Talk:Catherine Hill

Requested move 5 January 2019

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 even after relisting and last comment 10 days ago. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 19:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Catherine Hill → Catherine Hill (Brunnerton woman) – Stub on obscure NZ eccentric survived deletion, but fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which in newspapers and books is the cobbled hill street in UK. Somerset Live : "With its cobbled stones and artisan shops, Catherine Hill is arguably the most iconic street in Frome , attracting thousands of visitors a year." Frome article at The Times, could be made into a dab with Katie Hill 2 people and Kate Hill in Greene County, New York. I etc. or simply like Catherine Hill (Frome) ‎redirected page to Frome#Landmarks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 13:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no other article currently on WP that could use the title. There's already a hatnote to Frome, but at 2 hits/day, no one's getting lost. Station1 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I generally agree with Station1 here... while there are Katies on Wikipedia named Catherine, it seems unlikely they'd be searched for as that. Nohomersryan (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nohomersryan: Frome gets 187 hits a day. Catherine Hill is the best known street in Frome. The New Zealand lady bun woman is such an unlikely subject is it likely that any of the 2 hits a day are looking for her rather than mishits looking for Frome. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No way to know for sure but anyone looking for Frome just clicks on the hatnote, same as clicking on a dab page. No benefit to displacing this person from her real name for a dab page, and if we redirected it to Frome (with no evidence), we'd have to add a hatnote on Frome. - Station1 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above two comments. No other WP topic to contend with here. Dohn joe (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the whole point isn't it; there are 2 other Catherine Hill topics. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about topics, not titles, and the guideline is clearly talking "topic" (which is the street in Frome) not what has or doesn't have a "stub". It's very clear that if the street in Frome was forked into a standalone article it would attract more readers than the Dunnerton bun lady. But we don't fork bits of towns out into stubs like this. Likewise Catherine Hill (schooner) gave its name to Catherine Hill Bay, and that again is much more likely to be searched than the unknown Dunnerton bun lady, but still not as likely as the street in Frome, but we don't need to fork the schooner into a stub. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Two redirects that you created this week in connection with this RM are marginal "topics" at best. But now that they exist, we can give them some time to see if they challenge the existing article for primarytopic. Too soon to tell. As Station1 noted, there's already a hatnote to Frome that's not being much used, so it seems unlikely that the redirect will, either. Dohn joe (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but with respect, you're still not getting it. The topic already existed in article content. The Frome article even has a picture of the famous street. The schooner's sinking is mentioned in the Catherine Hill Bay article on how the bay area got its name. It is not too soon to tell because we have Google Books to tell, see WP:PT guideline and results below:

• The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline states: "Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article.

i.e. the guideline clearly says "(or a redirect to)", which clearly shows that primary topic is decided among topics, and not among titles.

"Catherine Hill" + Frome = 1,020 GBook hits

"Catherine Hill" + schooner = 3,480 GBook hits

"Catherine Hill" + Dunnerton = 0 hits.

@Nohomersryan: would you conclude from the above 3 searches that the Dunnerton bun lady is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among the 3 topics covered by Wikipedia? I ask you as an editor who understands the difference between a topic and a title. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. She had little to do with Brunnerton. If a parenthetical disambiguator is needed, Catherine Hill (person) would be better. Nurg (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nurg: I'm fine with this, or (Hamilton woman), whatever. The question here is whether the bun lady meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among the 3 topics covered by Wikipedia? No one in this discussion has addressed the basic WP:PRIMARYTOPIC problem. Would you be the first please? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Support move to Catherine Hill (person). In ictu oculi has explained the rationale better as the discussion has gone on and the rationale seems reasonable on the face of it. Nurg (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to Catherine Hill (person), but I would be more inclined to move this to Catherine Hill (maid), or even Catherine Hill (eccentric). bd2412 T 02:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support move with “eccentric” or “person” dab as the redirect is the primary topic. Schwede66 17:49, 14 January 2019 (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.