Talk:Stanley Park (disambiguation)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Dekimasu in topic Requested moves
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested moves
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below; there was also a strong shift toward maintaining the status quo over the course of the discussion, supporting the position that the "Stanley Park" in Vancouver is the primary topic. Dekimasuよ! 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
– Stanley Park in Vancouver is currently the Primary Topic. However, there are several other notable parks of the same name, and so I argue that there is no Primary Topic for this title. For example, Stanley Park in Liverpool is notable and well-known in the field of English football, and Stanley Park in Blackpool is famous and of historic note. All have equal long-term significance. Readers in Canada searching for "Stanley Park" may expect to go to the article for the Vancouver park, but readers in the UK would expect one of the others. Therefore I assert that there is no Primary Topic, and so Stanley Park should become the disambiguation page, and the article on the Vancouver park would better be unambiguously titled as Stanley Park, Vancouver (currently a redirect). Following this change, all erroneous links that are introduced would later be fixed by the WP:DPL project. Bazonka (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support. There seems ot be no case for a primary topic here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support. No primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose according to Google Australia [1] and Google India [2] and Google France [3] and Google Germany [4] and Google Russia [5] and Google Brazil [6] the one in Vancouver is primary topic -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be getting google.kh where I am (Cambodia for now) and would get exactly the same results. Two things resolve things like this; one is googlestats and viewstats, the other is incoming links. How many for each of the British contenders for the PRIMARYTOPIC? That should be provided by the nom rather than an oppose vote having to do it, IIRC. For now I won't vote but I know when this came up before in the North American context it was hands-down for Vancouver's; maybe googling has changed since and the British titles have tons of incoming links; Vancouver's Stanley Park article certainly does. Prove me wrong and I may change what will probably be an oppose vote given the googlestats, I'll venture that viewstats and incoming links will reinforce that.Skookum1 (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment the proposed name for the park in Vancouver is also rather poor, since there is a neighbourhood in Vancouver also called "Stanley Park", so the destinatino name needs to be different. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Google results are affected by the Wiki page. The neighbourhood currently has a article and it would seem that the argument that people are going to be confused by 'Stanley Park, Vancouver' is in agreement for this page to go to a disambiguation page? ツStacey (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Use "Stanley Park -wikipedia" and that's easily solved, and don't forget to provide GoogleBooks and GoogleNews cites, which are part of the drill. I know what you'll find but you can go look for yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Google results are affected by the Wiki page. The neighbourhood currently has a article and it would seem that the argument that people are going to be confused by 'Stanley Park, Vancouver' is in agreement for this page to go to a disambiguation page? ツStacey (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- It happens that in the local parlance, "Stanley Park" refers to the park, we use "Stanley Park neighbourhood for the (rather nice) part of the West End between Denman Street's commercial strip and the park (but not for locations on Denman itself). That's not citable as a statement but an exploration of local media w/wo blog comments would affirm it. Also, re "Stanley Park, Vancouver" the comma-city dab is only used for neighbourhoods or areas of a city, not for geographic objects within it; the dab that it would be moved to, if it is, would be Stanley Park (Vancouver) or Stanley Park (Canada) though the latter would look very odd.Skookum1 (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support. No primary topic. I automatically think of the one in Liverpool, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ツStacey (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per my previous comments, and the nom's failure to provide stats as yet to prove his case, and also because re the argument that British readers will be looking for one of the British items, can that also be said of German and French and other global readers? And withing the anglosphere outside of Canada, in the US, Australia, New Zealand and English-speaking Africa I'll wager the park, as Vancouver's signal emblem and plastered around the world in travel ads and Olympics coverage, is far better known and MOSTCOMMON usage than any of those in the UK. Certainly in North America i.e. the United States, the park in Vancouver is far better known than any in the US, and that's a population of 319 million vs the UK's several dozen million. Strong oppose.Skookum1 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, as per Skookum. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, as per 67.70.35.44, who at least bothered to check and see if there was any grounds for for the park being the most notable, and Skookum1. That Stanley Park, Liverpool sits between the far more notable Goodison Park and Anfield is trivia rather than an indication of the parks notability. I grew up in the UK and had never heard of the Liverpool Park. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support move to disambiguation page. The park in Vancouver got 5300 views last month, the stadium got 1600 views, and the Liverpool district got 700 views. In my experience and estimation, I think that when there is a primary topic it gets ten times the traffic of the other topics, and in this case, the audience demand is close for several topics. For that reason, I think directing the main name to a disambiguation page is best. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per 67.70.35.44 and Skookum1. Volcanoguy 17:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Support per nom. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support - the 'main' one I'd heard of was the Vancouver one - but that's because I used to live in that city, even though I am British. However upon further research there is no clear primary topic and disambiguating makes perfect sense. GiantSnowman 20:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: some numbers - Just to provide something more objective than rather unhelpful "well I've only ever heard of the XX one" comments, our own pageview statistics for the last 90 days break down as follows: Stanley Park - 16256 views (mean = 180.6 per day); Stanley Park, Liverpool - 2468 views (mean = 27.4 per day); Stanley Park Stadium - 6240 views (mean = 69.3 per day); Stanley Park, Blackpool - 1742 views (mean = 19.4 per day); Stanley Park (TV series) - 682 views (mean = 7.6 per day); Parkhill/Stanley Park, Calgary - 578 views (mean = 6.4 per day); Stanley Park (disambiguation) - 277 views (mean = 3.1 per day). Pyrope 21:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think its a fair presumption to make that everyone who visits the Stanley Park article was expecting to see the Vancouver article? I know I wasn't when I clicked on it. I can't see how a change to a disambiguation page would affect the article usage if that was what the person intended to look at - I can only see benefits to the other articles which I think are missing out on views. Please correct me if I am wrong but if Google predicts that everyone who searches 'Stanley Park' is seeking the Vancouver one then it would update its search results accordingly to direct to the new page. ツStacey (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Stacey, that is exactly what this discussion is considering. There is no presumption that everyone looking at the Stanley Park article wants to see info on the Vancouver one, but that a very large majority do. That's why there are only 277 views of the disambiguation page in the last 90 days, compared to 16,256 views of the main page. The Vancouver park's page gets substantially more views than all the other entities combined. What you are suggesting is that every person who comes to Wikipedia and puts "Stanley Park" into our search box should be taken to a disambiguation page. They will then have to read down to find the right one and click again to be taken there. That's not a nice thing to do to our readers unless there is a clear confusion occurring as things stand. We can see by looking at the pageviews, and particularly the DAB page views, that the majority of people wanting to read an article on "Stanley Park" want the Vancouver one. What Google does is neither here nor there as you rightly say, so let's stick to looking at what our users here on Wikipedia do. Pyrope 21:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think its a fair presumption to make that everyone who visits the Stanley Park article was expecting to see the Vancouver article? I know I wasn't when I clicked on it. I can't see how a change to a disambiguation page would affect the article usage if that was what the person intended to look at - I can only see benefits to the other articles which I think are missing out on views. Please correct me if I am wrong but if Google predicts that everyone who searches 'Stanley Park' is seeking the Vancouver one then it would update its search results accordingly to direct to the new page. ツStacey (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, based on the numbers I gave above there is simply no justification for thinking that, globally, the Vancouver park isn't the primary topic. The Vancouver park gets more than six times as many views as the Liverpool one, and more than nine times as many as the Blackpool one. The failed stadium already has only around a third as many views as the Vancouver park, and as that project is now dead in the water (following the decision to redevelop at Anfield) its pageviews are likely to decline in the next few years whereas the Vancouver Park's numbers should be fairly stable (with much discussion over widening of cycle routes alongside the main highway through the park due in the next year or so, they may actually increase). Even if you are pessimistic and assume that all of the DAB page's views originated at the Vancouver park's page, that still only trims a couple per day of its numbers. Not enough to change the relative ratios significantly. Other Stanley Parks and uses of the term are either entirely trivial or derive their name from one of the other entities. Pyrope 21:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. I am convinced that the Stanley Park in Vancouver is the primary topic for a number of reasons. 1) Based on its regional/national significance. It was recently awarded #1 park in the world by trip advisor, is a national historic site of Canada and is the iconic image of the city of Vancouver and used extensively in marketing, advertising, etc. 2) Along with the wikipedia view stats above, if you look at google, "Stanley Park" AND Vancouver receives 3.4 million hits, almost seven times that of the next two largest combined ("Stanley Park" AND Liverpool (300k) and "Stanley Park" AND Blackpool (200k)). 3) It is the subject of much more extensive coverage in print sources as well. Looking at Worldcat, there are 86 books (plus numerous other materials) under the LCC subject Stanley Park (Vancouver, BC), (note the Vancouver Stanley Park has been assigned its own classification, which gives an idea of the breadth of the topic) whereas I can only find one book that mentions the Stanley Park in Liverpool, and that is in a compilation of all Liverpool Parks. Ravendrop 00:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Only one book...." !!! I've just found over 4,000 mentioning the Liverpool park. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Reply. Yes, well, using the same search parameters for Vancouver, on google.co.ok, there are 48,900. Your point is..?? Btw using .ca in the same string got 49,900, and 4,040 for Liverpool. I don't see what all the fuss is about geographic google searches seen here. .com, .au, .th, .ca, .in whatever; any differences are negligible relative to the parallel comparisons that you will find. It's not like books are invisible in some countries; well, maybe .cn and .nk (North Korea? - not sure) or whatever Saudi Arabia is and so on. Another point is the range of materials on the Vancouver park; ethnology, history, native and logger lore, architecture, structures. While yes tons are travel guides (which still rank as valid hits) there are academic works, in-depth histories of landmarks and structures and facilities et al on site; a glance at Category:Stanley Park is a good indication of notable things in the park; there's also romances, poetry, short story and more set in the park or spun off it, a naval base, a thousands-year old ceremonial settlement, a major world aquarium and the 'causeway' to Lions Gate Bridge's south foot; military installations and history and so on. How many subarticles are there of the Liverpool park? Sports books citations are one thing, and no doubt there's civic politics and business items on it out there, but 49,900 to 4,040 is not good evidence that Liverpool's is PRIMARYTOPIC. Not from anywhere in the world.Skookum1 (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
YouIt was said "I can only find one book that mentions the Stanley Park in Liverpool". That alone was the point I was questioning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)- It wasn't me who said that; and when you post a stat like that it's misleading; it sounded like you were trying to prove the Liverpool-PT case with that so I replied accordingly.Skookum1 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry - not you. All stats mislead, not just mine! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to the Worldcat catalogue, which I specifically used as, unlike Google books, when searching it only returns results where the search term is treated at length, and not just with a single mention (as the vast majority of hits for both Stanley Park Vancouver and Stanley Park Liverpool are on Google Books). Ravendrop 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry - not you. All stats mislead, not just mine! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't me who said that; and when you post a stat like that it's misleading; it sounded like you were trying to prove the Liverpool-PT case with that so I replied accordingly.Skookum1 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Reply. Yes, well, using the same search parameters for Vancouver, on google.co.ok, there are 48,900. Your point is..?? Btw using .ca in the same string got 49,900, and 4,040 for Liverpool. I don't see what all the fuss is about geographic google searches seen here. .com, .au, .th, .ca, .in whatever; any differences are negligible relative to the parallel comparisons that you will find. It's not like books are invisible in some countries; well, maybe .cn and .nk (North Korea? - not sure) or whatever Saudi Arabia is and so on. Another point is the range of materials on the Vancouver park; ethnology, history, native and logger lore, architecture, structures. While yes tons are travel guides (which still rank as valid hits) there are academic works, in-depth histories of landmarks and structures and facilities et al on site; a glance at Category:Stanley Park is a good indication of notable things in the park; there's also romances, poetry, short story and more set in the park or spun off it, a naval base, a thousands-year old ceremonial settlement, a major world aquarium and the 'causeway' to Lions Gate Bridge's south foot; military installations and history and so on. How many subarticles are there of the Liverpool park? Sports books citations are one thing, and no doubt there's civic politics and business items on it out there, but 49,900 to 4,040 is not good evidence that Liverpool's is PRIMARYTOPIC. Not from anywhere in the world.Skookum1 (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Only one book...." !!! I've just found over 4,000 mentioning the Liverpool park. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Skookum1 and Pyrope. older ≠ wiser 02:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as the Canadian Stanley Park gets ~7x as many hits, it's the primary topic. This isn't a case where there are equal standings for two equally important topics. There is a clear-cut primary topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Skookum1 and Pyrope make a compelling argument for why this Stanley Park qualifies as the primary topic. The case for moving seems to be predicated on an assertion there a couple others would be what people in the UK would think of. I, personally, think of "New Brunswick" as this place, not this one and I speculate many in the US would, but I'm not about to go open an RM about it. What one personally thinks of is not a good reason to move something. Evidence is a good reason to move something, but in this case, the evidence is pointing in the other direction. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.