; it does indeed say that Google Books is more likely to turn up reliable sources, but this is in the context of finding sources, and thereby determining notablity (it goes on to say "... these can at least show that the sources exist".) I'm not going to quote the rest of the article back at you, but your argument gets no support from a careful reading of the guideline.
You also quote WP:COMMONNAME at me (although you pipe it as "commonly"). This would only be relevant if you were arguing that the car article should be called "Corvette" instead of "Chevrolet Corvette", which you are not.
I just don't think a problem exists at the moment (although perhaps the hatnote here could be improved to make the car only one click away). Shouting loudly and quoting random guidelines (inaccurately) is hardly the best way to make a case. Shem (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which does state the google searches are a good way of determining the primary topic (the other two are not available to us due to the current naming of the article). Yes, COMMONNAME is relevant to this discussion. It shows that the car article is more commonly called "Corvette" and the only reason that article should not be simply labelled "Corvette" (or have "Corvette" redirect to it) is if it is not the primary topic. I have yet to see one of those opposing claim that the ship is the primary topic, so, yes, a very relevant policy for Dohn joe to quote. Jenks24 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support the move of "Corvette" to "Corvette (ship)". However, "Corvette (disambiguation)" should then be moved to "Corvette". Firstly, Theoldsparkle makes a compelling case above, which has not actually been refuted by any of those opposing. Secondly, on my google searches (using the Australian version of google) for the term "Corvette", the gbooks search predominantly returns books about the car. In my google news archive search the results are honestly about 50/50 (with perhaps a slight leaning towards the car). Thirdly, this is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion; the question is when a reader searches for the term "Corvette", where are the majority of them expecting to end up? So we are therefore trying to find the primary meaning of the term "Corvette". The answer is that there is no primary meaning. Google searches (and, yes, they are one of the recommended ways to discover the primary topic, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) are split evenly enough, with perhaps a slight leaning to the car, but not enough to show that the car is actually the primary meaning. Therefore, as there is no clear primary topic, "Corvette (disambiguation)" should be moved to "Corvette". Jenks24 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Theoldsparkle makes a compelling case at all; he argues that readers should be able to find their subject quickly (I agree - but this can be done easily with a proper hatnote) and then sets up not one but five straw men. Shem (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
And while we're all quoting various guidelines, perhaps this one is very relevant: WP:TITLECHANGES. Enough from me. Shem (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Theoldsparkle makes a compelling case in that he makes a reasoned argument backed up by policy and evidence. I have yet to see any of the opposers do the same. TITLECHANGES is completely irrelevant. That section is there, not for discussions about primary topic, but ones where, for example, the article has changed official names and the discussion is only centred on which of two (or more) redirects an article should be named (eg "Volgograd" vs "Tsaritsyn" vs "Stalingrad" or "Mexican-American War" vs "Mexican–American War"). Please give me a relevant policy or guideline that supports your case and I would be willing to reconsider my position. Jenks24 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. US-centric reasoning. Only in America does "corvette" primarily refer to a car; elsewhere it primarily refers to a ship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    Did you read Jenks24's Australian-centric analysis? Dohn joe (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    Indeed, but as usual I fail to see how a Google search is relevant given the American dominance of the internet and the usual poor showing for any sources which predate the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the primary meaning is the ship type, which has been around for hundreds of years. Corvettes are still being built, whilst the Chevrolet Corvette only had a production run of a few years. The suggestion for improving the hatnote above should adequately cover the situation. Mjroots (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you please explain how the length of time something has been around has anything to do with which is the primary topic? Jenks24 (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The ship type has been around since 1670, whereas the car has only bee around since 1952. I note that the car is still in production too, but that does not change my thoughts that the ship type is the primary topic. A better hatnote is all that is required. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry to keep questioning you like this, but can you please explain how they have been around has anything to do with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Because the ship type has been in existence for about 3½ centuries, where the car model has only been aroung for about ½ a century. The established meaning of the word is the ship type. I do not think that the car model has managed to usurp the primary meaning of the word as being a type of ship. I've said all I'm going to say here now, and will leave this discussion to other editors to put forward their views. To be fair, all relevant Wikiprojects have been notified of this RM. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is either the ship that should be at primary, or the disambiguation page. It should not be the car. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that the disambiguation page should be primary. Just because the nomination was slightly off, do you still wish to oppose? (As you can see, I have supported, but noted that the disambiguation page should be primary, not the car.) Just something for you to consider, Jenks24 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose I see the point of adding "ship" & agree somewhat. IMO, tho, the dab "(ship)" is a needless add, since there's no "Corvette (plane)" or "Corvette (Star Trek)" (AFAIK... ;p ). Arguing for the car fails: the car's name is "Chevrolet Corvette", & so should the pagename be. (Have I successfully straddled the fence?) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mrand. The word "Corvette" without any modifiers is the ship type. Improving the hatnote to point directly to the car's article is sufficient. Just because ignoramus greasemonkeys have never heard of the ship type is no justification to overthrow the status quo - in fact they might actually learn something about where the name of the car came from. Roger (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "ignoramus greasemonkeys" - many car afficianados are very smart and and take daily showers, and some sailors are likewise dirty and uninformed. - BilCat (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Indeed one must take care to disambiguate ignoramusses (ignoramii?) from afficianados. :) But seriously, I have learnt many interesting things through landing up at "wrong" pages. If one always landed up at exactly the page you want you are actually missing out new and interesting other stuff (not to be confused with Other Stuff). Roger (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to Corvette (ship), as the primary topic has nothing to do with how long a name has been used in history, but what the majorty of readers expects to find when typing in a word. - BilCat (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Which, outside the USA, would be a type of ship... -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Totally irrelevant. It's the total amount of users searching for a topic, not where they are from, that counts. The fact that the majority of WP users are in the US doesn't invalidate their search preferences, nor give us an excuse to ingnore them. - BilCat (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • If it's irrelevant, why do we have WP:ENGVAR? We'd just write everything in American English. The fact we don't suggests that most people on Wikipedia disagree with you. It's a long-established principle that Wikipedia is not written for any one nationality, whether they are heavier users of the internet or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Still totlly irrelevant to this discussion. Per WP:Primary topic: "There are no absolute rules for determining how likely a given topic is to be sought by readers entering a given term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors, include: Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere, and Wikipedia article traffic statistics." No mention of location of readers at all, or dismissing them as irrelevant because they're all in one nation. - BilCat (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The name of the car is the "Chevrolet Corvette" and the automaker selected it because of the connotation of "corvette" as being a small, maneuverable, and capable of fighting warship, in addition to the word beginning with the letter "c" to match Chevrolet’s other model lines. In other words, the word refers to a type of ship and is so defined in all the dictionaries that I have seen. This specific automobile model continues to be built by General Motors and is marketed as the "Chevrolet Corvette" .... thus its page in WP under the article naming consensus of "manufacturer model" - or in this case "division model" - format. Nevertheless, the genesis of its "corvette" designation came from the type of a fast vessel and this term helped elicit an image that continues to fit the car, not the other way around. Nobody can claim that the warship was named after a car sold by Chevrolet. No matter how many statistics are used as evidence, the original ship term was the source of GM introducing the car, as well as helping build the brand equity for this vehicle. Similarly, meaningful names such as "Charger", "Javelin", and "Cobra" came before the Dodge, AMC, and Shelby or Ford versions. It almost seems silly to follow the current and shortened usage of an automobile brand name as the official WP article title. The next request will be to move the Ford Mustang article to just plain Mustang because more people are familiar with the car than about the original term. That is not a good reason to move names. CZmarlin (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Who's with me in moving Boston, Lincolnshire to Boston? I mean, it's obvious that the town in Massachusetts was named after the town in Lincolnshire, and not the other way 'round, right? And the English town has been around hundreds of years longer than the U.S. city. There's no way that something that is named for something else can become more notable than the thing it was named after? Right? Dohn joe (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Dohn joe and BilCat for the insightful comments regarding the names of cities. As far as I can comprehend, this is a discussion about the title of a WP article about a brand of automobile, and not a popularity vote on the origin of city and place names. Please also review the automobile article naming consensus that calls for "manufacturer model" and not just "model" format. To perhaps help, the following sections are copied (source:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Titles) specifically, the guidelines explain:
  • Automobile articles should generally be placed under a title named in a two-part format: <Make> <Model> (e.g. "Toyota Corolla").
  • A two-part name is needed because most automobile model names are often too ambiguous by themselves (e.g., "Corolla", "Fiesta", "911").
In summary, the policy is quite clear. In this specific case, the "corvette" name alone for the Chevrolet Corvette automobile is clearly ambiguous. CZmarlin (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
That also has nothing to do with what the primary topic for "Corvetts" is. Per WP:Primary topic: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term being considered. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article (or a section of it). The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." (Emphasis mine.) - BilCat (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Further comment The proposed title of Corvette (ship) falls foul of WP:MOSSHIP. That name would suggest that the article is about a full-rigged ship named Corvette. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That had occured to me too, but I didn't mention it. What would be correct? "ship type"? - BilCat (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, (ship type), would conform to MOSSHIP, but I'm still opposed to the move. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think above comments have shown that the ship is the clear primary topic, and the car is not a major topic for "corvette". And anyhow Google searches are a very imperfect guide, and Books is even worse, largely turning up titles, here including mostly cars but one on ships at second place and a novel. —innotata 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The sheer number of fallacious, erroneous, and irrelevant arguments in this discussion is mind-boggling. I wouldn't even know where to begin addressing them all. I admit I'm not sure that Chevrolet Corvette is the primary topic for "Corvette", but it's quite clear that the ship type is not. Corvette should be a disambiguation page, or redirect to the car, but I see no valid policy-based argument for the status quo. Powers T 22:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Powers is correct. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the ship is the primary topic for "Corvette". The notion that this topic "deserves" to be the primary topic because it's the original usage has no basis whatsoever at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The idea that the car cannot be the primary topic for "Corvette" because it's the primary topic for "Chevrolet Corvette" is absurd - a given topic can be primary for any number of names... that's why we have redirects! I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most of those who oppose this move do not have much experience with Wikipedia article naming policy and guidelines, in which case their positions on this are at least understandable. In any case, they should all be discounted as variants of WP:JDLI. For the good of Wikipedia, hopefully the closing admin will recognize this. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Powers is not correct. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the car is the primary topic for "Corvette". The notion that this topic "deserves" to be the primary topic because it's not the original usage has no basis whatsoever at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The idea that the ship cannot be the primary topic for "Corvette" because it's the primary topic for "Corvette (ship)" is absurd - a given topic can be primary for any number of names... that's why we have redirects! I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most of those who support this move do not have much experience with Wikipedia article naming policy and guidelines, in which case their positions on this are at least understandable. In any case, they should all be discounted as variants of WP:JDLI. For the good of Wikipedia, hopefully the closing admin will recognize this. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
      • This proposal does not address whether the car is the primary topic, only whether the ship type is. Powers T 12:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't see any issue here at all. The term originates with ships. The "Chevrolet Corvette" is just a temporary marketing maneuver, attempting to make money by leveraging off an analogy to the naval corvette. In a few decades, the "Chevrolet Corvette" will have all but disappeared from public memory, but the naval corvette will endure, because that is what a "corvette" is. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • My crystal ball is broken, but even if what you say is true, then in a few decades we can change it back. "What will happen in the future" is not an article naming criterion; we base our titles on what is current. Powers T 00:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
      • You don't need your crystal ball. In the term "Chevrolet Corvette", Corvette is only a modifier, an adjective. It's indicating that the "Chevrolet" is like a "corvette", a type of naval boat. "Chevrolet Corvette" has nothing fundamentally to do with corvettes. It's a car. If it were the most popular "car" in the world, then by your reasoning, you would be redirecting "Car" to "Chevrolet Corvette". But even that is not as silly as redirecting "Corvette" to a type of car, even if it does happen to be a car that in some respects can be likened to a corvette. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
        • We're not likening it to a corvette; it's just a name. Where the name came from is irrelevant. Note how Mustang is a disambiguation page, even though the first use of the name was to refer to a horse. Powers T 12:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, I have noted your comment about mustangs, and it seems quite wrong to me. A mustang is a horse, and Wikipedia should go directly to a page that deals with that. The other uses of the term are merely leveraging on its prior meaning as a horse. Here you are proposing something even more wrong, trying to direct "corvette" to the way a US company leverages off the term to make money. That may be the US way, but Wikipedia should not be encouraging the English language to fall apart like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, that's your personal opinion. My point is that here on Wikipedia, that's not our convention. Our convention is to base article titles on what people call the concepts under discussion, and in cases where there is any question what someone might mean, to use disambiguation pages. This proposal comes down to a single question: is it likely that someone using the word "corvette" or "Corvette", unadorned with any descriptors, overwhelmingly likely to mean the type of ship? The origin of the term is irrelevant, as is the fact that one of the other uses of the term is commercial in nature. The only question is whether we're getting readers to the article they seek. Powers T 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
          • If that's the question, then leave the names as they are. WP:DISAMBIGUATION says "can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily", not "straight to the page at one click". A hatnote here will do the trick, and users looking for the ship won't have to go round the houses. Shem (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
            • One could make that argument for any ambiguous title in the encyclopedia. Yet we still have cases where the disambiguation page is at the base name. Why do you suppose that is? Powers T 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no issue here. The car is called the Chevrolet Corvette, so there is no actual conflict. I am almost entirely a car article contributor, if anyone is keeping count.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I quoted WP:TITLECHANGES earlier, and Jenks24 told me it was irrelevant. For those who are not inclined to check it, here are the relevant bits:
    • If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.
    • Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.
      Shem (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    But there is a good reason to change it - if the ship type is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Corvette". Redirecting Corvette to the car page or to a disambiguation page would be an improvement for the readers of Wikipedia. That's why WP:TITLECHANGES doesn't apply here. Dohn joe (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    I don't know why you persist with this. Clearly there is no consensus for it, and it would be bound to be controversial. WP:TITLECHANGES applies to, er..., changes of title, so it is laughable to suggest it doesn't apply here. The proposal fails WP:TITLECHANGES on every count. I refer you to my second point above - let's get on with improving Wikipedia rather than debating controversial titles. Shem (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    I refer you to the first point above, specifically, "and there is no good reason to change it". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the good reason to change here. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is probably one of the top three good reasons to change titles, along with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:D. As to the second point -- debating controversial titles is "often" (not always) unproductive -- the only reason this title is controversial is because it is conflict with naming policy. Once it is properly disambiguated, it will no longer be controversial. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Another comment. Moving Corvette to Corvette (ship) will break a number of templates, including {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}}, and so hundreds of current links such as Flower-class corvette (the second part, obviously) will redirect readers to an unrelated car or dab page. Shem (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Links change all the time. If this move request is successful, I'd be happy to help with the link fixing. Dohn joe (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    It's not about links. Find out about the templates above, and you'll understand why it's a real problem. Shem (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    The templates seem to support disambiguation, as with Minesweeper (ship). Couldn't you just add "|ship" to the template where required? I admit I don't deal much with templates, though, so maybe you can tell me what the problem is. Dohn joe (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    The problem is finding the pages that use it in the first place, because as far as I'm aware, they don't appear at Special:WhatLinksHere/Corvette. Perhaps you can tell me how to do it? In any case, there are literally thousands of links even without the templates, and I don't think the proposed move (even if it made some sort of sense - which it doesn't) would be worth the effort of changing every one of them. There would have to be something fundamentally wrong with the title to make it worth the effort - and there isn't. Shem (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Well, the templates do appear on Special:WhatLinksHere/Corvette, and there must have been a server lag the first time I tried to check it. Nevertheless, the point remains that there are 2,009 (at last count) articles that link to corvette. It is interesting to note that only 50 pages (at time of counting) link to Chevrolet Corvette. That in itself says a lot about the lack of merit in changing the title. Shem (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Those are just the first 50 pages. If you go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Chevrolet Corvette, and select the 500 page view, you'll see that there are nearly 1,000 pages that link to the Chevrolet car (990 by my count). Dohn joe (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Good point - I could have sworn I chose the 500-per page view (after all, I counted every last one!). Still, under 1,000 to over 2,000 remains a fair ratio in favour of the ship type, I'd suggest. Shem (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    It's enough to show that the ship article has more links, but the ratio is not even close enough to meet the standard of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined — to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box." --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since I posted my !vote yesterday, there has been commentary written in response that only bolsters my point that there is no evidence that this topic is primary.

    First, Epipelagic asserted Powers and I are not correct in saying that the ship is not the primary topic. Epi's argument? That the car is not the primary topic, making my point that "most of those who oppose this move do not have much experience with Wikipedia article naming policy and guidelines". If one use of a name (the car) is not the primary topic for a given name then that is not relevant to the question of whether some other use (the ship) is primary!

    Next, in Epi's Oppose !vote, he argues that the ship was the original usage and the car is based on it, completely ignoring primary topic criteria. Powers already responded to this more than adequately.

    Next, Shem referred to WP:TITLECHANGES, arguing that established titles should not be changed without good reason. Dohn Joe noted that there is good reason... WP:PRIMARYTOPIC!

    Finally, Shem also responded with the ultimate WP:JDLI argument: "there is no consensus to change". This is clearly confusing !vote counts with consensus. I quote from WP:JDLI: "Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions.". I also responded, above.

    I urge the closing admin to review and consider Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it#Title_discussions before making a final decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

    The last resort of those who cannot achieve consensus; accuse the opposing view of WP:JDLI. I believe it is appropriate in these discussions to respond with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT! Shem (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I was, of course, just mirroring back your rather spectacular non-argument, Born2cycle. You made no case whatsoever for redirecting "corvette" to a car, and now you seem oblivious to the irony in having your "argument" reflected back to you. Are these pronouncements of yours, where you "urge the closing admin", anything beyond empty posturings by someone who has no real case? --Epipelagic (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I never argued that "corvette" should redirect to a car. The proposal here, the one I support, is putting a dab page at Corvette. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Question. Purely out of interest, how many of those commenting in this discussion were made aware of it by the note at WT:SHIPS#Requested move? Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have struck out my above question as it was more than a bit pointed. Apologies, Jenks24 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I ensured that both sides in this debate would be aware of the debate, hence my posting to WP:CARS even though I oppose the request made. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather merge into Littoral combat ship, which seems to be the modern term for the concept. Hcobb (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just wrong. That's a very US POV, since it's only the US that considers it that. Further, it doesn't really matter what the modern concept is, since in the past they were most definitely not littoral. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: while I personally believe more people would be looking for the car article as opposed to the ship, the car's name is disambiguated with the "Chevrolet" prefix. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
As car articles should be titled with a two-part format (Make Model) - and continue to remain that way - per the established WP convention for naming automobile articles! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Titles - CZmarlin (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Have any of the oppose !votes read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC...? Dohn joe (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but did either of you (OSX or CZmarlin) actually read the nomination? No one is proposing to move the car article... Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I am deeply familiar with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I disagree that it supports the proposed move. You assert that it does. That is why there is no consensus for a move. Stop disregarding all the oppose !votes simply because you happen to disagree with them. Shem (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Look, with due respect to the "I don't mean to be rude" brigade above, which seem to attack those of us who oppose on the grounds that we are ignorant, a corvette is a boat, and not a car. And redirecting it to a Chevrolet product, where Chevrolet is levering off the image of a corvette for a temporary marketing advantage, is not a good idea. I appreciate some people from the US feel strongly about that. If you feel strongly, then why not create a version of Wikipedia for US patriots? But outside the US, over 19 out of 20 people are not US citizens. This version of Wikipedia is meant to make sense to us as well. And it should not be trying to redefine the English language on the basis of Google counts. To me, and I confess I am not a US citizen, Wikipedia redirecting "corvette" to a US consumer product is seriously bizarre. Even the people who have come here from WikiProject Automobiles oppose the move. (Bye the way, as a personal, and irrelevant aside, I love Chevrolet Corvettes, and that has nothing to do with what is actually a corvette). --Epipelagic (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm the only one to use the phrase "I don't mean to be rude" in this discussion, I will assume this comment was directed at me. Firstly, the reason for the "I don't mean to be rude" comment is that I think OSX and CZmarlin have actually misunderstood what this RM entails. No one is trying to move the Chevrolet Corvette article, merely determine the primary topic of the term "Corvette". Secondly, whether you wish it or not, Chevrolet's temporary marketing ploy (of over 50 years) has entered the public consciousness. Thirdly, as I have stated already in this discussion, I am not American. I have never even been to the US. I am Australian. I don't think I have ever edited an article on any type of car, but before seeing this discussion at RM I had only ever heard the term "Corvette" in relation to the car and, perhaps I'm an ignorant buffoon, but I didn't know the car was named after a ship type (or indeed that there was a ship type with such a name). I then checked and google agreed that the majority of people (worldwide) see the car type as the primary topic of the term. As for "[Wikipedia] should not be trying to redefine the English language on the basis of Google counts", I am literally begging you to please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which clearly does state that google is one of the ways to find the primary topic. All this being said, this RM will clearly end in a "no consensus" close and is pointless for us to keep debating this. The only reason for this long-winded reply is to correct some of the inaccuracies in your statement. Just edit conflicted with you so I will address you last sentence as well; we are not determining "what is actually a corvette", we are determining what article the majority of readers will expect to find when they type "Corvette" in the search box. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of what this discussion pertains to. My point was in reference to "Chevrolet Corvette" being the title of the car, not "Corvette". There are only two primary uses of the term "corvette" and the hatnote for the car at the top of this article works fine. A disambiguation page would not result in any less clicks for the car article, but would add an extra step in getting to the ship article.
As a side note, I took the opposite stance last year at Talk:Plymouth because firstly, there were three primary topics, and secondly, two were very notable locations (the other was a defunct automotive brand). As the ship and car are completely different topics, with the car only having "Corvette" as part of its name, I don't feel that it is necessary to make this a DAB page. If the car was actually called "Corvette" (i.e. no "Chevrolet" prefix), then I would most likely support the proposal. Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 08:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(an arbitrary break)

  • Comment and proposal. Okay folks - I've got some hard numbers for people to consider. Check out the article traffic stats for Corvette (disambiguation). The Corvette article changed its hatnote to direct people to Chevrolet Corvette on April 27. For the last three days of April, the pageviews for the dab page immediately dropped over ninety percent. Which means that about 160 people a day who went to Corvette were actually looking for Chevrolet Corvette.

    It doesn't actually give us much more proof one way or the other as to what the primary topic for "Corvette" is, but it gave me an idea. Why don't why try a test to see what Wikipedia readers think the primary topic is? We could move Corvette to Corvette (disambiguation) for a short, fixed period (one or two weeks should be sufficient), and then we look at the stats. With everyone who types "Corvette" going to the dab page, we should be able to figure out how many are going the ship type, and how many are going to the car model. The disruption to WP would be minimal (a few days over the life of the project). If anyone has an idea how to make this a better experiment, feel free. But does anyone like the basic thought of gathering empirical evidence for a short period? Dohn joe (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment those who come to corvette seeking a car have to make one click to get to the article they seek. You are proposing to make those who come here seeking the ship have to do the same (which is not currently the case). In addition you will break over 2,000 links "for one or two weeks". You ignore the opposition of large numbers of editors who understand the a "corvette" is a ship and a "Chevrolet Corvette" is a car. It cannot be helped that large numbers of readers seek their car article from a name which has a (separate) primary meaning. No, I do not support your experiment, and I urge you to drop this move request, for which there is no consensus. Shem (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Page view statistics are vulnerable to manipulation. The proposed experiment is not needed anyway, since it has become clear over the past five days that there is practically no support for this move (except from two or three extremely tenacious editors). If will be a happy day when this is closed. —Diiscool (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You're both right - the "experiment" probably wasn't the brightest of ideas. I was just struck by the immediate drop in people going to the dab page.

And I very much understand the position of the opposers. There is no doubt that the ship type was named first, and that Chevrolet named its car after the ship. And that it can be appealing to have the article at the original use of the word.

What frustrates me, though, is the lack of recognition by some of the opposers that the word "Corvette", on its own, can mean both a ship type and a car model - in other words, that they're homonyms. Or, similarly, that "Chevrolet Corvette" and "Corvette" can mean the same thing - they're synonyms. And without that recognition, it's difficult to have a productive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion, because we're discussing apples and oranges.

Finally, it's not quite "practically no support" for the move - it's been running about 30% in favor. Dohn joe (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is determined not by counting votes, but by evaluating the strength of the arguments, especially in terms of how much they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions. The only oppose argument has no such basis whatsoever. They simply assert the ship is the primary topic, without giving any reason for it whatsoever that has anything to do with what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says. There is no evidence from google searches of any kind that supports the notion that the ship is the primary topic. The page view counts are useless since anyone typing in Corvette will be taken directly to the ship article regardless of what they are seeking. The only link count evidence indicates that the ship has about twice as many links as the car, a far cry from the domination that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires. The fact of the matter is is that there clearly is no primary topic for "Corvette", and, so, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:D the dab page should be moved to Corvette, without regard to how many people oppose it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; the ship type is not the primary topic for this title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
No sooner has Born2cycle argued that mere assertion is not sufficient to counter his (by his own admission) beautifully crafted arguments, than the support camp comes up with a piece of simple assertion. Wonderful - you couldn't make it up! Shem (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so discount that assertion, as long as you do the same for bald assertions on the "oppose" side. Big deal. (The timing is somewhat humorous, though.) Dohn joe (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I should have said, based on the data included in the move proposal, it is obvious that the ship type is not the primary topic for the title "Corvette". Instead, the indication is that the topic covered by the article title Chevrolet Corvette is the primary topic of the title "Corvette", and so this article should be moved (as proposed) and the title Corvette should be turned into a redirect to the primary topic; once that is done, the primary topic article would have a hatnote added noting that "Corvette" redirects there and for other uses readers should go to Corvette (disambiguation) instead. However, since there appears to be a very vocal group of editors (not readers) who disagree with the primacy of the automobile for the title, instead we could have no primary topic and, once the article on the ship type is moved, we would move the disambiguation page to the base name. The arguments about what the automobile article is actually titled are irrelevant to what is the primary topic for this title; that's what redirects and the {{Redirect}} hatnote are for. Article placements and navigational pages such as disambiguations and redirects are often poorly arranged for the benefit of editors, instead of properly arranged for the benefit of readers, because the editors at the move request discussions are usually not familiar with the disambiguation guidelines. I hope that makes my assertion clearer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: based on traffic statistics there is no primary topic, so we should have a disambiguation page at Corvette. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed per User:Mrand, and other arguments both here and from the 2009 discussion. On the subject of the primary topic argument, which seems a major bone of contention, it relies on their being some ambiguity about the word; but any number of dictionaries will tell you the only meaning of word "corvette" is the warship. The name of the car is taken from the name of the ship (unless it’s derived from the French word for a basket). And WPPT only applies if there is a need for disambiguation; the car article is already disambiguated, and no likelihood of the car article simply being at “Corvette” satisfying WP:TITLE, so there is no conflict save the one being manufactured here. What WPPT does say is that tools such as Google searches (3:1 in favour of the car) or WP links (2:1 in favour of the ship), or article traffic (which apparently shouldn't be trusted, as they are too easy to fix) are not determining factors; "decisions are made by discussion between editors", which are currently running at 2:1 opposed. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Dictionary ≠ encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the latter. So saying the only definition of "corvette" is a warship according to a bunch of dictionaries doesn't mean much. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    Exactly. The metrics you are referring to are not the metrics used to figure out what may or may not be the primary topic of a title in Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed. This is exactly the kind of reasoning I'm talking about when I say many of those in opposition to this move seem to be unfamiliar with how titles are decided in Wikipedia in general, and in particular with respect to what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC means and how it is applied. Though they may not realize, what those in opposition are essentially arguing is that this article about the type of ship is a WP:VITAL article - it's so "important" that it "should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users". The problem, of course, is that this article is not vital. But that does not keep the opposition from arguing as if it is. Again, I hope the closing admin has the gumption to weigh these arguments accordingly - by discounting them entirely. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a hatnote is fine for those who are looking for the car model. pablo 12:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    A hatnote would also be fine (and even better) for the smaller group who are looking for the ship type. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
But as there is no great margin between those searching for the car and those searching for the type of ship there seems no point at all in the move. pablo 05:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've looked at page view stats for March and it would appear that the car is getting roughly twice as many hits as the ship and in my opinion that is not enough of a margin to determine a primary topic. With that in mind I would suggest there should normally be a disambiguation page here but I don't see the point. If this page is a disambiguation page both those looking for the ship and the car have to click once from this page. If on the other hand the ship remains here those looking for the ship don't have to click at all and those for the car only once (given the new and improved hat note) and so we actually disadvantage readers by turning this inot a disambiguation page. I ignore here the other minor used, where admitingly two clicks are currently required versuses one for the disambigution page but this only affects a minority of searches. Hence I think there's only two viable options a) the ship stays here (if there is no primary topic) or b) this redirects to the car (if the car is he primary topic) as having a disambiguation page here doesn't make sense. I think there is no primary topic so I oppose the move. Dpmuk (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    I do not understand. If you think there is no primary topic, then you should support the move, because the current arrangement incorrectly has the ship type as the primary topic. (Or, if you are using the efficiency argument, note that the car article can be the target of a redirect from Corvette and the fewer readers who are looking for the ship type could reach it in one click from a hatnote there, and that would be in reader efficiency superior to leaving the ship type at the base name.) In both of those solutions (dab at the base name, redirect to the car at the base name), first the ship type article needs to be moved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    OK, I'll expand my reasoning a bit. First on the subject of primary topic. I believe a two-to-one ratio is inconclusive in this case as to what is the primary topic as it's impossible to know all the variables - for example how many people that reached the car searched for it using the full title and so don't contribute to what is the primary topic for just "Corvette". As such I'd like to see a larger margin to determine a firm primary topic. Yes by leaving the ship here that would appear to show the ship as primary topic and so may be not be the balanced view but what is at issue here is what's good for the readers and having something appear to be primary topic when it isn't is a nuance likely to be lost on most readers. In this isntance there is a natural disambiguate for one subject, Chevrolet Corvette, that a) is in line with usual wikipedia practice and b) is likely not to be a surprise to the readers, unlike Corvette (ship). As such I find that having the ship appear to be the primary topic when it actually isn't is the best solution as it inconviences readers less than a disambiguation page. I'm happy to be persuaded that the car is the primary topic in which I agree a redirect is appropiate but in the absence of a primary topic I think the current situation is best. Dpmuk (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    Your last statement means "In the absence of a primary topic, I think a primary topic is best", since the current situation identifies the ship type as the primary topic. Two-to-one is not inconclusive; the criteria are "more than all others and much more than any other". Twice as much as the other is indeed much more. You are right that the measurements are inexact, but they are inexact and still useful across Wikipedia; the only way to get exact measurements would be to move the dab page to the base name and use exclusive redirects for all of the topics and then check the traffic on those exclusive redirects, which we rarely do but have done in the cases where the status quo editors were deeply entrenched against the change suggested by the inexact measures. Again, the question of "what is the proper title for the article Chevrolet Corvette on Wikipedia" is different than the question "what is the primary topic for the title "corvette" on Wikipedia" -- that Chevrolet Corvette has a "natural" unique title does not prohibit it from being the primary topic of other titles. (See also Z-car.) Yes, what's best for the readers is what's important here. Leaving an article that fewer readers want at the "0-clicks away" position instead of moving that one out of the way so more readers can be better served is not serving the readership. How did you determine the inconvenience of either arrangement on the readership? The given information contradicts your conclusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, it effictively does mean "In the absence of a primary topic, I think a primary topic is best" as I think that's what's best for readers. You may disagree, as you have every right to, but that's my point of view and I'm not going to change that. I also differ from you in that in this instance I don't think two-to-one is conclusive, largely because whereas the car may be known by other terms (mainly "Chevrolet Corvette") the ship is not. If half of the people who searched for the car searched for "Chevrolet Corvette" then we have no primary topic for "Corvette" as each topic is equally likely (as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is based on what readers search for). Although I think such a large number of people searching using "Chevrolet Corvette" is unlikely I do think it's likely that a sufficent number of readers do to bring it down to below the "much more likely than any other" standard required to be a primary topic. I do not use the arguement that because the car has a natural disambiguator it probhit's it from being the primary topic for another title - my arguement is based on there being no primary topic. Essentially our disagreement comes down to the fact that you feel the car is the primary topic and I do not. I respect that's your conclusion and that it's based on your reading of our policy and guidelines and I asked that you do the same of mine and do not continue to question my knowledge of our guidelines and policy which is what I take your above statement to be. I think your continuing arguing, and lack of respect for other editors position, is not helping this move discussion and is likely to be counter-productive to your point of view. As such I'm going to stop discussing this with you. We obviously have different opinions, I doubt either one of us is going to change the other's mind and as we've both made our points of view obvious I see little point in continuing this. Dpmuk (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    I have to say, Dpmuk, yours is the first well-reasoned !vote in opposition I've seen, and I respect your consideration of the readers in all this - which should always be the prime consideration in whatever decisions we as WP editors make. Just to flesh out your position a little - are you saying that a basename should never point to a disambiguation page? In other words, when there is no primary topic for a term, pick one anyway and have the basename be that article's title? With the advantage being that at least some readers are saved from hatnotes and dab pages. Or would you put it differently? Dohn joe (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    In many cases yes it does, although it depends on a judgement call on how many "likely" topics there are. If there are only two or three likely topics then this can be dealt with by a hat note (if neccessary including a disambiguation page as well if there are less likely topics) as readers looking for one of the likely topics will have to make 0 or 1 clicks as opposed to always 1 with a disambiguation page. If there are more likely topics than this then a disambiguation page at the main title is probably neccessary as a hat not probably couldn't deal with it and linking to a disambiguation page in the hat notes means readers will have to make 0 or 2 clicks to reach a "likely" topic and this changes the balance.
    I think, that at the moment, this isn't normally how things are done but in this case it seems to make even more sense as there is a natural disambiguator that we would use any way for one article. I also note that policy and guidelines are meant to be driven by what's happening "on the ground" not the other way round and as they are quiet on this issue I think it's quite reasonable to suggest something that may be new here. Dpmuk (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
              • I agree this is the best oppose argument presented - really the only one that can't just be dismissed for not understanding the fundamentals of WP naming. But by this reasoning there should not be dab pages, but articles, at (for example) Hairpin, Mustang, Maverick, Ground and Hammerhead (and countless other examples), but that's just not how it's done in Wikipedia, not in terms of policy, guidelines or conventions. Those are all dab pages, despite each having one original meaning, as they should be, and so should be Corvette, for essentially the same reasons.

                Dpmuk is certainly free to argue that that should change, and all these and countless other similar dab pages should be moved so that the article about the "original" meaning of the name could be at the base name, but I think it's pretty clear there is no consensus for that view, and, I suggest, for good reason. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I would like to point out that my reasoning has nothing what so ever to do with the "original" meaning - in my opinion the original meaning holds little merit in most cases. I also disagree that what I'm saying here applies to any of the examples you give and so I think you've somewhat misunderstood my arguement. In each case there are multiple articles that are likely to be highly searched for and so can't be dealt with by hat notes and so a disambiguation page is the only option. I do not, however, believe this to be the case in this instance. The reason I think what I'm suggesting works in this case is that a) there are only two articles that are likely to heavily searched for and b) there is a natural disambiguator for one and not the other. It's b) that I think makes this case a good example as although, in principle, it is not neccessary for my arguement it could well be a pratical reason for not doing this in all cases as it may be impossible to decide what should go at the base name. Dpmuk (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose But since this isn't a vote, a bit more. Although many of us accept that Wikipedia is US dominated, and all sorts of policies have been driven by it, the stated intention is to move away from that, and in particular that the English language version is the international one. It has been pointed out that in the ordinary and accepted meaning of the word corvette is a warship. It would never occur to me that the primary meaning is otherwise, and I would be surprised to be taken to a page about a car. If it is really thought to be problem for US users, then a disambiguation page seems the right solution but I take the point about the work involved. There were a lot of corvettes, and only one car model. --AJHingston (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    Reader surprise is certainly a great criterion, and one of the reasons I'd favor placing the disambiguation page at the base name instead of the automobile. (As an aside, I anticipate that "global English" will shift from US-influence to India-influence over the next two or three decades.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The internet provides no reliable evidence for deciding this, but the unmodified, uncapitalised word "corvette" is unambiguous. Srnec (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with you, just as I'm sure most people would agree that the unmodified, capitalized word "Corvette" unambiguously refers to the car. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between "Corvette" and "corvette" when it comes to titling articles (o! that it would), so we still need to make a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC decision. Given WP's shortcomings, do you have an opinion thereto? Dohn joe (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    The ship. No matter whether more people talk about the car, the primary meaning is the ship. It came first, the car was named after it, and the car has not obliterated memory of the ship, which is still widely known. It might not be as well known as jaguars or impalas, but in both the latter cases the car also seems to dominate my Google searches. I have to go with my gut on this one. Srnec (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    This !vote also ignores Wikipedia policies and guidelines in favor of gut. Wikipedia primary topic is not about what came first. Please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    I am entitled to ignore all policies and guidelines in favour of gut. Tat is one of our core policies. Here's another: the primary topic is determined by discussions among editors (consensus). I gave reasons why nothing has been shown to demand a change. And why hasn't somebody proposed a move at Talk:Jaguar? But just for you, because I'm nice: there are 2,011 incoming links to this page, but less than 1,000 for the page Chevrolet Corvette. Clearly we know what the "in-wiki" primary topic is, and that is as good evidence as anything Google could dredge up. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    Actually, no, we are allowed to ignore all policies and guidelines in favor of improving the encyclopedia. WP:IAR is not an excuse to ignore policies and guidelines that do improve the encyclopedia in favor of your preferences. But just for you: incoming wikilinks to a base name are an even poorer measure than traffic stats. The "in-wiki" primary topic could be measured by incoming wikilinks to a base-name disambiguation page, but that isn't what we have here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    Wrong on all counts. It should have been obvious that by "I am entitled. . ." I meant that I was entitled to argue from something other than policies and guidelines. I said nothing about my preferences. "Gut" is not preferences. If I had wanted to vote NDP but thought that the Tories would win, then I would say my preference was for the NDP but my gut said that the Tories would win. My gut says that this should stay as is, but I gave other arguments (more than one). This article is the primary topic "in-wiki" precisely because it is more linked-to, that is, it is more mentioned within Wikipedia. That does not mean more Wikipedians care about ships than cars, or that more people view one page or the other, just that within Wikipedia we have more to say about this corvette than that corvette. I suppose it's possible that many of those links should go to the car's page, but that's not obvious from scanning them (and there are more than twice as many). I suspect you didn't understand what I meant by "in-wiki primary topic". But when Wikipedia usually has a recentist, pop cultural bias, I find this evidence persuasive. But where is the evidence that the Chevy is the primary topic? Where is the Google-inspired move request at Talk:Jaguar? —Srnec (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    The difference between Jaguar and Corvette should be obvious. The animal jaguar is universally recognized by English speakers (and thus the primary topic for Jaguar), whereas the ship type corvette is a relatively obscure word not nearly as commonly recognized. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - as long as Chevrolet Corvette (the actual name of the car) and Corvette (a kind of ship) are both available for their respective topics, I don't see how there is a conflict at all? No one is proposing moving the car article to Corvette, which would be the only true reason to displace a valid and relevant article to a DAB page.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

From WP:PRECISE:

If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead.

Chevrolet Corvette fits this guideline perfectly. There is no need to shorten the article name when the longer one is more natural, while also avoiding the need for a dab page.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have said this a few times before, but it's fairly long discussion, so I can understand how you missed it. No one is suggesting the Chevrolet Corvette article be moved. This discussion is to find the primary topic of the term "Corvette" (or "corvette"). Jenks24 (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of that, and stated it myself a few lines earlier. I provide this as an example that there is no ambiguity here - and ambiguity is the only reason to look for a primary topic. Corvette is one thing, Chevrolet Corvette another. Thus, no ambiguity, and no need to discuss which one is the primary topic. (restated at bottom of discussion)  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support -- the title "Corvette" is ambiguous. If a user enters that term into the search box, there is a substantial probability that they may be looking for an article about the car, or some other topic (the video game or the pinball machine, etc.). There is also a substantial probability that they may be looking for this article about the ship, but based on the information above we cannot possibly say that it is "far more likely" that searchers are looking for the ship than the car. Therefore, "Corvette" should be the title of a disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Jaguar has been brought up as a counter-example a few times, but "jaguar" is universally known, used and understood by English speakers to refer to the animal. Better example might be Hairpin and Mustang which, though common words in English, are not as commonly used as "jaguar" (and yet much better known than "corvette" the ship type), and are still dab pages. This is how it's done in Wikipedia. Primary topic has a very special meaning... please read about it: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (it's not that long). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no problem here, so why do you keep trying to "fix" it, especially when "fixing" it will break 2,000 links? You are considering a change of title here, so you need to bear in mind Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes. It says If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. So, since this article title has been stable since November 2002, it goes without saying that it should not be changed. Messing around with the title for marginal, if any, benefit (and plenty of editors here contend that there is no benefit) will require many, many hours of work to resolve. Fixing the links is not likely to be done effectively by bots since many of them will be piped or inside the "sclass" template. Readers are already well served by the hatnote, which is at least as effective as a DAB page in directing them to the car article (and therefore the links to the car article are at least as good as hundreds of thousands of articles found via DAB pages). Please drop this poorly conceived idea, which has already been rejected twice by the community (2006 & 2009). Shem (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • How many times must it be pointed out that compliance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a "good reason to change" (one of the best, actually)? How many times? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The heart of the matter: many, many editors disagree with your assertion that the primary topic of Corvette is a car, and feel instead, despite the hectoring about Google and traffic stats, that the wikilinks and the meaning of the words involved lead them to conclude that a corvette is a warship, and that the Chevrolet Corvette is best found by readers via the hatnote. In failing to convince the community that there is a good reason to change the title, you fail WP:TITLECHANGES. Attacking the reasoning, motivation and good will of opposing editors here long ago lost any point except to irritate and to clog up the servers. Why persist? WP:TITLECHANGES goes on to say Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia, and I urge you to do so. Shem (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
        • While debating controversial titles might be unproductive, that's not what's going on here. What is unproductive about this discussion is your repeating of unproductive straw man arguments!

          How many times must it be explained that while a few (not me) might be suggesting that the car might be the primary topic for "corvette", the main issue here is about whether the ship type meets the primary topic criteria, and the fact that it clearly does not even come close to doing so! How many times? Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:D, the ship type is not the primary topic for "corvette" and therefore should not be at Corvette, and that's a very good reason, to move it, arguably the best reason to ever move anything. That's the argument. If you can address that, then please do. If you all you can do is repeat your straw man arguments, please don't. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I feel the relisting of this proposal is not entirely in good faith. IMHO a relisting is only justified as an attempt to break a deadlock, not for giving "losers" extra time to recruit more "votes" in their favour. Take a look at the history of this article - this is at least the third time this move has been proposed and the same arguments get regurgitated every time and so far has been clearly defeated every time. Just accept it and let go. Roger (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    That it keeps being proposed may be due to the validity of the arguments for moving it. Maybe we should just move it and let it go? And please don't make sideways digs at Vegaswikian's good faith; either ask him or her about the action or report it at the appropriate noticeboard. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, and a good reason to relist is when a discussion is dominated by fans of the topic of the article, and has not had much attention from people familiar without how titles in WP are named. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the existing page names and hatnote are perfectly adequate. I see no compelling reason to change. In fact I wish the people flogging this dead horse would read the WP:SNOW link posted as the closure reason for the time this was rejected in 2009. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"I see no compelling reason" says someone who gives no indication whatsoever that he has even read the proposal and the reasons behind it, much less the discussion that follows. Have you read the discussion? Have you read WP:D in general and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in particular? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment To be fair to everyone, I hope, it hardly surprising that the debate has been confused. Firstly, there isn't a consensus on the policy, which is currently the subject of an RfC discussion and there are some who think that the 'base meaning' of a word should be a consideration. After all it is an encyclopedia and there is resentment in some quarters at the way that commercial enterprises can claim to take possession of, and sometimes even trade mark, a word with an established meaning (just as there is usually a preference in dictionaries for the original meaning of a word over a modern slang usage, eg 'wicked'). The feeling is real and need have nothing to do with being a ship lover. Secondly, it seems to me that there are actually three options that people are choosing between. 1 keep things as now. 2 reverse the current position with the redirect to the car. 3 redirect to a disambiguation page leaving users to pick what they are looking for. My congratulations to anyone who actually does try to come to terms with the policy, reads this discussion and is able to express a reasoned and relevant argument. I'm not sure I can claim that. --AJHingston (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • One person proposing a change in a discussion in which maybe a handful are participating and none of which seem to think it's very important to change is hardly evidence that there isn't consensus on the policy. There is certainly no evidence of any consensus favoring a change that would affect how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC affects this case, or other similar ones. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Except that I think that this debate is part of the discussion, and I wasn't just referring to the RfC debate itself. My point about the resentment about words being taken over was mainly from outside Wikipedia altogether, and whilst in an abstract discussion it may seem unimportant it takes an example to test it.--AJHingston (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the word corvette means a type of ship. Various commercial products have been named corvette and a page called Corvette (disambiguation) would seem in order.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Erm, that is already a bluelink... Also, "the word corvette means a type of ship"; according to who? Jenks24 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      • That great source of word meanings, the dictionary, says so. Every dictionary I can check says so - and so do those linked above by Xyl 54. Wikipedia is indeed not a dictionary, so it is interesting to note that the Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article on the ship, but not on the car. Shem (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't see any need for the hatnote to mention the car - leave that to the disambiguation page.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Most people here, even those in opposition to the move, seem to support the hatnote specifically mentioning the car. It seems like a reasonable compromise. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I have to disagree with User:Necrothesp, this is just not the US, I asked around a few friends what a corvette was and they all replied with something like "GRP car with a big V8, and you'll never get insurance in the UK, but I'd love to drive one!" I think this is one of a very few isolated case where the car make has traditionally been dropped by all the media - just the same as an "E-type" - no one says Jaguar E-type, the make is so implicit.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that ambiguity is why one needs to find out which is the primary topic. However, I would argue that there is no ambiguity here - Corvette is one thing, Chevrolet Corvette another. Thus, no ambiguity, and no need to discuss which one is the primary topic.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    This is incorrect. The car and the ship type are both referred to as "Corvette". The article on the car type referred to as "Corvette" is titled "Chevrolet Corvette", but that does not remove the ambiguity. Similarly, Churchill has a primary topic, and the article on that topic is titled Winston Churchill. As has been pointed out already, there are two questions: which (if any) ambiguous topic is primary for the title "Corvette", separate from the question of how should each ambiguous topic's article's title be disambiguated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    It was almost a week ago that LtPowers noted, "The sheer number of fallacious, erroneous, and irrelevant arguments in this discussion is mind-boggling.". And yet, they continue. Maybe, just maybe, your tireless explanations will penetrate someone's cranium. We can hope. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, it must be hard for you both, surrounded by us neanderthals. This discussion is highlighting disturbing flaws in the way some people interpret the guidelines concerning disambiguation, and given the tenacity of these editors, it raises questions about what is happening elsewhere. Wikipedia should not be embarked on a campaign to destabilise the English language. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    I invite all to read WP:PRECISE; and I quote: "If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead [of disambiguation]." Corvette and Chevrolet Corvette are automatically disambiguated by the fact that they naturally receive two different titles.
    Additionally, Churchill is a very bad analogy. There are forty odd pages listed on the Churchill dab page, and none have any sort of claim at primacy over Winston Churchill (nor between each other). It is nothing at all like the situation at the Corvette (disambiguation) page.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    You really don't get it, do you? What you just quoted from WP:PRECISE explains why the article about the car is at Chevrolet Corvette rather than at something like Corvette (car). It says nothing about the ship type (which is what this proposal is about) because there is no natural disambiguator for the ship type.

    With regard to what does apply to the ship type at WP:PRECISE, look at the bullet right above the one from which you quoted, which states: "If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification." The ship type is neither the primary topic (how it does not meet primary topic criteria has been explained multiple times above) nor the only topic for the desired title "Corvette" (see Corvette (disambiguation) for why the ship type is not the only topic for the desired title "Corvette").

    Thus, per WP:PRECISE, it's not true that the article about the ship type "can take that title without modification"... it requires disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

    Epipelagic, please do not conflate us just because we happen to be arguing the same side of this issue. I agree with you about the over-the-top tone of Born2cycle's notes. I am also disturbed by the flaws in the interpretation of the guidelines; with this discussion I noted on the dab guidelines that the primary topic criteria should be removed with a note that the editors at each title should reach separate consensus on how to determine the primary topic for that title, because that is what happens in the wild -- the guidelines are ignored or followed haphazardly, depending on whether they support the pre-established consensus. WP:IAR is the only guideline for determining primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    Mr. Choppers, WP:PRECISE is about the title for a topic (here's an article on topic X, what title should it have?). WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about the topic of a title (here's a title X, what topic should it lead to?). The only thing bad about the Churchill analogy is that is doesn't support your view, but perhaps Ubuntu fits better: two claimants for primacy, one named for the other, but the disambiguation page at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / everything mentionned above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You mean everything mentioned above that has been thoroughly refuted? I don't understand why people even make contributions like this. If closing admins did their jobs right, a !vote like this would count for nothing. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Dropping hints to the closing admin again, eh? Classy. Hopefully the closing admin will not, however, ignore your repeated insults and relentless badgering of everyone whose conclusions differ from your own. State your case and move on. pablo 09:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, point taken about the insults (directed at comments, not editors), but seriously, with I believe only one exception, Dpmuk's rather unique take, the oppose side has only shared their conclusions, without a hint of the reasoning that they supposedly used to get there.

What is one supposed to think of Headbomb's "conclusion"? What is he referring to? "Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC"? How so? Who has even argued that anything there supports the oppose side? The first mention of PT on the oppose side, after multiple explanations of how it supports the Support side, is that of Shem, who argues that it does not apply in this case, but he backed off from this stand when challenged, saying instead he doesn't really see a problem here. Later there is Mjroots who refers to "primary topic", but when challenged, reveals his reasoning is not based on anything that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually says, or anything at all really, except his personal opinion that the old word "should" be the "primary topic". And so it goes, on and on. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That was your 19th posting in this discussion! One posting would have been enough to make your point, which seems to be that if anyone disagrees with you their opinion should count for nothing.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Make it 20. My point here has nothing to do with me or my opinion - it is that anyone who contributes to any discussion like this should explain the reasoning behind their opinion/conclusion, like Dpmuk did, not just fly by to merely state their Support or Oppose opinion as if we determine consensus by counting !votes. Maybe I'm biased, but it seems like from the outset the Support side has done a much better job of this than has the Oppose side (again, excepting Dpmuk, whose contribution here should be commended). And when they have attempted to explain their reasoning, again excepting Dpmuk, they've mostly displayed a lack of understanding about how articles are titled at WP, often with the same error repeated by different people (like PT does not apply because the car is at a different title). Regardless of what happens here, a big part of my motivation is that maybe somebody will learn something here, and do better at the next RM discussion in which they participate. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Toddy1, they are "Requested move discussions", not "Requested move points". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you really want to know why it is hard for people to explain the proposed move is a bad idea? I doubt it. But since you have obliquely asked, I will try to explain why I think it is hard to do so politely:
The idea that the primary meaning of the word "corvette" is a family of cars that I had never heard of before makes no sense to me. My guess is that quite a lot of other people think the same. However it is not polite to say this. It is also really hard to conceive that Wikipedia would really make this change. It is rather like some person saying that the primary meaning of Apple is the computer company, and demanding that his local supermarket stop calling a type of fruit an apple, because he says it is confusing.
(I have tried to tone down this, to make it as inoffensive as possible.)--Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Toddy - I am a naval neophyte, and had never heard of a corvette as a ship type before, but I've known about the car my entire life. Quite a lot of people in the world are in that situation as well - and to them, it would make no sense that the primary meaning of "corvette" is a type of ship that they've never heard of.

But we can't base our editing decisions on our own personal ignorances. This is why we have tools like Google Books, which is a collection of published books that spans centuries (not blogs or random websites), to show what actual usage of terms looks like. If you go to Google Books and search for "corvette", you'll see that the vast majority of the results reference the car, and not the ship type. This may very well be surprising to some. But roaming around Wikipedia, I'm often surprised to find that things I've taken for granted my entire life aren't universal. (I had no idea, for example, that Corn was not the same thing as Maize in other parts of the world.) I'm well-educated, as I assume most of the people in this discussion are. I would just ask that everyone be open-minded to the evidence. If it turns out that when most people hear "Corvette", they think of a particular car, then so be it. If the results are split, or point to the ship type, then so be it.

As for the apple example - people who say that "Apple" is a fruit are correct. But people who say that "Apple" is a computer company are also correct. The one word - "Apple" can refer to two different things. And having the WP article Apple be about the fruit makes sense - because most usages of "Apple" are about the fruit, not the computer co. The same analysis applies to "Corvette". We just need to determine what the principal usage of "Corvette" is.

Wow, that was longer-winded than I was expecting. Hope it makes sense, though. Dohn joe (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Toddy, WP doesn't decide titles based on the criteria that seems so compelling to so many of you. Our personal biases are irrelevant here. What we do is look and see what the sources say with regard to usage, and in this case there is no clear answer, indicating that there is no primary topic. By the way, Apple is not analogous because "apple" is a very commonly used household term among anglophones worldwide - "corvette" is not. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We just need to determine what the principal usage of "Corvette" is. That's impossible. One person's never heard of the car, the other's never heard of the ship. My Google Books search for the single word turns up 260,000 hits with the car ones at the top. When I sort by date (most recent at the top) the ship predominates. When I restrict my search to the 19th century, to exclude all car references, I get 142,000 results, that's more than half the total. I don't know how exactly Google Books works, but this is hardly evidence against our current setup. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, what you have discovered is a classic situation in which there is no primary topic, and, so, the dab page should be at the base name. See Ubuntu for a very similar situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose – the ship is historically and culturally much more significant. The fact that most people who type in the worth Corvette are looking for the car is irrelevant to me. Corvette is a type of fast attack ship. Yes a car has been named after it in an attempt to attach the physical attributes of the ship to the car but the word means ship. To have the article Corvette describe the car is to propagate false information which is something an encyclopedia should never do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(another arbitrary break)

  • Oppose Just can not believe this is still dragging on - time to give it a rest. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the car is known to very few non-Americans. The Australian- or British- or Irish-based Google mirrors do not limit their information to Australian, British or Irish sources; what they turn up is no argument about usage in those countries. Even American dictionaries define "corvette" as "1. A fast, lightly armed warship, smaller than a destroyer. 2. Formerly, a warship, smaller than a frigate, usually armed with one tier of guns" (American Heritage Dictionary), with no word about the car. And I presume that the car was named after the ship. Esoglou (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The historical usage is no longer the primary topic. Being first is not a good case for primary topic. It may at times indicate that there is not a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Chevrolet Corvette has a perfectly usable name as Chevrolet Corvette. To suggest that because internet searches show up Chevrolet Corvette more often, even when shortened to Corvette sets a very ugly precedent. Do we shift Falcon to Falcon (bird) because of the Ford Falcon? Corona to Corona (astronomical phenomon)? Cavalier to Cavalier (English history)? One of the most popular cars of all time the Porsche 911 is not even mentioned on 911. The examples go on and on and on. The current situation is perfectly adequate. --Falcadore (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    Again, having one perfectly usable title does not prevent a topic from being the primary topic for another title. "perfectly adequate" is not the best we can do. The Corvette auto vs. ship type is a much wider gap than the Falcon, Corona, Cavalier, or 911. (And failures at 911 do not mean we should fail here.) You must have missed seeing the Porsche entry on 911 (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    I did not miss 911 (disambiguation), I was not talking about 911 (disambiguation), I was talking about 911, which in many ways is also written like a disambiguation page. But that is not as relevant as the point that Corvette and Chevrolet Corvette work perfectly adequately as there are now and do not need additional explanation that is not completely accurately covered by hat notes. The ships are called Corvettes, the cars are mostly called Chevrolet Corvettes. It works, and is presently 100% accurate. The presence of a potentially contradictory policy which may place popularity ahead of word accuracy does not sway me in this regard, I prefer the word correct versions. The class of vessel does not have a built in disambiguitor inherent in its actual name, but the car does. As far as I can tell everything is an attempt to put pop culture ahead of accuracy. You can place as many policies as you like forward but you cannot get paste the most correct name for the car is different. The argument is the same for shifting the Australian city of Darwin to a disambiguation page and making Darwin a redirect to Charles Darwin, which like this topic, as been debated and defeated previously for exactly the same reason, and Darwin was actually named for Charles Darwin, making it a MORE likely case to be approved. Nothing has changed in either case. WP:PRECISE likewise seems to contradict. --Falcadore (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    911 is not a disambiguation page; 911 (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page mentions the Porsche. QED. You are still missing the distinction between deciding what to title a topic (naming conventions) and deciding what to "topic a title" (primary topic); the two do not contradict each other, but work together to determine the best arrangement of articles and the best titles for those articles in that arrangement. Other arrangements would also "work", be 100% accurate, and improve the encyclopedia. You are wrong about the pop culture vs. accuracy -- the attempt is to put ease of reader navigation ahead of, well, obstacles to reader navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    Uncritical obsequiousness towards "ease of reader navigation" leads naturally to a distorted use of language biased towards momentary pop culture imperatives. I find it very hard to believe what appears to be an unfolding revelation here, that the disambiguation project is actively encouraging Wikipedia to try and destabilise the English language in this injurious way. I seriously hope I have got this wrong. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    You've got it wrong. We do want "ease of reader navigation", but your conclusions of the language distortion and injurious destabilization are unfounded and unsupported by the guidelines or their application. It turns out that rather than dictating English language usage, the arrangement suggested follows the English language usage. I seriously hope you can see the difference, and perhaps avoid throwing about "uncritical", "obsequiousness", "distorted", "biased", "momentary", "destabilise", and "injurious" is such an uncritical way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    What a small group claims "follows the English language usage" probably is "biased towards momentary pop culture imperatives". No doubt, I will be shouted down for saying this. --Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    Not shouted down, but asked what you're basing the "probably is biased" claim on. The core problem is a lack of understanding of what the disambiguation guidelines say and are based on, and then a lack of assuming the good faith that went into the consensus in their creation. They are based on reader utility, and if the readers happen to be looking for a car (which, by the way, is not pop culture), then the encyclopedia can arrange the articles in such a way that (a) all readers can reach the topics sought while (b) making it efficient for the readership as a whole. No doubt, I will be shouted down for saying this. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    Hunter, some words in my last post were unnecessarily strong, and I apologise for that. Still, I do not understand the validity of the approach you advocate. I agree that ease of navigation should have a very high priority, and that counts like article hit rates and the number of Google page matches will often resolve issues very simply. And it is also true current popularity counts provide the data for optimising the ease of navigation. But, and it is no small but, it also seems to me it is important that current popularity counts are not the end of the matter. If it is the end of the matter, then Wikipedia will be functioning as a catalyst, accelerating and possibly distorting the natural rate at which the meaning and usage of terms evolve. That's partially what I meant when I used the word "destabilise". More seriously, the disambiguation project apparently looks at usage only, and pays no attention to the semantics, function and etymology of a term. Yes looking for a car is not pop culture; it is part of the current consumer culture, which changes from country to country. If Wikipedia uses popularity counts to decide that the primary topic for "corvette" is a Chevrolet car, then it is influencing the way people generally will think about the meaning of the word. There are many things happening here. Wikipedia has become a marketing arm of Chevrolet, the actual meaning of the word "corvette" is being somewhat hidden from users, a temporary cultural phenomenon in the US is being allowed to redefine a perfectly good word in other countries, and so on. That's what I meant when I said it could destabilise the English language in an "injurious way". Anyway, I suppose I will have to look through the disambiguation project archives sometime, and see what the arguments were. Or are they summarised somewhere in a coherent way? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    You say that "rather than dictating English language usage, the arrangement suggested follows the English language usage". and I can see why you might think that.
    However in the case we are looking at here, we have a word with but one meaning, according to just about any dictionary and encyclopaedia we care to look at, but which has also been adopted for a commercial product which enjoys considerable popular interest. And you are proposing, on the strength of that popular interest, that we adopt that meaning of the word as our primary definition. Can you not see why some of us would view that as dictating usage, rather than following it? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    PS I've taken the liberty of breaking the discussion section, to make life easier; I trust that's OK with everyone? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    Epipelagic, it is not the approach I advocate, but the approach the guidelines advocate. The disambiguation project pays attention to quite a few things, some of which might indicate the use of the ship type as the base name; the disambiguation guidelines are not a clear-cut mathematical function. But the many arguments here (such as "Chevrolet Corvette already has an unambiguous title, therefore it cannot be the primary topic for this title") are not informed by the guidelines, and when informed react as if under attack instead of under guidance. (Probably because some of the guidance has been very pointed, like an attack.) Xyl1, "but which also has been adopted" means that it has more than one encyclopedic meaning, even if it has only one dictionary meaning. If it truly had only one encyclopedic meaning, Corvette (disambiguation) wouldn't be needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    Okay, but you haven't begun to address the issues I raised. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    I'm sorry you missed that. But that's okay; you haven't addressed the issues I raised. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    What issues? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes the 911 comparison was not accurate, however, can you show me where it says that Primary Topic extinguishes Precise and the other smaller policy & guidelines that have been put forward? --Falcadore (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    WP:PRECISE actually says it itself: "However, because pages cannot share the same title, it is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have another meaning. As a general rule: If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification. Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation."

    So a primary topic determination is very much a part of a precision analysis. Dohn joe (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

    Does it also supersede where ambiguity is not a contributing factor, IE the car is most correctly referred to as Chevrolet Corvette, regardless of of Primary Topic considerations, and likewise does it also extinguish concerns about article stability for a period of time? Because it does say 'pages cannot share the same title' however the presently do not share a same title and it is your desire to establish Corvette as a redirect, thus not an article, and I do not believe redirects to hold the same value as full articles. I feel as though I cannot set all of the other policy/guidelines aside in favour of Primary Topic for a redirect. I feel you are going to need a higher authority to convince the Primary Topic extinguishes ALL the other concerns combined, Precise, ambiguity, article stability and a redirect as aooposed to a full article. Can you get that clarification for me? --Falcadore (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    Falcadore, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term being considered. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article (or a section of it). The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." Dohn Joe, you are right, the precision guidelines first check to see if the topic is primary; the "oppose" here seems to have that reversed, where the primary topic determination should first check to see if another title is already precise. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I accept that people searching for the car will type 'corvette' and then click the hatnote because that is quicker than typing Chevrolet Corvette. I cannot however accept that they are surprised when they end up here and to suggest that they are is insulting to car enthusiasts. Does the proposer also think that when people type 'beetle' they are dismayed when they end up on a page about a type of insect?--Ykraps (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    Comment - Ykraps and Epipelagic are raising (not necessarily consciously) an issue that I feel should be taken seriously: the "redneckification" of Wikipedia. A process whereby "lowbrow" popular culture subjects threaten to become the most prominent part of Wikipedia. It's a slow insidious trend I have noticed over the years that I have been an active editor here. If this trend continues Wikipedia will in time become the premier source for information about the criminal records of Rappers, Nascar rankings and "wrestlers" with more ink in their skins than a week's worth of newspapers, while "serious" topics become relegated to the bottom of the list on obscure disambiguation pages. Is that really what we want this project to become? Roger (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    Additional comment - that does play towards my concerns about pop culture getting precedence over grammatical correctness and ambiguity concerns. While this discussion is not a vote, citing numbers of google hits and similar measures of a subjects popularity does send the discussion towards making the subject a vote by the masses. Do two votes make a right? I'm far from convinced. --Falcadore (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    The Chevrolet Corvette is not pop culture, a rapper, a Nascar ranking, or a wrestler. The primary topic guidelines are constantly being refined over at WT:D. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    Never said it was a rapper, ranking or wrestler, and neither did Roger, and I don't believe you are niaive enough to think that he was. However, a long running sports car that has a wide range of merchandise, imagery and iconography related to it? Popculture comes from Popular culture. There are few items better suited to being tagged with pop-culture than the Chevvy Corvette. It is slightly ridiculous to suggest otherwise. --Falcadore (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    You're bringing out redneckification and low-brow as if they apply to Corvettes. They don't. It is more than slightly ridiculous to claim the high ground for the ship-nuts over the car-nuts. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    No actually I didn't say that term at all, and you are the one breaking out terms like 'ship-nuts' and 'car-nuts'. I believe you need to step back from the debate, you are getting too personally involved. If this is the correct move to make, there are sure to be others who will take up the debate for you. You don't have to personally refute every respondant. --Falcadore (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    "You" plural there, since you were personally refuting on behalf of Dodger67. Maybe you should take a step back from the debate? I am content to continue discussing in the discussion; casting responses to continued conversation as if only one side is too personally involved is also ridiculous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    Roger, I understand the concern about "lowbrow popular culture" becoming too dominant in WP. This probably stems from WP's tendency to meet, as well as possible, the expectations of the users. But as with anything else, it can go too far, and, so, concepts like vital articles have been introduced to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to trump "lowbrow" usage, no matter how popular. But how does this concern even apply here? Are you suggesting that corvette - the ship type - should be a vital article? Or that Corvette, the car, is lowbrow popular culture usage? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to Corvette (ship type) or Corvette (ship). Much of the opposition here is ungrounded in our community consensus-derived guidelines. I would be opposed if it seemed clear that the car is only the primary topic for Americans, but this does not seem to be the case. The recentism exception at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguably applies, but I think it's a stretch here; the car has been around for while, it is not a "flash in the pan". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose—There isn't much for me to add here, given all the comments above. Corvette means the car in the US, but in most other English speaking countries, probably not. The better and more popular car, Mustang, goes to a disambiguation page. I guess this argument will go round and round every couple of years. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    The comparison to Mustang is problematic, since I think the horse is probably much more well-known than the ship type. At least, in America it is - haha. But the point remains that we don't do comparisons like this, the details are different. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    For whatever it's worth, the primary meaning in Australia (and I would probably add New Zealand) is the car; can't speak for other English-speaking countries though. As a bit of an aside, if the primary topic varied between English-speaking countries, wouldn't that mean there is no clear primary topic? Jenks24 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    Re the aside: the primary topic is determined by the readership as a whole. Some topics have UK-centric, US-centric, AU-centric, IN-centric, or other-centric topics, or no primary topic, depending on how the English-speaking readership as a whole is looking for topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    I'm kind of amused that we're having this discussion. Reminds me of the joke about Corvette owners. It's very clear that there isn't a consensus, not even a majority to make this change. I think this discussion should be added to the list of lamest discussions on Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    (much later...) should be added as the lamest discussion on Wikipedia (see below!). However, the discussion has highlighted issues with the disambiguation guidelines, as well as the strange defensiveness people involved with the disambiguation project seem to have about even acknowledging there are issues.--Epipelagic (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    To JHunterJ, that's what I'm trying to say, even if the readership is divided across national boundaries in what they would expect to find when they type in corvette (and I don't think that's the case anyway), then neither of the topics would be "much more likely than any other" (quoting from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), would they?
    To Orangemarlin, if you're looking for a lame move discussion, you have to check out whether it should be Mexican-American War or Mexican–American War. Arbcom are currently involved in that one.... Jenks24 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose move per WP:WASTEOFTIME William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the whole. This is manifestly not consensus; it is not obvious to many anglophone editors; why is relisted? It is possible to use a ngram to distinguish corvette from Corvette; the results are plainly error-prone (for one thing, title case will capitalize Corvette even the ship is meant), but should be interesting: "Corvette" is more common over the last two decades; but except for one year at the peak of the C5, it is not so much more common as to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    What about the proposition that there is no primary topic, and that Corvette should be a disambiguation page? Dohn joe (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    Unnecessary. The two names don't actually conflict, since our systematic title is Chevrolet Corvette. Making a disambiguation page for two topics is a waste of the reader's time, compared to just having hatnotes which work with a single click. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    PMA, you're right that "Corvette" (car) is more common, and that it's not so much more common as to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But "corvette" (ship type) is certainly not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by the same (only stronger) reasoning. This is not a case of WP:TWODABS since there is no primary topic, and because there are more than two uses for the term. See Corvette (disambiguation), which wouldn't even exist if this was a two dabs situation. This seems to me to be a clear case of no primary topic where the dab page should be at the base name, like Georgia. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    I agree that is what TWODABS says (and am always glad to find somebody else who's read it); that's why I didn't mention it. But it is still true (although TWODABS doesn't say so) that it is better to link two articles directly to each other than through a dab page; it saves a click.
  • This differs from Georgia in that both the American state and the Caucasus republic would naturally (and if our system permitted) have the same title. That's not the case here (and the other items ar Corvette (disambiguation) are negligible in comparison), so I will stay with my qualified oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, others have mentioned this factor that "Corvette" is not the "natural" title for the article about the car. First, I dispute that, as "Corvette" is more concise, and, arguably, the more common name than "Chevrolet Corvette" for that topic. But let's not get into that, as this discussion is not about what the title of that article should be.

    Second, even if we assume for sake of argument that "Chevrolet Corvette" is the "natural" title for that article, that has no relevance to primary topic determination. In fact, primary topic determination has nothing to do with article titles at all, except that it's an issue that must be resolved for every name that happens to be used as a title or redirect in Wikipedia. For every such name, we need to determine whether any of its uses meets the primary topic criteria. Remember, the one topic may be primary for any number of names. If no topic meets the criteria for a given name, then there is no primary topic, and a dab page for that name should be at that base name. Whether some of the other uses have other titles is not relevant to that process.

    The likelihood of a topic to be the one being sought when users search with a given name -- which is what determines primary topic -- is what it is regardless of the title of the article. The only thing that matters here is whether this article about the ship type is much more likely than any other use of "corvette", including the car, to be the one being sought when users search with "corvette". There is no consensus about that, and only a few in this discussion have even claimed it to be true (all without basis, of course, because it's obviously not true). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

    Since I deny that there is a primary use, some of this is irrelevant. The rest involves a question over which B2C disagrees with most other editors: if we have a system of article names (here including Buick Regal and Honda Civic) may we reasonably conclude that many readers will notice it, and come to expect Chevrolet Corvette, which thereby becomes natural and obvious even for those who would not have used it to begin with (some would find it natural anyway)? I think so; most people do; B2C insists not. I have spent more time on that discussion than I care to admit; I will not spend more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, there is no need to go there; regardless of what the title of the car article should be, we agree that the car topic is a use of "corvette" (is properly listed on the dab page). We also agree there is no primary topic, and I presume you also agree that the term "corvette" has multiple uses, including the ship type, the car, and several others listed at the dab page. Under such conditions -- multiple uses of a name and no primary topic -- we normally place the dab page at the plain base name, no?

    What you seem to be arguing is that when there are multiple uses, even though none of the uses is primary, if one of the uses would be primary if we ignore a use that has a natural title different from the name in question, then we should treat that one use as if it is the primary topic. Am I understanding you correctly? Is this an idea you would support adding to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

    The other uses are trivial; if one of the two major uses did not exist (i.e, if Chevy had made up a name, and we were discussing either the ship class, or the brand of car, and the same minor uses), we would not hesitate to treat the other as primary usage.
  • Yes, WP:Primary usage should only apply when several subject claim the same title (excluding trivial differences, like capitalization). But before this can be added, the section needs to distinguish between primary usage for a title (80% of the users of the phrase mean this subject) and primary usage on a subject (80% of those who write on the subject call it by this title. These don't have to be complementary, and often aren't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC currently clearly states, without qualification, that "If there is no primary topic, the ambiguous term should be the title of a disambiguation page". Since you agree there is no primary topic here, and you have not said nor implied that this is some kind of special WP:IAR case, your opposition to this move is based not on what the relevant guideline says, but on what you think it should say. As you know, I have no objection to such arguments, for that's how WP evolves and improves. User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Shouldn't you get the guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time?.

That said, any argument that goes against guidelines needs to be persuasive and must establish consensus support. Others simply opposed to this move are not part of this consensus unless they explicitly state their opposition is also based on thinking that at least a similar change needs to occur at the same guideline. There is no such consensus her about changing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Anyway, I think what you're saying is that what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should say, perhaps in conjunction with a modification to WP:TWODABS, is that when there are two main uses of a topic, if one of those two is "naturally disambiguated" then the other should be treated as if it is the primary topic. I suggest that really complicates the definition as it is contrary to the simple "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" definition. So is trying to distingiush what you mean by primary usage of a title vs. primary usage of a subject. Most importantly, it's not at all clear, at least to me, how WP would improve by such a change. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines are written by fools like me; indeed, I recognize that wording as written by me. When I wrote it, I did not consider this rare and complex case; like all guidelines, it should be managed by common sense and has exceptions. This is one of them; so is the mess of the three Washingtons. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I presume you believe the article about the state should be at Washington, because the capitol and president both have "natural" disambiguations? Yet, as I'm sure you know, we have the dab page at Washington. If you are arguing these are rare cases and need to be treated as exceptions, you are invoking WP:IAR. In that case we still need a good reason to go against what the guideline says. What is it? How is WP improved by ignoring this guideline in these cases? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
By using straightforward, systematic, and natural titles to disambiguate the two chief articles here (the other entries on the dab page would have parenthesized dabs whatever we do here). Corvette (ship) is a cost we have no need to incur. So why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The primary reason to "incur the cost" of moving this article to Corvette (ship), and having it there, is to comply with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ("If there is no primary topic, the ambiguous term should be the title of a disambiguation page"). By following our guidelines we have a more deterministic system, which means less contention and more efficiency (less costly).

In terms of pure efficiency with regard to just this family of articles, let's compare the two situations at issue (A: ship at Corvette, dab at Corvette (disambiguation); B: ship at Corvette (ship), dab at Corvette). With A, while everyone searching with "Corvette" who is seeking the ship lands directly on their desired topic, everyone else has to click a link to get the dab page, and then another link to get to their destination (though those seeking the car, but not the others, might be saved a click if they notice and click on the hatnote link). This is why this "efficiency" is limited to articles that are bonafide primary topics for the name in question. With B, everyone is taken to the dab page where they are exactly one click from their destination. The whole point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that, due to relative search probability considerations only (which have nothing to do with "natural" titles), overall, B is preferable (less costly) to A when there is no primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

B2C should go read the hatnote at corvette:
This page is about the type of warship. For the car, see Chevrolet Corvette. For other uses, see Corvette (disambiguation).
Anybody who is looking for the car and tries Corvette will have one extra click, not two. The one extra click is equally incurred by method B; therefore B is a pure cost, no better than A for anybody.
That leaves the argument: because a guideline says so. B2C wouldn't accept that for other guidelines; why does he expect it to be convincing here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
PMA should have read what I wrote above more carefully before commenting on it. I accounted for the hatnote link when I wrote,
"though those seeking the car, but not the others, might be saved a click if they notice and click on the hatnote link".
My explanation stands. Best case, everyone who is looking for the car notices the hatnote link and gets to the car in one more click (just like going via dab page), but everyone seeking the other non-primary uses needs to go through two more clicks.

It's that plus following the guideline that should be convincing. What PMA suggests is to go against the guideline so that people searching for one of the non-primary topics (and probably not even the one most likely to be sought) don't have to go though a dab page. But having to go through a dab page prior to getting to a topic is a normal cost associated with all non-primary topics in WP. Why does PMA think avoiding a normal "cost", especially when it adds another cost (a second click for those seeking any of the minor uses), is a convincing reason to ignore a guideline?

By the way, another reason to follow the guideline is so that if usage ever changes, and one of the topics does become primary, it will be obvious from page view counts. As long as a non-primary topic is at the base name, the page view counts remain distorted. In fact, the only reason most of us are not agreeing with the nom about the car being primary is because the data isn't there to tell us one way or the other, and the reason the data is not there is because this article is at the base name. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Condensed version removed

procedural comments collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am not in favour of this "condensed version" of the argument. It misses many key points and insults the closing admin by assuming they will not thoroughly review the arguments above, good or bad. Shem (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with you Shem. It seriously dumbs the issue down. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I've got to say nor am I. I almost reverted it as soon as a saw it as it misses out many of the clarifing remarks etc and actually makes the job much harder for a closing admin as now some !votes are duplicated here and the newer ones aren't. As this is WP:NOTAVOTE I don't think this section serves any purpose. As such I'm about to revert the addition and hopefully get all the new votes tidied up properly. Dpmuk (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
      I've removed it with this edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd just done it when I got an edit conflict with you - as I said above I was about to do it. 12:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
        I'm sorry I mis-read that. I thought you were just adding support to the view that the condensed version was unhelpful. "I'm about to" doesn't have the same meaning as "I'm going to" -- it can also mean "I've almost reached the point where I'm going to". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
        • On the plus side at least it shows that there's more of a consensus for it's removal! Dpmuk (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be all-inclusive of every argument. I explicitly limited it to initial opinions only. As for what it was worth, it was worth whatever you wanted to get from it. It wasn't created for an admin, or for anyone else in particular. I just thought it would be nice to have a condensed version of this 100,000+ byte discussion. Seemed like a good idea at the time.... Dohn joe (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It was worth a try. My own feeling about it all is that I'm not entirely sure how many people were voting simply on the original proposition, ie having corvette direct first to the car article, and how many were opposed to any change at all. It might be that if the proposition put at the top of the discussion had simply been for primacy to be given to a disambiguation page feelings would have been less inflamed and the picture would be different. The two are very different in principle. Obviously the second option would not have pleased everybody, but we know that is impossible. --AJHingston (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW I found the condensed list useful, too (though it did lose some significant points in amongst the trimmed 90,000-odd bytes of rhetoric). But Shem and JHunter have both provided links for anyone who wants to check it, so it wasn't a wasted effort. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I had three main reasons for not liking it. Firstly as you point out it lost some significant points. My oppose !vote had quite a bit of commentry after it where I explained my vote. Clearly my original reasoning was inadequate, and possibly slightly misleading, and the explanation was lost in the consensed version. Second it made this discussion look too much like a vote and it very certainly is not a vote. Finally new !votes were being added only to the condensed version which a) confused things as some !votes were in both sections and some weren't and b) effectively stopped discussion about those !votes. Dpmuk (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if a summary of the general arguments made on each side would be useful. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No it would not. This is worse than the "condensed version that User:Dohn joe created. Please delete it. I do wonder why it is that those editors who want the change, find it necessary to keep "steering" the discussion.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been bold and deleted it for now as, in it's current form, it's nowhere near a neutral summary as it only gives the support arguement properly and as such it is, in my opinion, too point of view pushing. I'm happy for it to be restored if someone creates a more comprehensive, neutral summary that summarizes every view. Dpmuk (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The only person who should consider making a summary should be the neutral admin who closes this proposed move.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Why? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I've restored it with "in progress" tags so it's clear these are not yet meant to be completed summaries. If you feel something is missing from the summary of the position you support, please add it. The result should be a condensed version, without repetition, of each argument in support of each position, that does not have the problem of the previous attempt: no significant points will be missing. This will allow everyone to easily compare and weigh the arguments side-by-side. Perhaps some opinions might even change. I don't understand the objection to doing this. It's like an article... if it needs improving... improve it! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion may have officially jumped the shark. Born2cycle is now debating himself in the sections below here.... Dohn joe (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We are supposed to use the NPOV perspective when writing articles - is there any reason the NPOV voice can't be used when writing argument summaries on talk pages? I suggest not. Again, if you have a problem with anything written there, improve it! (just like an article). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't really parsed the summarized arguments, but I don't doubt your NPOV intentions, B2C. I just found it amusing in the moment.

I also don't see the harm, obviously, in some form of summary, and I think that editors on all sides of the discussion here have recognized that it has a use in some form or another (just as editors on all sides have denounced it). I say let the summary be - if you don't like it, ignore it, or edit it. But several folks have seemed to like the idea, so don't just erase it or shuttle it off somewhere else that you prefer. Dohn joe (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it could be really helpful, especially if a few people (yes, you) scoured both the discussion above as well as the 2009 for points that might not yet be in the summaries. I should also say that this process has already made me appreciate the oppose argument more than I did before. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Much happier with it in it's current state. Don't really have time to add to it now but if I get the chance I will do tomorrow. Dpmuk (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The "summary argument" sections that follow were primarily created by people who are extremely determined to see the proposals adopted. They should be regarded as propaganda for their cause.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
If you think something is unfair or unbiased or is not presented in an NPOV fashion in these summary arguments, why don't you improve it accordingly, instead of complaining about the inevitable and irrelevant bias of anyone who has contributed to it so far? The same exact problems and solution apply to all articles in WP. We know how to do this. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have taken your advice and removed the structurally-biased "rebuttal" sections from your summaries. I still regard your summaries as propaganda and think that hey should be deleted entirely.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative summaries (removed)

These sections (here if anyone wishes to check them) were added in good faith on 9 May, but deleted per WP:SNOW today. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

extensive procedural discussion, now obsolete
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Discussion of Collaborative Summaries

User:Toddy1 just deleted the rebuttal sections with the comment, "deleted biassed section in line with Born2cycle'advice" [1]. Toddy1, please explain what you think was biased - or contrary to a NPOV - in the sections that you deleted. If you can't, please restore the NPOV material. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You created a "process" that was designed to enable you and those who agree with you to list the arguments either way and explain why everyone else is wrong. I am not the only person who regards your summaries as propaganda. Your response to this it to ask those who disagree with you to contribute to the summaries (i.e. to make the propaganda look more convincing); I don't want to do this; I notice that someone else has made the same point on your talk page. You advised me to contribute - and I took your advice and removed the worst aspect of the propaganda.
However I still think, that the propaganda summaries should have no place here.
The message that I am getting is that the supporters of the change are not willing to take no for an answer. This is not the way to behave. Please stop it. You have had your say so many times. If new people have something to say, please let them do so without shouting them down. If everyone who has something to say has spoken, then let us just leave it until a neutral admin looks at this, makes a summary and posts the result.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why anyone acting in good faith on either side in any RM discussion that has gotten relatively long and unwieldy would oppose the idea of having both sides collaborate on summarizing the main arguments in a way that both sides agree fairly represents a summary of the arguments presented in the discussion. This is the same dynamic that occurs for any article about a controversial topic - both sides hammer it out until the result is a surprisingly well-balanced summary of the controversial. Pick any controversial topic and read the article about it to see what I mean.

Your whole objection seems to be about this idea coming from someone who happens to disagree with you. Just because we disagree about the appropriateness of this particular article's title, doesn't mean you have to disagree with me about everything. I submit that what I have proposed and started here is a good idea for any long and heated RM discussion, regardless of what side I'm on, and that includes the rebuttal sections. Again, the idea is to have a fair summary of each argument presented, along with a fair summary of the rebuttals to those arguments. Why would you or anyone else object to that? I admit this is kind of novel for RM discussion, but every idea has to start somewhere, and I did not invent this out of thin air - this is the same format used in presenting the pros and cons of propositions in voter pamphlets. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Position Statement - This is not an article. It is not an election campaign pamphlet. It is a discussion of a move proposal. Any redaction is absolutely unacceptable. Nobody has the right to interpret any other editor's posts in such a discussion - interpretation is an unavoidable consequence of any attempt at creating a summary. The full and complete record of every comma and letter of every single post is the only acceptable form of record of this discussion. I am hereby placing on record my total, absolute and completely irrevocable opposition to this and any other attempt to create a "summary". Any attempt to delete or in any way alter the content of this post will be treated as deliberate malicious vandalism. I am not going to discuss this statement with anyone - it stands as written. Roger (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Are there plans for this nonsense to end soon? —Diiscool (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh brother! Yes, it's not an article, but it is a collaborative effort like an article. Redaction? No one is editing anyone's signed posts or editing the record of anything (well, except those trying to excise this collaborative effort). How ridiculous! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "No one is editing anyone's signed posts ..."? You, Born2cycle, have been doing that, for example here where you altered CWenger's comment and removed his/her signature. This whole talk page has devolved into a sleight of hand card trick because there are so many edits now it's impossible to make sense of anything. This needs to be closed now by a neutral admin. —Diiscool (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the signed posts outside of the three article-like collaborative summary unsigned sub-sections. I apologize that I wasn't clear about that. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Born2Cycle, this is indeed a "RM discussion that has gotten relatively long and unwieldy". You have done more than anyone else to increase its length and unwieldiness, firstly by attempting to rebut individually anyone whose take on this move differs from your own and secondly by summarising the whole long and unwieldy thing into a shorter unwieldy and controversial section (twice!). Kudos. pablo 22:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me for trying. By the way, the first effort to summarize was not mine, and I opposed it (it cut out too much), though it gave me the idea to try this approach. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Having failed to convince those many editors who oppose the move (and thereby necessarily failed to gain consensus), it now feels as if you're trying to bludgeon me into accepting your position, or hoping that I'll give up and let this foolish idea stand. I resent that approach, and I'm asking you to stop now. Let the closing admin decide and don't try to sort out the length of the discussion by ... making it longer. Oh, and suggesting that the correction of links to Corvette will be "easy to identify and fix" feels like a deliberate misrepresentation of my position. Shem (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That had nothing to do with you or your position, and everything to do with WP:INTDABLINK and the reasoning behind that. I'll add the reference where the statement is made to prevent any more confusion. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You know, perhaps the strongest (relatively speaking) oppose argument here is the one based on the "educational value" clause at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but nobody even mentioned that before it was added to the summary arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
...Which you are currently seeking to remove...Xyl 54 (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, because it's inherently contradictory (whenever the more likely to be sought topic is different from the more educational topic) and renders the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to be basically useless in terms of providing guidance. Note that most of the oppose arguments here are made as if primary topic does not exist, which, with that clause in there, it effectively does not. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Born2Cycle, can you just clarify your position. Are you saying that primary topic should be decided by page hits alone and nothing else? I have been following your arguments here and elsewhere and this does seem to be the crux of your argument.--Ykraps (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Not quite. Primary topic should always be determined by a best effort at determining which one, if any, uses of the name in question (in this case the name is "corvette") is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" to be the one being sought when readers are looking for a topic using that name.

This is usually, but not always, determined by looking at page hits. Page hits should be the determining factor unless there is reason to believe they are misleading in a particular case, then other factors can be considered. The most likely situation in which page hits can be misleading is when the article for one of the topics is at the name in question, which should cause the page hits for that article to be misleadingly high. Sometimes there is the consideration that the name in question can refer to a topic A whose article has a high number of hits, but the name in question is still more likely to be used to refer to some other topic B even though B gets fewer hits than A. So it can get complicated. In such situations we should primarily also look at ghits (ignoring locale) to clarify how people are likely to be searching.

I'm against looking at other conflicting criteria like "educational value" because then there is no guidance when page hits indicates one answer while "educational value" indicates another. However, allowances for true cases of recentism (a topic that is likely to be particularly popular for only a short period) need to be made.

But I also think there should be more guidance on deciding no primary topic whenever there are two or more obvious candidates for primary topic, and more than two uses for the name (which is the case here). --Born2cycle (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am the one, by the way, who brought up the subject of 'educational value' and made the flippant remark about the GT 250 which nevertheless serves to illustrate the point. I know it is unlikely but if it got substantially more views than the state of California, would you support redirecting 'California' to 'Ferrari GT 250 California' and relegating the state to a 'hatnote' or worse, a disambiguation page?--Ykraps (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if the page view counts indicated that the Ferrari was "much more likely than [the state], and more likely than all the [other uses of 'California'] combined" to be the topic being sought when users searched for "California", I would support having the car at California (or having California redirect to the article at Ferrari 250 or whatever).

More to the point, if the page view counts indicated that the car had sufficient hits relative to the state to indicate that there was no primary topic for "California", I would support making California a dab page, as is the case, for example, for Georgia.

This is all standard stuff, and should be straight forward, which is why the opposition in this discussion is so exasperating. Frankly, I personally don't care about which article is at Corvette. I do care about applying our naming policy and guidelines consistently, and in this case they clearly indicate there is no primary topic for Corvette (even with the "education" clause in there - I've realized overnight that that factor, like all primary topic factors, should only be considered in the context of determining relative likelihood of the topic being sought by the search term in question), and, so, the dab page should be at Corvette. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sorry but we are unlikely to ever agree on this issue as I don't think I could bring myself to support such a move.--Ykraps (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on summaries

I've converted this to a proposal, just to be clear. Xyl 54 (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Apart from Born2cycle, would anyone object if I removed the propaganda summaries?--Toddy1 (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I've no objection, but I'd wait for SNOW (I trust your first comment was tongue-in-cheek...). Xyl 54 (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No objection. pablo 07:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't care if you remove them or not, but can you please stop labelling them "propaganda". It might not have been the best way to go about improving the discussion, but Born2Cycle's attempts have been in good faith. Jenks24 (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this was done in good faith and actually is not a bad idea if it could be implemented in such a way that kept most people happy. It appears however that we're not going to be able to do that so I wouldn't object. Dpmuk (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No objection whatsoever. They serve no purpose and potentially distort the discussion. Shem (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Collaborative Summaries

Interesting move by User:Toddy1 to delete the collaborative summaries considering something very like it, very much like it, would have to be written if this discussion goes to RFC (refer Wikipedia:Request for comment, which I now see as inevitible at this point. Would you likewise delete any RFC documentation? --Falcadore (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The deletion was discussed, here, and there was no opposition. I've added a link, to clarify what we are talking about, and in case anyone wants to see them. The section was written in good faith, but was too controversial; the deletion was likewise in good faith. Let's not make that controversial too. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
My point being it is more than likely they will be re-created. --Falcadore (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Surely the right thing to do is for a neutral admin to look at the requested move discussion and close it. He/she will make a summary when he/she does this.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am suggesting. Have a look for example at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid#RFC: Merge Toyota Camry Hybrid with Toyota Camry (XV40)? for how the RFC process works. --Falcadore (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside

All this is a serious waste of time. No point in floundering endlessly in this bog. It is the disambiguation guidelines that are the problem here. They need revisiting. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you believe the guideline is in error, then you would probably be best served to take your concerns to WT:D. Jenks24 (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle has kindly initiated a discussion on that very topic. See Wikipedia_talk:D#PRIMARYTOPIC_wording_change_proposal--Ykraps (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes Jenks, the guidelines are significantly in error. Of course I can take my concerns to WT:D. But I'm not going to do that right now, because I am engaged elsewhere in Wikipedia. Individually, we only have a sliver of energy to put into Wikipedia. It would take all the energy I have, as one person, to try and shift the current entrenched interests here. You can see above, how the users involved in this project won't engage. And now here you are, presenting yourself. Well that could be great! Do you know how to genuinely address these issues yourself, or are you just stirring to entertain yourself from the sideline? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I can understand your reservations about trying to get a guideline changed and I would be more than willing to help you if I actually thought the guideline was in error. Personally, however, I think the guideline is fine as it is. I was honestly not "stirring to entertain yourself from the sideline", but seriously suggesting that complaining about the guidelines here will not advance any this or any future discussions and suggesting that the only place where comments to the effect of 'these guidelines are incorrect' will actually be useful is at the talkpage of said guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. But it still needed to be said! This discussion is bogged because at a gut level it is offensive to most participants. This suggests something is seriously wrong with the guidelines. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you distinguish opposition based on it being "offensive at the gut level" from a jdli argument? If so, how? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
No, not really. I'm not trying to argue from a gut or jdli level, I'm just saying that when such a high proportion of editors are responding that way, it suggests that there might be something amiss with the guidelines. It is the guidelines that may need revisiting. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Break for comments after the May 11 relisting

Relisted? Again? How long is this going to go on for? There are over 120 Kb of discussion and arguing here already! Not to mention 30 Kb of argument over making it shorter! WTF more needs to be said? The relisting comment says "there is currently no consensus that there is a primary topic": In fact there is also no consensus for a move, full stop. Does anybody here honestly think that is going to change? This needs to be closed, ASAP. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, there is clearly no consensus for a move. Nothing more can be done here until the disambiguation guidelines have been reevaluated. There is a continuing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I find it very hard to accept that relisting for the third time when the clear majority of opinion is against the proposal was done in good faith. This must be closed asap. Roger (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Just a note that it has only been relisted twice, not three times. Jenks24 (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
        • One original listing plus relisting twice means this is now the third "listing period" for this proposal. It was already clear by the end of the first round that there is no consensus, the two additional listing periods has done nothing to change that. All it achieved is to create a hostile atmosphere. Roger (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Agree that this needs to be closed. The discussion has gotten away from the original topic and is simply a soapbox now. Please do not let this go on for another week. —Diiscool (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure I'd have relisted although I don't think it was a wrong decision. I oppose the move but think that if anything there is a consensus here to make the move as I think the move arguments presented here are generally stronger despite the numerical superiority of the opposes. I think the point of a relist was to to try to clarify what should be done now it's decided that there isn't a primary topic (i.e. this isn't gong to redirect to the car). Dpmuk (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Since when is it "decided that there is no promary topic"? As far as I am concerned there isn't even such a consensus - I'm of the opinion that the ship is the primary topic - all other things that have the word "corvette" in their names are named after the ship type. But please lets just give this a rest. Roger (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
                • Roger, if you're going to request that this RM be closed at ANI, at least make the request neutral. I have replied to you there. Also, as I'm sure must have been mentioned a million times already, the fact that the ship was the first of that name has absolutely nothing to do with what is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Well that was my reading of the admin's relisting comment "Allowing more time, but as of this point there is no consensus that there is a primary topic." Obviously that could change during the relisting so perhaps "decided" was too strong a word but my reading was that if they closed it now they'd decide there was no primary topic (or at least no consensus for one which is the same thing) and it was the fact that they didn't know what to do then that led to the relisiting. Dpmuk (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
In the real world a corvette is a type of ship, just as an apple is a fruit, and a ford is a water crossing where you get your feet wet. I own a dictionary, and have verified my understanding. This in my opinion is the only argument that matters.
I know that it is very hard to design rules and processes. If the rules/processes are not very good, you often find that they have lots of holes in them, or they produce stupid results, or involve five times as much work as is really necessary. In this case, people's interpretation of the rules are producing a result that defies common sense - and this is why we have a handful of people wanting the article on corvettes to be turned into a disambiguation page. The claims that the arguments for the change are 'stronger' are based on the fallacy that the rules are right.
WP:COMMONSENSE says: "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule". Common sense says that having the article on Corvette about a type of ship makes sense because the dictionary definition of a corvette is that it is a type of ship. Common sense also says that a hatnote to a disambiguation page will quickly lead people to the various commercial products called "corvette".
It is not very surprising that a commercial search engine that is funded by advertising will find huge numbers of hits on a commercial product. Also the number of people who can afford a car is much greater than the number of people who can afford to buy a warship. The number of hits produced by a search engine is therefore biased by this - it is not a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I will keep this short as I don't really want to get into this again. 1) Please see where ford links. 2) The claims that arguments based on policies and guidelines that have been in place for years are 'stronger' are probably correct. 3) Wikipedia is not a dictionary (that's policy). 4) WP:COMMONSENSE is simply an essay. 5) While Wikipedia is definitely not an advertising vehicle, if Chevrolet's 50-something year marketing campaign has drilled "corvette" as the meaning of the word car into the public consciousness to such an extent that the original ship type is no longer the primary meaning, then it is not for Wikipedia to decide that the majority of people searching for the car when they type in "corvette" are simply 'wrong'. Jenks24 (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Jen are you saying we should write the encyclopedia in a way so that people who have been brainwashed by advertising will never know the truth. I think we should strive for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This is amusingly ironic, given that the Chevy Corvette takes its name from the well-known class of ship that existed for hundreds of years before the car was even invented. This comes under the heading of "nothing to fix". A corvette is a type of sea vessel, a Chevrolet Corvette is a car, a hatnote fixes any transient inconvenience, and Wikipedia actively does nto care about Google or any other search engine and nor should we care much about people who aren't capable of reading the summary text in a search engine result, given that the car is only one click away. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh it's yet another hilarious episode in the history of people proposing moves to fix problems that simply do not exist. This discussion is now longer than both the target articles combined, and still open ... pablo 21:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Have you even read any of the discussion above? Have you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? All of these points have been thoroughly addressed. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Just because something was first or because the name originated from it does not make it a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I would challenge anybody to argue that Benedict Arnold (governor) should be the primary topic over Benedict Arnold. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Here's a different question. Do you think that this discussion is a productive one? pablo 21:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
        • It's productive in two ways. First, hopefully it will get these articles named correctly. Second, everyone involved should now better understand how articles are named in WP in general, and, in particular, what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC means and how it is applied in cases like this. Very productive. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it's strange a debate that has been idle for three weeks with no consensus close to being formed, with no-one seemingly wanting to take some of the next step options (eg RFC) in the editorial process, has not been closed as 'no consensus'. But that's just me. --Falcadore (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It's already listed (and relisted) at WP:RM. An RFC would be redundant. Consensus is determined by strength of the arguments, not by counting and comparing those opposed to those in favor. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
And as I said above idle for three weeks with no consensus forming through any method of determination, as relisting would not likely have been needed otherwise. Three weeks of idleness suggests strongly that the debate had run its course, nothing is being added now except repitition. Surely an adjucation can be delievered? --Falcadore (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
My dear sir, have you looked at the backlog at WP:RM? Except for the relistings, the delay has nothing to do with this article in particular. We disagree on whether there is no consensus here based on any method of determination, and, I suspect, even on what "no consensus" means. In this case, I believe there is consensus on the question of whether "Corvette" has a primary topic (the consensus is that there is no primary topic due to the total absence of any cogent argument in favor of there being one), but even if the closing admin determines there is no consensus on that question, the dab page should be moved to Corvette. The only way the ship type topic stays at Corvette is if the closing admin determines that the consensus is that the ship type is the primary topic, and there is absolutely no evidence of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

"No move" decision questioned

The above discussion was closed as No move by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. This is an important decision not because of the import of this particular case, but because of the underlying issues that arise repeatedly in many cases, especially with respect to what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC means and how it and WP:D applies in cases like this.

Key to the the rationale given was this curious statement:

"Arguments for the move are fairly strong based on the letter of the guidelines, but oppose arguments are not so obviously against policy as to be discountable."

My questions:

  1. The phrase "the letter of" is usually used to convey a strict and unreasonable adherence to a literal interpretation of the applicable rule/law/guideline at issue, rather than a reasonable and measured interpretation that reflects actual intent of the rule. So, why is it "based on the letter of the guideline" rather "based on the guideline"? Is there a more reasonable interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and, in particular, "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined") that is believed to be the actual intent, though not conveyed by a literal reading of these words? Is so, what is it? If not, again, why characterize it so? To rationalize closing this discussion as no move, perhaps?
  2. The term "fairly" as in "fairly strong" is typically used to discount significance. Why were the support arguments characterized as "fairly strong based on the letter of the guidelines" rather than "strong based on the guidelines"? That is, what makes them only "fairly strong" rather than fully "strong"? What reason, other than to rationalize closing this discussion as no move, was there to use the word "fairly"?
  3. The oppose arguments were not so obviously against policy as to be discountable? Just how obviously must they be against policy is order to be discountable? When the only reference to policy made by the oppose side is either the reference to WP:TITLECHANGES (which was shown to be irrelevant because that applies when "there is no good reason to change", and the reason to change here - to comply with policy - is as good as it gets) and in reference to needing to change the policy so that their position is supported by it, that seems pretty obvious to me. Did I miss something? How was the oppose argument not against policy in any aspect whatsoever?
  4. How does the closing admin reconcile the fact that on the fundamental question of whether the topic of this article is the primary topic for corvette -- "much more likely than any other [use of "corvette" to be the one being sought when a user searches for "corvette"], and more likely than all the [other uses] combined" -- there was no argument that this topic even is primary (though some expressed their opinion that it is without basing it on any criteria), and certainly "there is no consensus that there is a primary topic" (as was noted by the relisting admin), with the no move decision?

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Go read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You lost. Get over it. Move on. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, please. It's not that unusual for poorly decided decisions to be reversed, and this is one of the worst I've ever seen. A clarification, at least, is due. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec)The debate about how move discussions should be closed is ongoing, Biker Biker. Should closers respect long-standing, consensus-derived guidelines like wp:PRIMARYTOPIC, or should they look instead to "local consensus"? And B2C has hardly lost that yet, to put it mildly. :) I think it's reasonable to examine this closure and see what we can learn from it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Erik. Closure examination to see what we can learn is all I'm asking for. I'm more interested in that than having this particular move reversed. But since Cwenger raised the issue below, clarification on whether a more clear move request (that clearly specifies that the dab page rather than the article about the Chevrolet model is to be moved to Corvette once this article is moved to Corvette (ship)), is recommended would be appreciated as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we should applaud User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for closing the move, something which numerous other admins did not have the courage to do. Determining consensus is not just counting votes, but there is a limit, and I think that was the point—one strong argument does not necessarily override ten weak arguments. I think instead of overanalyzing the decision, somebody—and User:Born2cycle seems like a good candidate—should propose a new multi-move request for Corvette → Corvette (ship) and Corvette (disambiguation) → Corvette. That seems to have consensus but was muddled by the ambiguous single move request. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Good Lord. I agree the original move was muddled, but even a cursory reading of the discussion clearly indicates no consensus for the topic of this article being primary for "corvette". Do we really need to have another discussion to establish that again? I was hoping the admin closing this discussion would see that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm just saying, we can overanalyze the decision, which is almost certainly not going to be reversed, or we can be productive and move forward with a proper multi-move request. Discussion should be kept to a minimum this time—everybody knows the points. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Frankly I think we should admire User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's handling of the issue. Have you nothing better to do? Shem (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
How shocking. Someone who opposed the move thinks we should admire the handling of the issue in a manner that happened to be consistent with his opinion, and belittle those who dare question the decision as having nothing better to do. Are you serious? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
How shocking. Someone who pushed and pushed and pushed for the article to be moved and who ignored the views of substantial numbers of other editors and discounted their views thinks the closing admin did a bad job. I'm serious - are you? Shem (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Comrade Born2cycle believes that all Wikipedia editors are equal, but some editors (such as himself) are more equal than others. Clearly FPS has acted wrongly in taking into account opinions other than Comrade Born2cycle. He should be sent to the Wikipedia equivalent of a gulag.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For fuck's sake. What the discussions reveal, including the extended remix version, is that there is no consensus for a move. Timesinks; obviously that's what Wikipedia needs. pablo 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Even if there is no consensus for the move, the main issue here is whether a given WP:RM discussion that shows a clear lack of consensus that the topic currently at the title meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria warrants a move never-the-less, to make room for the dab page. That's why Q4 is about. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The main issue is, there is a request that this page be moved. The main answer is, there is no consensus for such move. Questions can certainly be asked, but a stick is still a stick, and a horse is still a horse, and this one will not be running any longer. pablo 19:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
        I think there may be plenty of consensus for such a move if you take into account the consensus and history behind WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONLIMITED. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
        Perhaps so. But as far as a requested move goes here, there is not. If WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONLIMITED were inviolable and precluded discussion (and how ironic that would be in the case of consensus discussions), if they were both, oh, what's the word, policy, then no discussion would have been needed. pablo 20:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
        (edit conflict) WP:CONLIMITED... thanks for bringing that to our attention, Erik. I did not realize that was spelled out like that so clearly in policy there:
        Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
        Showing how this policy specifically applies in this case, there is also this about determining consensus specifically when closing WP:RM discussions:
        Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.
        I don't see that any consideration was given to the "the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions" (especially WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) in this decision. There is also this from the same section:
        lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens
        In this case we do have "clear indication from policy and conventions", especially from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so the no change result is not normal. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

an arbitrary break

Just one note: I see people already talking about making yet another move request, this time proposing that both the present page and the disambiguation page be moved. I'll just say that I'd consider that proposal redundant. In my reading of the debate, both versions of the outcome (with the car or with the dab page at the simple title) were discussed and rejected together, and in closing, I effectively only considered the dab page solution as a serious contender of the status quo solution. I'd seriously recommend not trying this again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's good to hear, frankly, and is as I suspected. But it still leaves the questions above about your curious decision unanswered, especially in light of what WP:CONLIMITED says.

And I presume you meant to only discourage "trying this again" in the near future, not indefinitely (consensus changes). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but how did you interpret something like: "Oppose. Centuries of ship usage cannot be tossed aside for the one car model."? They could objecting because they thought the move request was to put the car article at Corvette. There are numerous other examples I can see. I don't think a new, unambiguous move request would hurt anything. Nobody is forced to vote if they don't want to. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Pablo, no one is suggesting that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is inviolable... WP:IAR can always apply, BUT, there must be good reason to ignore a rule. That's why we have these discussion - to see if anyone wants to ignore the rule, and, if so, if they have good reason. But in the above discussion the only reasons given here were of the I just don't like it variety, and are not good reasons.

But at least you seem to admit that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has to be ignored in order to have opposed this move, something the closing admin does not seem willing to admit, much less justify. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I 'admit' nothing of the sort. I am going to unwatch this page, at least for a while. I cannot spend any more time at the moment on a move discussion which, in the end, is supremely pointless. Any move would provide little or no benefit to either the encyclopaedia or the readers (and they are the people for whom we are supposedly writing this yoke in the first place). There is absolutely no point in debating viewpoints on the proper application of process here. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut (and no consensus that the nut exists). pablo 21:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand Born2cycle's frustration at the difficulty that Wikipedia has in establishing and maintaining clear and unambiguous policies and guidelines. It would be a much simpler beast to administer if that could be done and a lot of time could be saved to do something more productive. But everyone needs to remember that the purpose of those policies and guidelines is to create a better encyclopedia and improve the experience of users. Sticking to them rigidly is unlikely to guarantee that, as we see in many different areas of Wikipedia. I read the ongoing discussion about PRIMARYTOPIC in general as recognising that it isn't enough to simply count the most popular. As for now reviving the dab page solution, I said weeks ago that for that to have any chance of acceptance it would have been necessary not to begin with the proposal to make the car the primary topic. As Future Perfect rightly points out both came to be debated together, and battle lines were drawn. It is naive to suppose that people will be willing to begin again without that in mind. --AJHingston (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, the purpose of the rules and policies is to create a better encyclopedia and improve the experience of users. That's why we ignore them when we have good reason to do so; that is, when ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia and/or experience of the users.

      But the rule at issue here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the reason we have that rule is so that users are taken to the article they seek most often, and are more often taken to a dab page rather than a page they are not seeking. We have broad consensus about that being a good rule, because it improves the experience of the users. We even have an exception to that, so-called vital articles, but this is not one of those. So how is the encyclopedia or the user experience improved by ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case? No one, certainly not the closing admin, has answered that. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to run the debate all over again by trying to answer why people were not persuaded. In order to make Wikipedia a better place we have to discuss whether guidelines and policies should be followed in specific instances. That means that Wikipedians have to decide whether it is right to apply a rule as well as whether to ignore one. In this case they weren't convinced, and as Future Perfect says, it is not the end of the world. Better that we work that way than we apply rules unthinkingly. --AJHingston (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know the majority of those participating here were not persuaded by the arguments, but that's not how we decide what consensus is. The closing admin looks at the quality of the arguments, especially how well they are grounded in policy and guidelines, and that decides consensus (see citations a few comments above in case you missed it). That is how WP is supposed to work, and that's not what happened here. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Really Born2cycle, I don't understand your behaviour here, which seems frantic. The main issue here is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is seriously flawed, and the guardians of that page are unwilling to address the issue, or give up the extreme simplicity of just using Google popularity hits. However, the opposing arguments on this page are a breath of sanity, and show that inadequate guidelines can occasionally be overridden when they are inappropriate. You say we should "create a better encyclopedia". In my view, Wikipedia is decidedly a better encyclopedia now this move has failed. It shows that at times, Wikipedia processes can work. Instead of just endlessly repeating in a sterile way the mantra of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, why not see if you can quietly reflect on the reasons many other editors have given here for not following the guideline. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, here, finally, is a clear admission that opposition to this move is based on the belief that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "is seriously flawed" and is essentially the "extreme simplicity of just using Google popularity hits" (a mis-characterization to say the least).

I assure you I've thought through these issues for years, and so have others. The result of all that thinking, and re-thinking, is the current state of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is worded precisely as it is for very good reasons, reasons that you, among others, might try to identify in quiet reflection (hint: it's about prioritizing getting users to the pages they seek quickly and efficiently over getting them to what someone might consider to be the "right" page for a given search term).

Sorry to appear frantic, but that this fundamental notion to WP naming is still not understood and appreciated after so many months of discussion here is exasperating. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to you, and not for the first time, that perhaps a WP:RFC may assist. I reject that it is not a valid step that can be taken. The first sentence states Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I fail to see how this is not ideal for the purpose. --Falcadore (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The only reason I can fathom for why you fail to see how this is not ideal for the purpose of an RFC is because you don't have much experience with WP:RM proposal discussions. If you do have a lot of experience with WP:RM, then I'm at a loss to explain your failure to see. I can't say for sure that publicizing an RM discussion via the RFC mechanism is unprecedented, but there is nothing particularly unusual about this one to warrant it here.

That said, the broader discussion about changing the wording at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that I started at WT:D#PRIMARYTOPIC_wording_change_proposal some weeks ago might indeed benefit by an RFC. However, that's not relevant here since the educational exception section which is at issue there was not referenced by much (if any) of the opposition here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how an RFC could be useful for anything B2C is trying to do here. You shouldn't need an RFC to engage the closing admin about a move request. Falcadore, did you mean to address that to Epipelagic? An RFC might be a good way to address any serious flaws with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I imagine voting against it at rms like this is not going to be a very efficient way to deal with them. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If engaging the admin was the aim, then that could, even should, have been done privately on a user talk page without all of... well, this. By doing it here, it then becomes a public debate and it surely then is no longer a dialogue just between Born2cycle and Future Perfect at Sunrise. If it is about making the explanation public there are other ways it could have been without turning into an extended continuation of the debate. If it is about a why is this the decision? an RFC can provide an explanation and be educational at the same time without becoming a forum of 'to-and-fro'. If it is that this was wrong procedurally, then privately was certainly the best way to do this, unless canvassing for support was the aim. --Falcadore (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Since the decision was posted here, it was perfectly appropriate to post the questions about the decision here as well. This too is common practice with questioned WP:RM decisions, as is putting a notice about the posting on the closing admin's user talk page, which I did. Your apparent lack of familiarity with this practice again indicates a lack of experience with WP:RM processing, further confirming the hypothesis that lack of experience with RM discussions is typical of many who opposed this proposal. Indeed, there seems to be a general lack of familiarity here with what the normal processes are, as well as what the guidelines say, much less why they are what they are and all the years of consensus building and evolutionary thinking behind them.

But if nothing else hopefully this discussion is educational (ironically) regarding all that.

It's not my fault others chose to chime in and start discussions about this (notably, with no one actually even attempting to actually the questions). Why shouldn't I answer the questions and address the points made in those comments? Maybe I should start a new section entitled... Is this the right place for questioning the questioning of this closing? LOL! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

another arbitrary break

Is this still going on?
B2c: It seems not to have occurred to you that the people who oppose your position here understand "this fundamental notion to WP naming" of yours all too well; and what you are not appreciating is that they don't agree with you on it. And as you have seen fit to brow-beat everyone who has disagreed with you here, it is no surprise you are trying it on with the closing admin; but I strongly suggest it is time to drop the stick and back away from the horse. As for RFC, there is certainly no point in having one here; but having one at WP:D to draw in opinion on the PRIMARYTOPIC guideline from a wider readership is a good idea. We might determine which of us are barking up the wrong tree over this. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The dearth of anyone arguing in opposition from a position indicating an understanding of the underlying issues, what primary topic fundamentally says, what the educational exception is, etc., is why it seems to me there is that lack of understanding. Instead, there is a slew of comments indicating a lack of appreciation for even why PT would apply here. If others understood all this but chose to not disclose their understanding, you can't blame me for not realizing they understood it.

I know what disagreement looks like as opposed to not understanding. Much of what we have here is lack of knowledge and understanding. The deeper discussion at WT:D is mostly true disagreement.

I also know what agreement looks like. For example, you and I agree an RFC would not be appropriate here, and might be appropriate at the WT:D discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FFS Born, you cannot be that dense!
We don't have "an understanding of the underlying issues"? Why not just go for outright incivility instead?
When this move was first suggested (ie. moving the car page to here, and this page somewhere else, let’s not forget), you were presented with arguments that said both this article and the car page were correctly titled according to PRECISE and NC, and that moving them would be wrong under TITLECHANGE. Also that the articles were where readers would not be surprised to find them ,as they matched the titling of other sources (like encyclopaedias and dictionaries). You may not agree with any of those positions, but you cannot say they were not presented to you.
When PRIMARYTOPIC was brought up, you were told it didn’t apply, as the two pages were not ambiguous as they stood (and would only have been ambiguous if they had been moved). The only thing you have offered in favour of a move was your endlessly repeated interpretation of the PT guideline, that our most important consideration is to "get users to the pages they seek as quickly as possible", which was also questioned. You were given technical reasons why moving was a bad idea, and a mathematical analysis why your remedy wouldn’t achieve what you wanted it to. There was no "lack of appreciation" of PT, just a rejection of your interpretation and emphasis of it.
So if there was a lack of understanding here, it wasn't on the part of those who disagreed with you. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making my point, again. PT does not apply since the two pages were not ambiguous as they were titled ("as they stood")? "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. " That's not my interpretation. That's what PT says. PT does apply since "corvette" is used to refer to and search for both topics. That's what you didn't understand, and apparently still don't. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, to paraphrase the great Homer Simpson, "just because I don't agree, doesn't mean I don't understand". Xyl 54 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Xyl, you don't agree with what? That the yellow highlighted statement is what PT says? Or you don't agree with PT?

Regarding dpmuk's argument, it is based on the significance of, in his view, Chevrolet Corvette having a "natural disambiguate" that puts it at a different title. But having a different title (whether due to "natural disambiguate" or otherwise) is exactly what PT says "is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary". That whole paragraph of PT is there precisely to explain why PT does apply in cases like this.

Further, dpmuk is essentially arguing the reasoning given in WP:TWODABS (because he says the other examples I gave are different in that they have more than two computing uses), but WP:TWODABS explicitly states it only applies when there is a primary topic, and dpmuk has conceded in his argument that there isn't one in this case. Several of us noted that that was the best argument given for those in opposition, but it was unique (not even endorsed by anyone else I believe, much less expressed separately), and is based on a misunderstanding of PT as I just explained anyway.

More to the point, none of this even begins to address the numbered questions I raised above, which is what you said had already been done, and for which I asked diffs. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No Born, I don't agree with you. I don’t think PT is the only consideration; and I don't think it carries more weight than all the other guidelines. And my reference to Dpmuk's comments were entirely in answer to Erik's question about a mathematical analysis; it doesn’t need an impassioned response about how wrong you think he was. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Xyl, would you be so good as to point me to the "mathematical analysis why [B2C's] remedy wouldn’t achieve" thing? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I was referring to the comments by Dpmuk, in this section, from 17:49, 3 May 2011 onwards. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this the right place for this debate

I ask since this is now a debate about procedure rather than a debate about the subject of Corvette, is there perhaps a more appropriate please than this talk page for debating Wikipedia procedure? --Falcadore (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the more general issues, but it's not yet entirely clear what role they have to play here because the above specific questions about the specific discussion about the title of this article have not yet been answered. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Falcadore, yeah, hopefully this won't turn in to an extended debate. And I suppose you could say that those who would like to rewrite/remove WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be having this discussion elsewhere before voting against moves like this, although there's a tradition of "voting with your feet" so to speak, a la jury nullification. But, for those who like discussing the rules beforehand, this discussion is ongoing at WT:D, which is a good place I think. Here, however, B2C seems to just be trying to ask the closing admin some questions about this close. This is probably a good place for that, although you could argue it should be at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise instead. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since this move discussion opened there have been 21 edits to WP:Primary topic some made by, and many instigated by Born2Cycle who appears to be on some sort of a crusade. The only argument put forward for a move, centred around page hits and Google hits; one of only a number of ways to "...help determine primary topic". Born2Cycle seems to think page hits should be only way of determining primary topic and has to this end rewritten the guidelines to support his argument.--Ykraps (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, but did anyone opposing the move use any of the other ways to determine the primary topic in their reasonings? Also, in response to your dig at Born2cycle, he has only made three edits (extent here) and all he has done is add headings and put one sentence in bold. I hardly see that as rewriting the guideline to say "page hits should be only way of determining primary topic". Jenks24 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Jenks24, thank you for pointing that out so I don't have to.

        Ykraps, please retract your accusation -- particularly the totality of the last statement of your comment -- accordingly. You're way out of line, sir. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    • By the way, my "crusade" is educational. At many RM proposals, not just here (e.g., Talk:Britney_(disambiguation), Talk:Children_of_a_Lesser_God#Requested_move), many people seem to be unaware about what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, and why. What's odd about this particular discussion is the large number of participants afflicted (note the dearth of opposing participants who even addressed primary topic criteria in their reasoning), not to mention the closing admin. So, the edits I made to the guideline recently -- just adding some subheaders and bolding one statement as noted by Jenks24 above -- were for the purpose of hopefully making it easier to read and understand. I made no substantive changes to what it says or what it is intended to convey. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I will certainly apologise if my remarks have caused offence as that was not my intention but I am not sure why you want me to retract them. It is a fact that 21 edits have been made to WP:Primary topic since 26 April. It is a fact that Born2Cycle has made some of those edits. It is a fact that he instigated some of those changes. It is a fact that his arguments centred around page hits which he has sought to make the only criterion for deciding Primary topic. I apologise if my use of the word crusade was over the top but Born2Cycle's own remarks on his talk page makes it sound like one. I am sorry if you think I'm out of line but I think moving the goalposts all the time is a bit of a shoddy trick. Jenks24, yes other ways of determining primary topic were brought up in this move discussion which is why a rewrite of the rules was requested here [[2]].--Ykraps (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Falcadore, yeah, hopefully this won't turn in to an extended debate. If you will pardon the pun, that ship has well and truly sailed. --23:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ykraps, of course I don't deny starting that discussion, but you went well beyond merely noting that I properly raised a proposal, and you suggest that I did much more with my edits than merely adding some subheadings and bolding, which is all I did. The scurrilous accusations you made are offensive, of course. Just below is a list of the most offensive among them; if you ever must make such remarks, you should always support them with edit links. Please do so now for these:
  1. me thinking that "page hits should be only way of determining primary topic"
  2. me "[rewriting] the guidelines to support [my] argument" (actually rewriting, not merely proposing a change or adding subheadings for clarity of existing language)
  3. edits that I made or "instigated" (supposedly "many", in which case also provide the edit links to whatever it is that I said you think instigated the allegedly instigated edit) that you believe qualify as "moving the goalposts"
If you can't provide the evidence to support these accusations, which I'm sure you can't because I know none of this is true, but I understand there may have been a misunderstanding and that you need to convince yourself of this first, please apologize and rescind them. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Okay, I have struck this part as it was a bit of a sweeping statement and appears to have caused you some offence, for which I again apologise. Although in my defence, I have never seen you argue against it and it was the entire crux of your argument during this move request. You also stated during that discussion that you would be willing to move Ferrari GT250 California to California if it ever got more page hits; something, which to my mind, illustrates the importance of page hits to you.
  2. The way the guidelines have been rewritten (by which I mean written again) has given the appearance that page hits and Google searches are of the utmost importance and that other methods are secondary. This has been done by giving them their own section near the top and moving the other methods further down the page. Prior to these edits, all the methods were in the same section and no method appeared to be of any more importance than the next. Before you take any further offence, I am not saying this was done deliberately.
  3. I have struck 'many' which was a bit of an exaggeration. I feel I have demonstrated how the goalposts have been moved above; but on reflection, I can see how this phrase could be construed as an accusation of cheating which was not what I meant, and for that I apologise. I am sure that everything you have done has been above board. I should however say that this statement was not aimed at anyone in particular and I was only trying to point out how difficult it is to construct an argument within the rules, when the rules are constantly changing.
I apologise once again for any offense but I can't pretend that I'm not in a state of bewilderment over how offended you have become or how I've been called out over, what is to me; a few innoccuous and justifiable comments.--Ykraps (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please can we stop beating the dead horse.
  • Please can we stop accusing others of making personal attacks, when no personal attacks were intended.

--Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I second this; I'm tired of being bashed with the "must comply" line, and afraid that if I cite WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ("In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end ...") I'll find umbrage taken. Consensus here doesn't agree with the guidelines - perhaps the guidelines need changing. WP works by consensus, not rules. Just drop it. Shem (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    The consensus of the community is expressed here and here, too. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The consensus of the community as to whether the guidelines (as interpreted by B2C and others) should force a move of this article was expressed here. Shem (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    And whether community was accurately and fairly assessed in that decision was questioned here. The questions have not yet been addressed. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The questions have been addressed ad nauseam - just not to your satisfaction. Shem (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • No, the questions I posed have not been addressed at all. But you're free to provide a diff showing where each of the questions was addressed; please be clear about which question you're referring and how the diff addressed it. If you can't or won't do that, please stop insisting that they have been addressed. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The best summary I can find is here, but as the self-appointed prophet of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no doubt you'll need the The Last Word. I can see you learnt nothing from this. Shem (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing it out. I had missed it. Not only does it not address my questions, but it again demonstrates the lack of understanding about PT, what it says, and when consensus has determined that it applies. Explained above in terms of an actual quote from PT, not my interpretation. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you are right, Born2cycle, and it is true the rest of us suffer from the "lack of understanding" you keep accusing us of. And perhaps, because we are so lacking in understanding, we fail to address your questions. Speaking for myself, it is true I lack understanding of any rational issues you have raised that should be addressed. It must be very difficult to be so alone in the true understanding, trying to hold back such a sea of lack of understanding. Anyway, here's another comment about which you will need to post again if you want to have the final word. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • At the risk of trying to clear a minefield by jumping in it, here goes

    You seem to object to the Support arguments being described as "fairly strongly based on the letter of the guidelines" (you think it should have said "strongly based" on the guidelines themselves) and the Oppose arguments as "not so obviously against policy as to be discountable" (you think they actually should have been discounted)

    Maybe instead you should consider that your position got off lightly.

    I would have thought arguments from WP:TITLE and NAMINGCONVENTIONS, and PRECISE and TITLECHANGE would themselves have qualified at least as "fairly strongly based on the letter of the guidelines"; and I also would have thought an argument based on a reading of WP:PT that overlooked the "natural disambiguation" that already existed and the hatnote arrangement that already gave "a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears", that ignored a growing consensus and was increasingly tendentiously presented, might actually be "so obviously against policy as to be discountable"

    But then, I’m not the closing admin. OTOH, neither are you. So maybe it’s time to let go; I know I’d like to...Xyl 54 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Referring to a policy in a way that misapplies what the policy says is not an argument based in policy. The references to WP:TITLE were completely irrelevant. No one was questioning whether "Corvette" would be the appropriate title for this article if there were no other uses of "corvette"... of course the title of this article complied with WP:TITLE in that context.

    TITLECHANGE does discourage unnecessary title changes, but it clearly does not apply in cases where the reason for the change is to comply better with policy (in this case PRIMARYTOPIC).

    Simply referring to a guideline or policy does not mean the argument is based on the guideline or policy. There actually has to be solid reasoning connecting the two! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corvette/Archive_2&oldid=1144417961"