Talk:Burnham Park

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 no consensus = no move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Burnham Park → Burnham Park (disambiguation) — Based on the article traffic tool, Burnham Park (Chicago) should be at Burnham Park. —TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support based on tool above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as insufficient; the actual results of the tool are 750 to 248. Three to one is not enough; primary usage is on the order of 90% of English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Another ludicrous proposal based on the traffic tool. Of course the American park gets more hits than the one in the Philippines. Ummm, Americans do own more computers. Andrewa (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Septentrionalis and Andrewa. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now. Using wikipedia page views to determine primary topic is problematically solipsistic. At the very least there needs to be a wider discussion about the appropriateness of using the tool for that purpose. older ≠ wiser 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - From what I understand, disambig pages are generally not used for two subjects with the same name; hat notes are preferable. That being said, the move should be simplified by just moving Burnham Park (Chicago) to this location, and adding hat notes to both pages. Is that acceptable to interested parties? Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That would work. Are these the only Burnham Parks?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no, there aren't any other Burnham Parks that are notable enough for a Wiki article. If at some point another Burnham Park becomes notable, a Burnham Park (disambiguation) page can be created; Burnham Park (Chicago) seems to be the most notable, so it should occupy the non-disambiguated name space. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Disambiguation pages with only two entries, which reads Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary meaning. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. The recommended practice is to use a hatnote on the article for the primary meaning to link directly to the secondary meaning. Note that firstly, this allows but discourages two-way disambiguation even when there's a clear primary meaning, and secondly, in order for even this to apply, we'd need justify the claim that one is the primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Web statistics tool for some discussion of the statistics tool. Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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.