![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would I be right in assuming that the 'Paris end', which I have written about, is closer to the Treasury? Or is it closer to Docklands?
In fact, that whole Exhibition-Collins-Spring-Flinders Lane block looks very 'Paris'.
EuropracBHIT 12:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Spring St. end is the Paris end. This is partly because of the outdoor cafes. Also this end of Collins St (from Swanston St. up the hill to Spring) hosts the most expensive boutique shops in Melbourne. Hobo 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that the area mentioned as the financial heart of Melbourne in the article is completely true. Allthough the stock exchange is in that locallity there are more large buildings as one apporaches Spring St. Hobo 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Collins Street currently does not intersect Bourke Street, it ends in plastic barriers and a T junction with Stadium Drive. Did they build it out to join Bourke, then rip it up again? Or did it never intersect Bourke, and it is only shown to intersect on Google Maps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramley ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 June 2006
There's a few sentences that could do with some rewording just to improve the tone of the article, because sentences are bordering on POV. Few exaples: "best known street", "finest Victorian era buildings", "modern development has destroyed some of the European flavour", "long been the financial heart", "grandest examples were lost to the wrecker's ball" invincible 08:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree the statements are 'common knowledge', and would argue that Swanston, Elizabeth and Bourke Streets are all 'better known' than Collins Street. But then again, trying to claim that ANY of those streets is the 'best known' is purely presumptive, and impossible to verify. 220.244.196.1 ( talk) 17:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:PRECISION does not require the natural qualifiers here, but WP:COMMONNAME might. Absent a naming convention for streets, not moved -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
– These articles are all concerned with street names in Melbourne. (I would have include another 17, but the template has a limit of 30.) I do not support these moves; but I know that some very active editors do. It is time to air the matter, once and for all. Is it better to have an article on Collins Street in Melbourne called simply Collins Street, or to have it called Collins Street, Melbourne as at present? Which option serves the needs of Wikipedia's worldwide readership better? In almost all cases that I list there is no content in the destination article, just a redirect. And in almost all cases there is no Wikipedia article that very closely resembles the Melbourne-oriented one. There are, for example, no other Collins Streets with their own articles. Noetica Tea? 12:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: Votes and reasons HERE.]
NOTE: I am moving long discussion to here so that the voting is readable, and so that newcomers can find their way around. This responds to a request from Born2cycle; it is not intended to marginalise any issue or any point of view. Noetica Tea? 02:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree PRIMARYTOPIC does not give guidance on how to choose between two titles for which the given topic is primary. It does say that whichever is chosen for the title, the other should be a redirect to the more appropriate one.
WP:CRITERIA is what we use to choose the most appropriate between the two title candidates in cases like this. Given an interpretation of precision that takes into account the guidance to follow WP:D, and specifically the definition of "ambiguous" at the top of WP:D, it indicates the shorter title, as does of course conciseness. I don't see much guidance for either title from the other criteria. But strong guidance from 2 out of 5 that indicates the shorter one is most appropriate is about as definitive as guidance ever gets. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's the thing. We have other policies/guidelines/criteria that determines notability and what topics are covered in WP. Within the context of deciding titles, notability is not up to us. We assume if it's in WP it's notable (and relevant to us), and, if it's not, then not. If there is only one Collins Street with an article in WP, then we presume it's notable enough to be in WP, and no others are (if and when that changes, we can re-evaluate accordingly then). Since it's unique in the context/name space that matters to deciding titles, it's not ambiguous, by definition.
The alternative, to interpret "ambiguous" in the broad English sense, instead of in the narrow WP sense, besides ignoring the sequence of two links to WP:D and the context that implies, is to open up a Pandora's Box of ambiguity and debate. To what end? Why pay that price? For what benefit? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In general, yes, of course, we know not all notable topics have articles already. But, in any specific title decision case where we have only one article that uses a given name, it would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to make a title decision based on the assumption that there might be articles about other notable uses of that name in the future.
The alternative is unworkable, because we have no way to draw the line anywhere else (drawing the line at considering only topics with actual articles is clear). So, it would mean assuming that there will be other uses of countless names used as titles on WP, and disambiguating all of them, because they seem ambiguous, even though we don't have any actual collisions in the WP article title name space. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If there are no other articles about any of those other Chapel Streets, then their existence is irrelevant to primary topic determination. If there is only one use of a given name with an article on WP, then that use is the primary topic for that name, by definition. Even with the article at Chapel Street, Melbourne, Chapel Street is a redirect to it. There is no question about that topic being the primary topic for Chapel Street; of course it is, and it will remain so forever, unless and until another use of "Chapel Street" is determined to be notable, and we create an article for it. Even then this use might remain primary, but there is no point in speculating either way about that. What's relevant now is that this use is the only use, therefore it is primary. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
So, your argument is that PRIMARYTOPIC is intended to be, or at least should be, interpreted in terms of all topics, not just topics with articles. Is that right? If so, yes, that's what I think is unworkable.
First, if we're not talking just about topics with articles, are we talking about all topics in the real world associated with the name in question, or just notable topics associated with that name? If you're not limiting it to notable topics, that seems obviously unworkable to me. Let me know if you agree or not; no point in explaining if you agree on that.
Now, if you are talking about just notable topics (whether they actually have articles or not), how do you decide what is notable or not? My position is that the existence or the new creation (that is support or at least not disputed by consensus) of an article establishes notability for title-deciding intents and purposes, and the lack of existence of an article for a given topic (including the failure to find such a topic and create an article for it in the evidence-gathering part of the title decision process) establishes lack of notability.
I think our positions are not that far off. We're both acknowledging that just because another article to which a given name might refer doesn't exist, doesn't mean that the topic of the one and only article to which that name refers is primary. At least I agree that's true at the beginning of the title decision process for a given title. But I'm saying that if someone wants to argue that it's not primary, then the onus is on them to find the evidence - another topic which is notable - and to prove that by creating at least a stub and establish consensus for its notability at least among those participating in the process.
For example, in this discussion, my initial position was to oppose because I assumed at least some of these were not primary. But I was mistaken that articles existed for at least some of the base names, and couldn't prove lack of primary-ness for any, so I changed my position. If someone believes that the topic of Acland Street, Melbourne, for example, is not primary for Acland Street, then they need to make or find an article or dab page that belongs at Acland Street, and get consensus agreement on that. No?
One thing I'm still not clear on... do you agree that the fact that Acland Street redirects to Acland Street, Melbourne establishes that the topic of that article is primary for Acland Street, presuming that's not an identifiable error? That's what I get out of Wikipedia:Primarytopic#Redirecting_to_a_primary_topic, among other things. Agree? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course the notability guideline determines whether a given topic is notable, and the creation/deletion of articles is decided accordingly. But that comes before the titling decision. That is, first we decide whether a given topic meets the notability guideline, and, if it does, then we decide what to title it. We don't decide how to title something based on notability; the notability of topics of existing articles, and the lack of notability of topics of non-existing articles, is presumed when deciding titles. If notability is in question, that's for an AfD discussion to decide. That's why Born2Cycle Blvd would redirect to Born2cycle Blvd, Anytown even though there are 1000s of other Born2Cycle Blvds... unless they've been deemed sufficiently notable to have articles, as proven by the existence of those articles, they are irrelevant to deciding titles.
opposers here do not need to go create 30 articles in order to carry the day at this RM. No, but anyone who is arguing that these articles are not the PRIMARYTOPIC for their respective base names needs to create those articles. That's why, of all articles being considered in this discussion, the "not the PRIMARYTOPIC for its base name" argument can only possibly apply to Collins Street, Melbourne, because Collins Street is a dab page (but none of the other entries on that dab page have articles, so that's why the argument fails there). For most of the others the base name is a redlink, but should be a redirect to the qualified title, or is already a redirect to the article - in either case establishing that the article's topic is the primary topic for that base name. That can only be seriously challenged for a given base name by the finding or creating of articles to which that base name refers, and showing that the base name should either redirect to one of those other articles, or be the location of a dab page.
If you're asking whether I think it conveys that message to the reader, no, I don't. That's not what I'm asking. Though readers benefit from our articles being titled in accordance with the primary topic concept (by minimizing clicks required to reach a desired article), I doubt most readers are aware of the concept, which is mostly (only?) relevant to the editorial maintenance process of deciding titles, redirects and dab pages. The question about whether Acland Street redirects to Acland Street, Melbourne establishes that the topic of that article is primary for Acland Street has nothing to do with reader perception. This is what Wikipedia:Primarytopic#Redirecting_to_a_primary_topic is talking about:
The title of the primary topic article [e.g., Acland Street, Melbourne] may be different from the ambiguous term [ Acland Street ]. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term [this topic is primary for Acland Street, Melbourne] and for Acland Street ], when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term [ Acland Street ] should redirect to the article (or a section of it) [which it does]
The lack of an English Wikipedia article as an indication of a lack of existence is a logical fallacy of such proportions that it approaches (if not outright earns) ridiculousness.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
21:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Back in grade school, if we had, say, two Bobs in the class, we had to come up with an alternate nickname, like Bobby, for one of them. But in classes where there was only one Bob, we just called him Bob. We didn't disambiguate just in case another Bob would join us midyear or something... we only disambiguated when necessary to distinguish from another Bob in the class.
WP follows the same approach for similar reasoning. Just because "Bob" or "Collins Street" is ambiguous in the real world, we only bother to disambiguate if there are other uses of that name in the relevant name space, be it a class roster or WP title name space. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Whether Chapel Street, Melbourne redirects to Chapel Street or Chapel Street redirects to Chapel Street, Melbourne, we're suggesting the article is about both the Chapel Street and the Chapel Street, Melbourne, to the same degree. In terms of primary topic or being "the one", there is no difference between a given term being the topic's article title or a redirect to the topic's article. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying the lack of existence of an article suggests a lack of notability. It's impractical to assume otherwise in deciding titles because assuming otherwise would mean requiring raising, questioning and investigating the issue of notability of not only the given topic in a given RM discussion, but also of every other potential use of the name in question in the real world. If that occurs, great, but it's unreasonable to require it. Not requiring it means that it's reasonable to assume that other uses of a given term are not notable if articles for them do not exist. This is done routinely in RM discussions every day. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
NOTE: I have removed peripheral material to this subsection, to keep the discussion clear and readable in the main section above. Please, let's work together to maintain orderly process.–Noetica]
*Oppose group move. Each one needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some are unique or meet
primary topic criteria, others do not. Those that are unique or primary need to be moved to just the base name. --
Born2cycle (
talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC) changing !vote - see below for explanation --
Born2cycle (
talk)
21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
...
...
* Speedy close. Even the proposer does not support the move of this entire group (see proposal itself). So, I propose a speedy close per
WP:SNOW so that a reasonable proposal can be made for a subset of these (and perhaps include some others) that actually qualify to be moved due to being unique or primary uses of their respective names. --
Born2cycle (
talk) 17:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) - See explanation below. --
Born2cycle (
talk)
21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Dicklyon wrote:
Regarding the "WP:D seems to allow the redirect" comment... yes, regardless of whether the article is at Collins Street or at Collins Street, Melbourne, since the primary topic for both titles is the same article, the other should redirect to the article. PRIMARYTOPIC is agnostic about which of two titles should be the article location and which the redirect, if that article's topic is primary for both titles, except to say that the "more appropriate" one be the article title. We look to WP:AT and WP:CRITERIA in particular to decide which is "more appropriate". -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
...
[Dicklyon's actual vote is in the main section above; below is his superseded vote.–Noetica]
...
Note: Votes and reasons in the main section above, please; not here.]
Note: There is a proposal at WT:AURD#Move_articles_to_bracket_disambiguation to rename this article (and others) to conform to the WP:AURDNAME guideline – specifically, using brackets instead of a comma for disambiguation. - Evad37 [ talk 08:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Collins Street, Melbourne. 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) 18:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would I be right in assuming that the 'Paris end', which I have written about, is closer to the Treasury? Or is it closer to Docklands?
In fact, that whole Exhibition-Collins-Spring-Flinders Lane block looks very 'Paris'.
EuropracBHIT 12:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Spring St. end is the Paris end. This is partly because of the outdoor cafes. Also this end of Collins St (from Swanston St. up the hill to Spring) hosts the most expensive boutique shops in Melbourne. Hobo 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that the area mentioned as the financial heart of Melbourne in the article is completely true. Allthough the stock exchange is in that locallity there are more large buildings as one apporaches Spring St. Hobo 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Collins Street currently does not intersect Bourke Street, it ends in plastic barriers and a T junction with Stadium Drive. Did they build it out to join Bourke, then rip it up again? Or did it never intersect Bourke, and it is only shown to intersect on Google Maps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramley ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 June 2006
There's a few sentences that could do with some rewording just to improve the tone of the article, because sentences are bordering on POV. Few exaples: "best known street", "finest Victorian era buildings", "modern development has destroyed some of the European flavour", "long been the financial heart", "grandest examples were lost to the wrecker's ball" invincible 08:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree the statements are 'common knowledge', and would argue that Swanston, Elizabeth and Bourke Streets are all 'better known' than Collins Street. But then again, trying to claim that ANY of those streets is the 'best known' is purely presumptive, and impossible to verify. 220.244.196.1 ( talk) 17:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:PRECISION does not require the natural qualifiers here, but WP:COMMONNAME might. Absent a naming convention for streets, not moved -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
– These articles are all concerned with street names in Melbourne. (I would have include another 17, but the template has a limit of 30.) I do not support these moves; but I know that some very active editors do. It is time to air the matter, once and for all. Is it better to have an article on Collins Street in Melbourne called simply Collins Street, or to have it called Collins Street, Melbourne as at present? Which option serves the needs of Wikipedia's worldwide readership better? In almost all cases that I list there is no content in the destination article, just a redirect. And in almost all cases there is no Wikipedia article that very closely resembles the Melbourne-oriented one. There are, for example, no other Collins Streets with their own articles. Noetica Tea? 12:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: Votes and reasons HERE.]
NOTE: I am moving long discussion to here so that the voting is readable, and so that newcomers can find their way around. This responds to a request from Born2cycle; it is not intended to marginalise any issue or any point of view. Noetica Tea? 02:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree PRIMARYTOPIC does not give guidance on how to choose between two titles for which the given topic is primary. It does say that whichever is chosen for the title, the other should be a redirect to the more appropriate one.
WP:CRITERIA is what we use to choose the most appropriate between the two title candidates in cases like this. Given an interpretation of precision that takes into account the guidance to follow WP:D, and specifically the definition of "ambiguous" at the top of WP:D, it indicates the shorter title, as does of course conciseness. I don't see much guidance for either title from the other criteria. But strong guidance from 2 out of 5 that indicates the shorter one is most appropriate is about as definitive as guidance ever gets. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's the thing. We have other policies/guidelines/criteria that determines notability and what topics are covered in WP. Within the context of deciding titles, notability is not up to us. We assume if it's in WP it's notable (and relevant to us), and, if it's not, then not. If there is only one Collins Street with an article in WP, then we presume it's notable enough to be in WP, and no others are (if and when that changes, we can re-evaluate accordingly then). Since it's unique in the context/name space that matters to deciding titles, it's not ambiguous, by definition.
The alternative, to interpret "ambiguous" in the broad English sense, instead of in the narrow WP sense, besides ignoring the sequence of two links to WP:D and the context that implies, is to open up a Pandora's Box of ambiguity and debate. To what end? Why pay that price? For what benefit? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In general, yes, of course, we know not all notable topics have articles already. But, in any specific title decision case where we have only one article that uses a given name, it would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to make a title decision based on the assumption that there might be articles about other notable uses of that name in the future.
The alternative is unworkable, because we have no way to draw the line anywhere else (drawing the line at considering only topics with actual articles is clear). So, it would mean assuming that there will be other uses of countless names used as titles on WP, and disambiguating all of them, because they seem ambiguous, even though we don't have any actual collisions in the WP article title name space. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If there are no other articles about any of those other Chapel Streets, then their existence is irrelevant to primary topic determination. If there is only one use of a given name with an article on WP, then that use is the primary topic for that name, by definition. Even with the article at Chapel Street, Melbourne, Chapel Street is a redirect to it. There is no question about that topic being the primary topic for Chapel Street; of course it is, and it will remain so forever, unless and until another use of "Chapel Street" is determined to be notable, and we create an article for it. Even then this use might remain primary, but there is no point in speculating either way about that. What's relevant now is that this use is the only use, therefore it is primary. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
So, your argument is that PRIMARYTOPIC is intended to be, or at least should be, interpreted in terms of all topics, not just topics with articles. Is that right? If so, yes, that's what I think is unworkable.
First, if we're not talking just about topics with articles, are we talking about all topics in the real world associated with the name in question, or just notable topics associated with that name? If you're not limiting it to notable topics, that seems obviously unworkable to me. Let me know if you agree or not; no point in explaining if you agree on that.
Now, if you are talking about just notable topics (whether they actually have articles or not), how do you decide what is notable or not? My position is that the existence or the new creation (that is support or at least not disputed by consensus) of an article establishes notability for title-deciding intents and purposes, and the lack of existence of an article for a given topic (including the failure to find such a topic and create an article for it in the evidence-gathering part of the title decision process) establishes lack of notability.
I think our positions are not that far off. We're both acknowledging that just because another article to which a given name might refer doesn't exist, doesn't mean that the topic of the one and only article to which that name refers is primary. At least I agree that's true at the beginning of the title decision process for a given title. But I'm saying that if someone wants to argue that it's not primary, then the onus is on them to find the evidence - another topic which is notable - and to prove that by creating at least a stub and establish consensus for its notability at least among those participating in the process.
For example, in this discussion, my initial position was to oppose because I assumed at least some of these were not primary. But I was mistaken that articles existed for at least some of the base names, and couldn't prove lack of primary-ness for any, so I changed my position. If someone believes that the topic of Acland Street, Melbourne, for example, is not primary for Acland Street, then they need to make or find an article or dab page that belongs at Acland Street, and get consensus agreement on that. No?
One thing I'm still not clear on... do you agree that the fact that Acland Street redirects to Acland Street, Melbourne establishes that the topic of that article is primary for Acland Street, presuming that's not an identifiable error? That's what I get out of Wikipedia:Primarytopic#Redirecting_to_a_primary_topic, among other things. Agree? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course the notability guideline determines whether a given topic is notable, and the creation/deletion of articles is decided accordingly. But that comes before the titling decision. That is, first we decide whether a given topic meets the notability guideline, and, if it does, then we decide what to title it. We don't decide how to title something based on notability; the notability of topics of existing articles, and the lack of notability of topics of non-existing articles, is presumed when deciding titles. If notability is in question, that's for an AfD discussion to decide. That's why Born2Cycle Blvd would redirect to Born2cycle Blvd, Anytown even though there are 1000s of other Born2Cycle Blvds... unless they've been deemed sufficiently notable to have articles, as proven by the existence of those articles, they are irrelevant to deciding titles.
opposers here do not need to go create 30 articles in order to carry the day at this RM. No, but anyone who is arguing that these articles are not the PRIMARYTOPIC for their respective base names needs to create those articles. That's why, of all articles being considered in this discussion, the "not the PRIMARYTOPIC for its base name" argument can only possibly apply to Collins Street, Melbourne, because Collins Street is a dab page (but none of the other entries on that dab page have articles, so that's why the argument fails there). For most of the others the base name is a redlink, but should be a redirect to the qualified title, or is already a redirect to the article - in either case establishing that the article's topic is the primary topic for that base name. That can only be seriously challenged for a given base name by the finding or creating of articles to which that base name refers, and showing that the base name should either redirect to one of those other articles, or be the location of a dab page.
If you're asking whether I think it conveys that message to the reader, no, I don't. That's not what I'm asking. Though readers benefit from our articles being titled in accordance with the primary topic concept (by minimizing clicks required to reach a desired article), I doubt most readers are aware of the concept, which is mostly (only?) relevant to the editorial maintenance process of deciding titles, redirects and dab pages. The question about whether Acland Street redirects to Acland Street, Melbourne establishes that the topic of that article is primary for Acland Street has nothing to do with reader perception. This is what Wikipedia:Primarytopic#Redirecting_to_a_primary_topic is talking about:
The title of the primary topic article [e.g., Acland Street, Melbourne] may be different from the ambiguous term [ Acland Street ]. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term [this topic is primary for Acland Street, Melbourne] and for Acland Street ], when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term [ Acland Street ] should redirect to the article (or a section of it) [which it does]
The lack of an English Wikipedia article as an indication of a lack of existence is a logical fallacy of such proportions that it approaches (if not outright earns) ridiculousness.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
21:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Back in grade school, if we had, say, two Bobs in the class, we had to come up with an alternate nickname, like Bobby, for one of them. But in classes where there was only one Bob, we just called him Bob. We didn't disambiguate just in case another Bob would join us midyear or something... we only disambiguated when necessary to distinguish from another Bob in the class.
WP follows the same approach for similar reasoning. Just because "Bob" or "Collins Street" is ambiguous in the real world, we only bother to disambiguate if there are other uses of that name in the relevant name space, be it a class roster or WP title name space. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Whether Chapel Street, Melbourne redirects to Chapel Street or Chapel Street redirects to Chapel Street, Melbourne, we're suggesting the article is about both the Chapel Street and the Chapel Street, Melbourne, to the same degree. In terms of primary topic or being "the one", there is no difference between a given term being the topic's article title or a redirect to the topic's article. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying the lack of existence of an article suggests a lack of notability. It's impractical to assume otherwise in deciding titles because assuming otherwise would mean requiring raising, questioning and investigating the issue of notability of not only the given topic in a given RM discussion, but also of every other potential use of the name in question in the real world. If that occurs, great, but it's unreasonable to require it. Not requiring it means that it's reasonable to assume that other uses of a given term are not notable if articles for them do not exist. This is done routinely in RM discussions every day. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
NOTE: I have removed peripheral material to this subsection, to keep the discussion clear and readable in the main section above. Please, let's work together to maintain orderly process.–Noetica]
*Oppose group move. Each one needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some are unique or meet
primary topic criteria, others do not. Those that are unique or primary need to be moved to just the base name. --
Born2cycle (
talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC) changing !vote - see below for explanation --
Born2cycle (
talk)
21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
...
...
* Speedy close. Even the proposer does not support the move of this entire group (see proposal itself). So, I propose a speedy close per
WP:SNOW so that a reasonable proposal can be made for a subset of these (and perhaps include some others) that actually qualify to be moved due to being unique or primary uses of their respective names. --
Born2cycle (
talk) 17:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) - See explanation below. --
Born2cycle (
talk)
21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Dicklyon wrote:
Regarding the "WP:D seems to allow the redirect" comment... yes, regardless of whether the article is at Collins Street or at Collins Street, Melbourne, since the primary topic for both titles is the same article, the other should redirect to the article. PRIMARYTOPIC is agnostic about which of two titles should be the article location and which the redirect, if that article's topic is primary for both titles, except to say that the "more appropriate" one be the article title. We look to WP:AT and WP:CRITERIA in particular to decide which is "more appropriate". -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
...
[Dicklyon's actual vote is in the main section above; below is his superseded vote.–Noetica]
...
Note: Votes and reasons in the main section above, please; not here.]
Note: There is a proposal at WT:AURD#Move_articles_to_bracket_disambiguation to rename this article (and others) to conform to the WP:AURDNAME guideline – specifically, using brackets instead of a comma for disambiguation. - Evad37 [ talk 08:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Collins Street, Melbourne. 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) 18:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)