Cliburn, Cumbria received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following pages should be redirected to the given section bellow;
Cliburn Hall redirect to section Cliburn#Cliburn Hall
St. Cuthberts church, Cliburn redirected to section Cliburn#St. Cuthberts church
Cliburn Bridge redirected to section Cliburn#Other features
Cliburn Mill Bridge redirected to section Cliburn#Other features
Cliburn Moss redirected to section Cliburn#Other features
Hamish Griffin ( talk) 14:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this article still a stub, or has it now got sufficient content to no longer be a stub. Hamish Griffin ( talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone opposes this on the grounds that "Cliburn" is a partial match for "Van Cliburn", please note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states: "The title of the primary topic article ( Van Cliburn) may be different from the ambiguous term ("Cliburn") being considered. ... When this is the case, the term ( Cliburn) should redirect to the article ( Van Cliburn) ... The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, no ambiguity. When you google for "Cliburn" all of the results are for Van Cliburn, which is why Cliburn should redirect to Van Cliburn just as Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, and Nixon to Richard Nixon (despite the existence of other uses of the term, like Nixon, Texas, which is much less likely to be viewed, like this article about a tiny village).
No ambiguity is the reason to move this article, not to leave it where it is. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's another way to look at it. Let's say most or even many people using Google to search for "cliburn" are looking for something other than "Van Cliburn". What would happen is they would scroll through the results until they did find what they were looking for, and click on it. Google would note this, one user after another, and subtly adjust their results for the next search for "cliburn" accordingly.
Google is even smarter than that. If you search for "Cliburn" and don't click on anything (because you're looking for the village and don't see it), and so you redo the search to look for "cliburn village", and find the information that way and click on it, Google takes account of this too, giving those village pages higher priority for the next time someone searches for "cliburn".
As more and more search for "cliburn" and end up clicking on web pages about the village, then those pages about the village would move higher and higher up in the results, until, finally, they would be near the top, if not at the top, of any search for "cliburn". It's precisely because of these behind-the-scenes intelligent learning searches that makes Google so much more useful, and why Google results are much more relevant to determining primary topic than they would be if Google only did simple dumb pattern matching.
This is why the fact that basically only stuff about "Van Cliburn" shows up when you search for "cliburn" is very strong evidence that that is the subject usually sought when people search for "Cliburn". -- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As I just explained in detail above in my reply to Dpmuk, the fact that basically only stuff about "Van Cliburn" shows up when you Google search for "cliburn" is very strong evidence that that is the subject usually sought when people search for "Cliburn".
For that to be untrue would mean Google employs unintelligent search algorithms that don't learn by taking into account user search behavior, which is nonsense. Google's success is due precisely to having this type of learning intelligence employed in its search algorithms. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Contrast these results with, say, "dyke" and "van dyke". In that case if you search for just "dyke" you see many topics that have nothing to do with "van dyke", obviously because people searching for "dyke" have ultimately and regularly clicked on those other things. Any other uses of "cliburn" would also make it up higher in the search results for "cliburn" if indeed people tended to be looking for those topics when searching for "cliburn".
This characteristic of Google search results is key to determining primary topic. We use it objectively to argue against redirecting Dyke to Van Dyke, but for redirecting Cliburn to Van Cliburn. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
How one writes (and reads about) someone in an article is relevant here because it indicates how someone is likely to search for that someone. Since Cliburn is regularly referred to as Cliburn in written and spoken English, it is natural and likely for people to be looking for him when they enter "cliburn" in the search box. The idea that people almost always use a person's full name, and almost never use just the surname, when searching for information about that person is ridiculous. That's what's relevant here, not the convention of using a full name when first writing about someone. Consider the context; people who are searching are not writing articles - those conventions don't apply in this context. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Those in opposition are probably already dug into their positions here, but maybe someone will think twice next time about dismissing the surname search likelihoods "because the article won't be at just the surname" in deciding primary topic, and will remember why that's not relevant to primary topic determination. I can hope, can't I? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
For each of the uses linked at Cliburn (disambiguation), here are the page view statistics from October 2010, ordered from least to most frequently viewed:
This is about as an obvious case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as there can be. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Cliburn is an ambiguous term; it is a homograph that may refer to several topics, depending on context. One of the topics to which the homograph "cliburn" may refer is the pianist in a speaking or written context in which he is referred to by surname only, as he often is, as most persons are in the English speaking world. The idea that users who are entering "cliburn" in the search box are not likely to be looking for the pianist but more likely to be looking for the obscure little village that is the topic of this article is quite silly, and, yet, that's the only justification for claiming the village is the primary topic. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
We need go no further than our article about Cliburn to find plenty of examples of references to the pianist as just Cliburn, here are just a few:
This is typical of writing about Cliburn; he is normally and regularly referred to as just Cliburn (normally, but not always, after being introduced with full name, just like anyone else).
Here are some more examples, including website names as well as reliable sources like newspapers, of using just Cliburn to refer to him:
-- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is a common practice to use a person's full name at the beginning and then refer to them by surname only thoughout the text of a biography, article, etc. For the same reasons only the surname is used in those contexts (mostly conciseness), it is also common practice to search for persons by surname only (especially for relatively unusual surnames like Cliburn, McNealy and Palmisano, but of course not for very common ones like Brown and Blair), and the likelihood of the term "cliburn" being used to search for the village relative to the pianist (and any other topics which are likely to be searched by "cliburn") is the only factor we're supposed to be looking at in determining whether the village is the primary topic.
The point of determining primary topics and disambiguating and redirecting accordingly is not about putting articles at the "correct" titles, but about serving readers, especially in the context of topic search, as best as we can. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
J, this is getting ridiculous. "Name holders are not ambiguous" in the edit summary of your revert has no meaning in English. "Ambiguous" is an adjective that can only apply to something that is interpreted (and if it can be interpreted in more than one way it is ambiguous), like a term, title, or name. A name holder is one who holds a name; a person. People are not interpreted, though some characteristics of people, like gender, are interpreted and might be ambiguous, so of course persons are not ambiguous . "Names-holders are not ambiguous" is as meaningless as "diamonds are not alive". That is, "ambiguous" can apply to name-holders no more than "alive" can apply to diamonds. I also don't understand the relevance of the reference to MOS:DABNAME which is about how to format dab pages. Please explain your revert in comprehensible English. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
And here we go again. "the other uses are not ambiguous with the title."
Yes, I agree, no uses of "Simister" are "ambiguous with the title" because that's a nonsensical/non-English use of the term "ambiguous". The definition of Ambiguity is "a condition where information can be understood or interpreted in more than one way", and Merriam-Webster defines "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more senses or ways". So "uses of a term" cannot be ambiguous, because each use is not understood in multiple ways. However, a term like "Simister" is ambiguous, because it can be understood in more than one way. In fact, "Simister" is capable of being understood in three ways with respect to what is covered in Wikipedia:
Clearly each of the three ways Simister can be understood are valid uses of the term (persons are commonly referred to by just surname in English), and, so, we should aid readers in finding each of these uses when they search for any one of them with "Simister". -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Templates have been placed in the article suggesting articles be split off for Cliburn Moss and St Cuthbert's Church. Currently the article contains very little info on either, so unless there was a substantial expansion I see no point in splitting these off. Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth would a short article likethis need a peer review?-- J3Mrs ( talk) 14:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat ( talk) 18:40, 03 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved and new DAB created. Andrewa ( talk) 20:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
– The city is not the primary topic for the term Cliburn, largely due to the existence of the pianist Van Cliburn. Google.com results are entirely about the pianist. On google.co.uk, a search for Cliburn brings up 7 for the pianist, including the first result, and 3 for the town. Google news results for Cliburn are almost entirely about The Cliburn foundation and the associated competition, or its winners. Google books results are also, unsurprisingly, equally dominated by Van Cliburn.
For those who may argue that "Cliburn" without Van would never be used for the pianist, I would note that the competition is very commonly referred simply as The Cliburn in numerous reliable and official sources. There's a much easier way to see this, however. This page, Cliburn, usually gets around 10views per day. An odd exception is February 2013, when views bounced up to 99 on the 27th and 135 on the 28th. Now, I guess it's possible that something unrelated prompted a sudden interest in the town, but I think common sense dictates that this bump is because of the pianist's death on the 27th.
I'll also point out that the surname disambiguation page received roughly 1/3 the views of this page, indicating that an incredibly high proportion of the editors directed here are looking for something else.
The page currently at Cliburn (surname) can be converted into a disambiguation. Alternatively, the suggestion by the IP below to create a new disambiguation page which would include a link to the surname page seems totally acceptable. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cliburn, Cumbria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Cliburn, Cumbria received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following pages should be redirected to the given section bellow;
Cliburn Hall redirect to section Cliburn#Cliburn Hall
St. Cuthberts church, Cliburn redirected to section Cliburn#St. Cuthberts church
Cliburn Bridge redirected to section Cliburn#Other features
Cliburn Mill Bridge redirected to section Cliburn#Other features
Cliburn Moss redirected to section Cliburn#Other features
Hamish Griffin ( talk) 14:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this article still a stub, or has it now got sufficient content to no longer be a stub. Hamish Griffin ( talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone opposes this on the grounds that "Cliburn" is a partial match for "Van Cliburn", please note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states: "The title of the primary topic article ( Van Cliburn) may be different from the ambiguous term ("Cliburn") being considered. ... When this is the case, the term ( Cliburn) should redirect to the article ( Van Cliburn) ... The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, no ambiguity. When you google for "Cliburn" all of the results are for Van Cliburn, which is why Cliburn should redirect to Van Cliburn just as Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, and Nixon to Richard Nixon (despite the existence of other uses of the term, like Nixon, Texas, which is much less likely to be viewed, like this article about a tiny village).
No ambiguity is the reason to move this article, not to leave it where it is. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's another way to look at it. Let's say most or even many people using Google to search for "cliburn" are looking for something other than "Van Cliburn". What would happen is they would scroll through the results until they did find what they were looking for, and click on it. Google would note this, one user after another, and subtly adjust their results for the next search for "cliburn" accordingly.
Google is even smarter than that. If you search for "Cliburn" and don't click on anything (because you're looking for the village and don't see it), and so you redo the search to look for "cliburn village", and find the information that way and click on it, Google takes account of this too, giving those village pages higher priority for the next time someone searches for "cliburn".
As more and more search for "cliburn" and end up clicking on web pages about the village, then those pages about the village would move higher and higher up in the results, until, finally, they would be near the top, if not at the top, of any search for "cliburn". It's precisely because of these behind-the-scenes intelligent learning searches that makes Google so much more useful, and why Google results are much more relevant to determining primary topic than they would be if Google only did simple dumb pattern matching.
This is why the fact that basically only stuff about "Van Cliburn" shows up when you search for "cliburn" is very strong evidence that that is the subject usually sought when people search for "Cliburn". -- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As I just explained in detail above in my reply to Dpmuk, the fact that basically only stuff about "Van Cliburn" shows up when you Google search for "cliburn" is very strong evidence that that is the subject usually sought when people search for "Cliburn".
For that to be untrue would mean Google employs unintelligent search algorithms that don't learn by taking into account user search behavior, which is nonsense. Google's success is due precisely to having this type of learning intelligence employed in its search algorithms. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Contrast these results with, say, "dyke" and "van dyke". In that case if you search for just "dyke" you see many topics that have nothing to do with "van dyke", obviously because people searching for "dyke" have ultimately and regularly clicked on those other things. Any other uses of "cliburn" would also make it up higher in the search results for "cliburn" if indeed people tended to be looking for those topics when searching for "cliburn".
This characteristic of Google search results is key to determining primary topic. We use it objectively to argue against redirecting Dyke to Van Dyke, but for redirecting Cliburn to Van Cliburn. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
How one writes (and reads about) someone in an article is relevant here because it indicates how someone is likely to search for that someone. Since Cliburn is regularly referred to as Cliburn in written and spoken English, it is natural and likely for people to be looking for him when they enter "cliburn" in the search box. The idea that people almost always use a person's full name, and almost never use just the surname, when searching for information about that person is ridiculous. That's what's relevant here, not the convention of using a full name when first writing about someone. Consider the context; people who are searching are not writing articles - those conventions don't apply in this context. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Those in opposition are probably already dug into their positions here, but maybe someone will think twice next time about dismissing the surname search likelihoods "because the article won't be at just the surname" in deciding primary topic, and will remember why that's not relevant to primary topic determination. I can hope, can't I? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
For each of the uses linked at Cliburn (disambiguation), here are the page view statistics from October 2010, ordered from least to most frequently viewed:
This is about as an obvious case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as there can be. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Cliburn is an ambiguous term; it is a homograph that may refer to several topics, depending on context. One of the topics to which the homograph "cliburn" may refer is the pianist in a speaking or written context in which he is referred to by surname only, as he often is, as most persons are in the English speaking world. The idea that users who are entering "cliburn" in the search box are not likely to be looking for the pianist but more likely to be looking for the obscure little village that is the topic of this article is quite silly, and, yet, that's the only justification for claiming the village is the primary topic. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
We need go no further than our article about Cliburn to find plenty of examples of references to the pianist as just Cliburn, here are just a few:
This is typical of writing about Cliburn; he is normally and regularly referred to as just Cliburn (normally, but not always, after being introduced with full name, just like anyone else).
Here are some more examples, including website names as well as reliable sources like newspapers, of using just Cliburn to refer to him:
-- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is a common practice to use a person's full name at the beginning and then refer to them by surname only thoughout the text of a biography, article, etc. For the same reasons only the surname is used in those contexts (mostly conciseness), it is also common practice to search for persons by surname only (especially for relatively unusual surnames like Cliburn, McNealy and Palmisano, but of course not for very common ones like Brown and Blair), and the likelihood of the term "cliburn" being used to search for the village relative to the pianist (and any other topics which are likely to be searched by "cliburn") is the only factor we're supposed to be looking at in determining whether the village is the primary topic.
The point of determining primary topics and disambiguating and redirecting accordingly is not about putting articles at the "correct" titles, but about serving readers, especially in the context of topic search, as best as we can. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
J, this is getting ridiculous. "Name holders are not ambiguous" in the edit summary of your revert has no meaning in English. "Ambiguous" is an adjective that can only apply to something that is interpreted (and if it can be interpreted in more than one way it is ambiguous), like a term, title, or name. A name holder is one who holds a name; a person. People are not interpreted, though some characteristics of people, like gender, are interpreted and might be ambiguous, so of course persons are not ambiguous . "Names-holders are not ambiguous" is as meaningless as "diamonds are not alive". That is, "ambiguous" can apply to name-holders no more than "alive" can apply to diamonds. I also don't understand the relevance of the reference to MOS:DABNAME which is about how to format dab pages. Please explain your revert in comprehensible English. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
And here we go again. "the other uses are not ambiguous with the title."
Yes, I agree, no uses of "Simister" are "ambiguous with the title" because that's a nonsensical/non-English use of the term "ambiguous". The definition of Ambiguity is "a condition where information can be understood or interpreted in more than one way", and Merriam-Webster defines "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more senses or ways". So "uses of a term" cannot be ambiguous, because each use is not understood in multiple ways. However, a term like "Simister" is ambiguous, because it can be understood in more than one way. In fact, "Simister" is capable of being understood in three ways with respect to what is covered in Wikipedia:
Clearly each of the three ways Simister can be understood are valid uses of the term (persons are commonly referred to by just surname in English), and, so, we should aid readers in finding each of these uses when they search for any one of them with "Simister". -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Templates have been placed in the article suggesting articles be split off for Cliburn Moss and St Cuthbert's Church. Currently the article contains very little info on either, so unless there was a substantial expansion I see no point in splitting these off. Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth would a short article likethis need a peer review?-- J3Mrs ( talk) 14:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat ( talk) 18:40, 03 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved and new DAB created. Andrewa ( talk) 20:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
– The city is not the primary topic for the term Cliburn, largely due to the existence of the pianist Van Cliburn. Google.com results are entirely about the pianist. On google.co.uk, a search for Cliburn brings up 7 for the pianist, including the first result, and 3 for the town. Google news results for Cliburn are almost entirely about The Cliburn foundation and the associated competition, or its winners. Google books results are also, unsurprisingly, equally dominated by Van Cliburn.
For those who may argue that "Cliburn" without Van would never be used for the pianist, I would note that the competition is very commonly referred simply as The Cliburn in numerous reliable and official sources. There's a much easier way to see this, however. This page, Cliburn, usually gets around 10views per day. An odd exception is February 2013, when views bounced up to 99 on the 27th and 135 on the 28th. Now, I guess it's possible that something unrelated prompted a sudden interest in the town, but I think common sense dictates that this bump is because of the pianist's death on the 27th.
I'll also point out that the surname disambiguation page received roughly 1/3 the views of this page, indicating that an incredibly high proportion of the editors directed here are looking for something else.
The page currently at Cliburn (surname) can be converted into a disambiguation. Alternatively, the suggestion by the IP below to create a new disambiguation page which would include a link to the surname page seems totally acceptable. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cliburn, Cumbria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)