Talk:Barton House

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

National Register of Historic Places

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles

Primary topic[edit]

(this topic opened after i had moved the frank lloyd wright house to "Barton House (Buffalo, New York)" to make way for disambiguation and set up this disambiguation page at "Barton House". Another editor later moved this page to "Barton House (disambiguation)" --Doncram)

I'm having a hard time seeing how the Frank Lloyd Wright Barton House does not qualify to be listed at this page under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, these other buildings are barely notable, the Wright house is one of his most famous works.

Suggest moving this page to Barton House (disambiguation), hat noting the primary topic and moving Barton House (Buffalo, New York) to Barton House.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not too mention that most of the buildings listed here are not called the Barton House but some variation of that name, which I am not sure is a proper use of a dab page.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected it wasn't being used properly and that is correct, according to WP:DAB: Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices.

This page should clearly be moved.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page as suggested. Normally I'd err on the side of keeping the disambiguation page as the primary - it's just too easy to introduce bias otherwise, what's *obviously* the main use of a term to me is probably utterly different from someone from a different background or culture. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it's right to be bold though - if the move is wrong, someone can just move it back ;) - TB (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was and is no assertion in the Frank Lloyd Wright house article that this house is any more important than any other of hundreds of Wright-designed houses. Also, the article's own name in the lede is the George Martin House. From a websearch tt does seem this house has more importance than many other Wright houses, but still it is just on a corner of the Darwin Martin Complex, and can / perhaps should be covered in that article instead, or continue in separate article under the George Martin House name. Google searches find other Barton Houses first. Perhaps the most common modern usage is for a couple Alzheimer care facilities named Barton House. I started one other article: the Barton House in Salado Texas is older than the Wright house one. I don't see that it's obvious the George Barton House should get the primary usage of the Barton House name. So how about moving the Wright house article to George Martin House, and restoring the disambiguation page to "Barton House"? doncram (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP or a Google search is a good way to determine this. WP isn't considered a reliable source, not even by us, ourselves, Wikipedians. Google searches are inherently misleading because the internet has yet to compile all available information. I have a number of books which assert more importance to this house than WP does. But you usually just oppose everything I say so I didn't expect you to agree with my assessment. Suggest we wait for further comment, if none is forthcoming a RFC might be helpful.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, if you want to, revert the move back so we can discuss this instead of relying on WP:BOLD which should probably only be invoked if there is not obvious opposition to proposals. Not knocking the move, but since there is opposition, it should probably be moved back to the former situation so the discussion can be allowed to play out.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Barton House in Buffalo to George Barton House. I think the NRHP project needs to reassess how they are using disambiguation pages, because according to the guidelines it's largely incorrect. As a reader, it just confusing because the pages are being used as directories and not disambig pages, another issue altogether but I thought I would mention it, I am certain doncram will disagree.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly sorry that some (or a lot?) of my past editing offended you, IvoShandor, and apologize for what i did that offended you. I believe I was wrong or misguided in some/many past cases, and I assume there were more cases than I know about to apologize for.

About the disambiguation pages including multiple redlink NRHP entries, I understand that they can appear to be like directories, but per wp:MOSDAB guidelines including MOS:DABRL specificially I believe they are not. Each NRHP item is wikipedia notable, and each redlink is supported by a corresponding bluelink, per the MOS:DABRL guideline. I did in the past ask for guidance on NRHP disambiguation and got a lot of feedback from other editors in this extended past discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation, which i have implemented widely, so I do believe that the NRHP disambiguation is generally okay now. About the past I agree that NRHP dab pages were not fully compliant with wikipedia guidelines. This is hard to talk about in general terms, but if there remain problems, I would be happy to see that raised, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Disambiguation which would be a neutral forum.

Given that IvoShandor agreed enough to himself move the Frank Lloyd Wright house one to George Barton House, leaving Barton House as a redirect to that, I think it would be best to move this "Barton House (disambiguation)" page to "Barton House" now. I don't think the Frank Lloyd wright George Barton House qualifie clearly as a primary topic for the "Barton House" term, given multiple other Barton Houses. Process-wise, I think that opening a wp:RM requested move on this now would be appropriate, but I am a bit distressed by Ivoshandor's comments and don't want to force that discussion now myself. doncram (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Moved. DMacks (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barton House (disambiguation) → Barton House — Per above discussion, I think there is no obviously primary usage for the Baron House name, and that it shoud not redirect to George Barton House. A huge amount of time has gone by, well at least days in real life, since my last comment along these lines, with no response. doncram (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to this move at this time, I felt the BOLD move was a bit premature anyway. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as there is no primary topic, nor even anyone arguing for their own favorite topic. --Una Smith (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.