Talk:Division of Fraser (Victoria)

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

Requested move 9 November 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Fraser (Victoria) → Division of Fraser – Removing unnecessary disambiguation, this is the only notable and currently existing electoral division of that name. The target name is occupied by a redirect. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frayae, I made the request of a technical and uncontroversial move. Division of Fraser (Australian Capital Territory) is an abolished division. It would be appropriate to provide a link to that abolished division at the top of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this might be too early: it is a new seat that hasn't been contested yet, and the overwhelming amount of references to a "Fraser" electorate are going to be in the ACT. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but people searching for a Fraser division would overwhelmingly be searching for the one in Victoria. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show why it is the primary topic using reliable sources and evidence. Otherwise the disambiguation page should stand. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2], [3], [4]. All the Google search results refer to the Victorian division, except for Wikipedia, and unrelated topics with the name "Fraser" such as Bernie Fraser. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"division of fraser" "victoria" -wiki = 36,400 results
"division of fraser" "ACT" -wiki = 49,100 results
That is to say, there are more Google results for the ACT division. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not results for "Division of Fraser", there are more results for the Victoria division than the ACT division. There are only more results for the ACT division if ACT is explicitly searched for. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you count the results for each division other than explicitly searching for each separately and comparing? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I searched "Division of Fraser" and looked through the top results. All the first results were for the Victorian division, except for a result for Wikipedia's article of the ACT division. This is because the ACT division isn't relevant anymore to most people and to reliable sources, being an abolished division which was never distinctively notable and not existing anymore. So those results for the ACT division would be found many pages into an internet search. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is common knowledge but the top results are customised based on where you are and your interests. Most the top results for me are for the ACT on a search for https://www.google.is/search?q="Division+of+Fraser" — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 01:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many more people in Victoria than in ACT. I've repeated the search setting my location to a few different countries (including Iceland), and I've received the same results, plus some non-Australian results. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it has been general, although not universal, practice to have current divisions default to the primary topic, although we don't often have them so close together. Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I just thought this would've taken me one minute to do myself but it's turned into this which I didn't intend. It was my understanding that current divisions didn't need/use disambiguations, and there was no reason to do otherwise here. I hope this doesn't waste any more of people's time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The page views are divided 64:36. That is nowhere near enough to define a WP:PTOPIC. "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (emphasis in the original). Less than 2:1 is not "highly likely". Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you've quoted is consistent with Division of Fraser being the Victorian division. Anybody searching for the ACT division is searching for a division that no longer exists, while the Victorian division exists and will be used in the upcoming election. There is no proof here that those searching for Division of Fraser are intending to find the former ACT division. It is very unlikely that those searching for the former ACT division think it is the primary topic, or on the same level. That much can be seen from internet search results of "Division of Fraser". Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Yes, Fraser (Victoria) will become the only currently existing electoral division of that name but it won't be the only notable topic called "Division of Fraser". People do search for articles about things that no longer exist. There may also be incoming links from outside Wikipedia intended for the ACT seat which occupied the base name until three months ago. I don't see a clear primary topic here. We may want to revisit this after coverage of the Victoria seat settles down. Certes (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The division in Victoria currently exists, it doesn't take until the next election for it to exist. I don't see how coverage of the Victorian seat would settle down, there's going to be a member of parliament for it and an election for it, so there's only going to be more coverage. If there are links to the Canberra seat, we can redirect them with a sentence at the top of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It exists only in the sense that a person who has been announced as the next governor-general, with the swearing-in to take place in 6 months time, exists as a person but is not G-G yet. Obviously, announcements about new electorate names and new boundaries are always made before they come into effect, because various preparations have to be made. But when they come into effect - and not before - is the beginning of their legal existence. There is not yet any such thing as a "Member for Fraser", and there will not be until election day in 2019. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a Division of Fraser in Victoria, but not yet a member. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Division_of_Fraser_(Victoria)&oldid=1201569875"