Talk:Lorca, Spain

Requested move 10 October 2013

The following discussion is an archived 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: Move. A pretty solid consensus has emerged that the town is not the primary topic based on the fact that the much more prevalent poet is often referred to simply as "Lorca". There is some question as to whether "xx, Spain" is the best disambiguator, but it does seems to be in use at some related articles. If necessary another discussion can be opened to answer that question, however this move will resolve the primary topic issue. the consensus is that this isn't the primary topic, disambiguation page will be moved to the base name Lorca.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Lorca → Lorca, Spain – Ambiguous name with Federico García Lorca's surname, which is a common search term. Federico's article has about 10x more viewers. If Lorca redirects to Lorca, Spain it will be instantly obvious that a reader looking for the poet has arrived to the wrong article. Diego (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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 policy on article titles.

• Weak Oppose [now neutral] - there is no other town called Lorca on Lorca (disambiguation), in fact there is nothing competing with the town at all, and the surname is not that notable because of one person Federico García Lorca. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, but the surname is notable because of the poet, as any Spanish can confirm you. A Google Books search for Lorca shows pages and pages of results for the poet; you have to disambiguate as Lorca, Murcia to get documents for the town, still intermixed with the poet; and Google Images has nothing but the poet's face for a long stretch. Lorca (album) is named after the poet, and derived adjectives lorquiano, lorquiana are understood exclusively in relation to the poet's work, by definition. Also, see the common use of the surname here. That's why we need the poet singled out at the hat note, and why I proposed the move. What are the claims for the town being primary among all the topics in the DAB place? Diego (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sure, I don't actually question that Lorca himself has mononym status, like Keats or Heine. The problem is that I can't think of a poet/writer/painter who collides with a substantial town. With these incoming links. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The number of direct links to this article shows that both articles have stable titles, not that the town is primary by usage; any editor who wanted to link to Lorca meaning the poet has been forced to disambiguate the wikilink.

Given that external sources provide more weight to the poet, the claim that the town is primary is dubious, and the title should be disambiguated per WP:DAB and WP:NOTPRIMARYTOPIC. (I don't understand why you care that one topic is for a town and the other for a poet, and that there are no other cases like this; so far, PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't depend on the nature of the topic; and both topics have long term significance, with the poet being the primary by usage of the term "Lorca"). Diego (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Only because the town is truly mononymic "Lorca is" - wheras "Lorca" is only short for F. G. Lorca. I need a precedent like Kipling, which Bobrayner provided below. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose [!vote changed below], "is a common search term for" is not the same as "is ambiguous with". Unless the poet is commonly referred to as just Lorca (that is, articles mentioning him without using a fuller name)...? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  Did you miss the various book titles, news article titles, album and song, and Wikipedia sections? "is a common search term" may not be the same as "ambiguous" in all cases, but it's certainly the case here. In fact, as a Spanish I was surprised the first time I looked this title and the poet wasn't the primary topic; I didn't think the town would have any world-wide notability beyond the news for the earthquake. Also, shouldn't the people wanting to keep the current title be the ones to prove that the town is the topic more likely to be looked for, to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Diego (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  No, I didn't miss them. I missed where your proposal indicated that their usage was in question for moving the town from primary. The proposal I read only talked about the poet. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  The proposal says that the poet's surname is ambiguous with the city, which is listed as a primary topic without any evidence supporting it as primary. Per WP:DAB, it follows from that situation that a disambiguation page should be at the base. Diego (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  The proposal says that the poet's surname is ambiguous with the city, but there's no Wikipedia article about the poet's surname. The starting point is that the article at the base name is the primary topic; this request is to change that arrangement to no primary topic. Per WP:DAB, it follows that there needs to be new consensus that there is no longer a primary topic; simply making the move request is not enough. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, there's a comment at Talk:Lorca (disambiguation) by other user also expecting the poet and playwright to be located at the base name. Diego (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. So far as I can tell, all of the books about the poet introduce him by his full name before referring to him by his surname. We have an article on John Denver, where we introduce the subject by his full name in the lede, and then say things like "Denver went on to host his own variety/music specials". This doesn't mean that "John Denver" is ambiguous to the city, Denver. bd2412 T 15:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Denver is more famous as a city than Lorca, don't you agree? And, the writer is introduced in the title of the books (and books about the town also introduce it as "Lorca, Murcia", so that criterion doesn't establish any difference). How many books are there with "Denver" in the title that expect the reader to think of the singer? Those don't seem to be comparable situations. Diego (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

For what is worth, I've found this book as well as this other one that both seem to use exclusively "Lorca" for the poet throughout the whole text. The name is so universally understood to refer to the poet that they don't even disambiguate at any point to "Federico García Lorca". Diego (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Both of those books mention the full name, "Federico García Lorca", at some point. See [1], [2]. bd2412 T 20:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

But they don't "introduce him by his full name before referring to him by his surname", which was the exact criterion you introduced; "1930" has a whole section using only "Lorca" before introducing the full name, and "The Lorca Variations" only uses the full name outside the main body of text (in the credits and the book flap), never in the content. Myself, I would consider the title much more important than the first sentence to ensure that readers associate the topic with the surname before even buying the book, but I was going with what you said was relevant to determine the name as recognizable for the topic (i.e. what you used to Oppose the move). Do you consider your own criteria valid for determining ambiguity, or are you just moving posts for the sake of winning the argument? Diego (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the results of Google searches more extensively, and considering your points above, I withdraw my opposition. I would appreciate a commitment from you, however, to fix the fairly large number of disambiguation links that will result if this page becomes a disambiguation page as a result of this discussion. bd2412 T 02:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be OK if this title remains as a redirect to Lorca, Spain (somewhat IAR, I think). I was already planning to be moving incoming links to the Lorca (Spain) title I created, at a slow pace; when this is finished, the DAB page could be put in place safely, if that is what others want. Diego (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, based on the book examples shown in the !vote subdiscussion just above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, the poet has 10 times as many page views as the town article, whereas the town views might include people looking for the poet. The town over the last 90 days and the poet over the last 90 days. After a period of 90 days we can even see how many people keep going to the town article, it might have reduced by a fair amount. CRwikiCA talk 17:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. "Lorca" is ambiguous. People are often referred to by surname alone. Separate from issues of ambiguity, Lorca, the town, is not of so great an international significance that readers don't need to be reminded that it is in Spain. A little more precision, with ", Spain", will be helpful to many and of no cost to any. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  Most terms on WP are ambiguous. That's why we have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. What does "international significance" have to do with the question of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Dohn joe (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• If the town has little international significance, then few in an international audience (Wikipedia's readership) will have heard of it. Other Lorcas will have familiarity to an international audience, and some of them might search for "lorca" and expect something more useful than to be taken to an obscure undisambiguated town. Someone seeing and following the link, internally or externally, may mis-recognize the title. These problems go away if a "lorca" link went straight to the DAB page, and if links to the town were more precise, as proposed. Helpful, and without cost. If WP:PRIMARYTOPIC stands in the way, then it is a ass. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  How it is helpful to send a majority of people away from the article they're trying to find, even if it's a majority of a small number of people? Wouldn't forcing them to wade through the dab page unnecessarily be a cost? In this case, let's assume that this town is what most people searching for "Lorca" are looking for. Otherwise, consider it a general question. Dohn joe (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• As Lorca is ambiguous and not primary to an international audience, I think it is helpful to expect these searchers to include either "spain" or "town" with "lorca" in their search. If it were the Spanish Wikipedia, then no. If it were an atlas or geographical reference work, then no. If these inadequate searchers land at the DAB page, a very light, fast to download page, with the town on the top listing (no wading down the page), then the cost is small. The small cost is appropriate, because they should be made aware that their town is not the primary usage of the term.

  I'm more concerned about people searching for one of the biographies. They may not even be sure they have the spelling right. These people need the DAB page, and the town article may be disorientating. I weight this concern much higher that imposing a small cost on inadequate searchers using inadequate, ambiguous search queries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

  Wow. I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but "they should be made aware that their town is not the primary usage of the term" is perhaps the most condescending, patronizing sentence I've seen on a WP talkpage. The purpose of WP is to give readers information about what they came here to learn about, while making it incredibly easy to explore and access other information - on their own initiative. It is most certainly not our job to tell readers what we decide that they ought to know. Our job is to get as many readers as possible to the article they are looking for as quickly as possible. If we can determine that 80% (or whatever) of readers searching for an ambiguous term are looking for a particular topic, then let's get them there without wasting any of their time, and help out the 20% with hatnotes and dab pages. I'm sorry if that came off too harsh, and I know we're all here to make WP better, but punishing readers by misdirecting them because we find their search "inadequate" is not the way to go. It's not their search which is inadequate - it's our response to them. I would hope you might reconsider your position on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on that basis. Dohn joe (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide access to knowledge to all people. You appear to value ease of access for the majority. I consider the majority users of Wikipedia to have easy fast access, and am confronted by a lack of regard for users with difficult access.

  "Our job is to get as many readers as possible to the article they are looking for as quickly as possible". No. This is majoritarianism. By maximising "as quickly as possible", you may be significantly hurting a minority. I think we do better to minimise the longest times taken to get readers to the article they are looking for.

  You are making a lot me me wanting to make some readers know something. I don't see it that way. I see a big difference between forcing new information, and not confirming a misconception.

  If someone thinks that Lorca primarily means the town, then they are wrong. Their search was ambiguous, and they have no justifiable complaint if they get taken to a disambiguation page. I think this, but it is not a major driver.

  If someone has never heard of Lorca, Spain, and were searching for another Lorca, the only one they have heard of, then it is much worse for them to be taken to the town in Spain.

  If when you search for Lorca, the article Lorca appears in less than a second, with the "For the Spanish poet, see Federico García Lorca. For other uses, see Lorca (disambiguation)." hatnote appearing and being the only thing you really look at, then it matters very little. If the article load takes many seconds, jumping a around in the process as the images load, then the loading of an unexpected obscure town is irritating, and if you miss the hatnote, disorientating.

  For a reader on a slow computer and connection, the DAB page loads far more nicely.

  Page view statistics, and link following statistics, when you get them, I would like you to consider that they are heavy biased to readers with the easiest access.

  Sending easy access users through a DAB page when they make an inadequate serach query is an extremely small cost for them. Sending a difficult access user making an inadequate search query to a best guess page that is data heavy, imprecisely titled, and not optimised for navigation is a major cost. And there isn't even evidence that most searches for "Lorca" want the town. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. It's absolutely okay for a surname to redirect to a particular person, even when other uses of the surname exist. Dickens, for example, goes to the 19th-century writer. It's also ok for a surname to be a dab page if none of the uses fits WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gainsborough, for example. Which one is this? I don't know. Which is why I set up the special redirects to hopefully shed some light on the subject. Thus far, none of the evidence presented by either side tips the scale. Dohn joe (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of all uses of just the base name Lorca listed at Lorca (disambiguation), this town is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For those who are searching for the poet by his surname, there is the hatnote link at the top of this article. A brief sojourn for them at this article instead of the dab page is not going to matter. The proposal would result in unnecessary disambiguation. --B2C 23:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC) updated below --B2C 23:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very little in this world is necessary. Therefore, accusing something of being unnecessary, is very weak. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, but when names collide disambiguation is absolutely necessary on WP. Almost all disambiguated titles on WP are necessarily disambiguated, usually because the undisambiguated base name is occupied by the title of another article. But in this case the proposed disambiguation is completely unnecessary. In the context in which we find ourselves, disambiguation on WP, being unnecessary is not a weak accusation. It points out the very reason for disambiguation on WP does not even apply here. --B2C 00:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Technically unnecessary. That is technically true. The motivation for this RM is not technical, so you are addressing a point not in question. This is a question of slightly more precision. Completely unnecessary is no better than unnecessary. Your "completely" is unnecessary, as unnecessary has an absolute meaning. slightly more precision would clearly be helpful. A downside of the status quo is that Lorca captures searches for the surname of a poet, and others. Lorca, Spain would not similarly capture those searches. What is the downside to the slightly more precise Lorca, Spain, I am asking you to articulate? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The motivation for disambiguation on WP is purely technical. The reason two articles may not have two titles is purely technical. The meaning of "unnecessary disambiguation" on WP is "technically unnecessary disambiguation". It's relevant to point that out in cases like this, and it was one of only several relevant points I made to substantiate my opposition in policy and guidelines. --B2C 02:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I support this move regardless of lack of technical necessity, but due to providing a better service to readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• On the evidence cited, Lorca, Spain is clearly NOT the PRIMARYTOPIC for "Lorca". See CRwikiCA above, 17:49, 10 October 2013. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe B2C may want to elaborate why you think this town is clearly primary? Which ones of the criteria listed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does it satisfy? Diego (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The main criteria - likelihood of search. I wasn't convinced that very many readers searching with "Lorca" would be looking for the poet, but Google suggests otherwise. I'm changing my !vote.

• Support. A quick Google search with "Lorca" convinced me that Google believes people searching for Lorca would be much more likely to be looking for the poet than the city. A search restricted to the NY Times confirms the same. I'd say there is a strong argument to be made for redirecting Lorca to the the article about the poet. --B2C 23:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support; the town is not the primary topic, due to the great prominence of Federico García Lorca. Lots of people discussing (or searching for) him use just the surname. Cf Kipling (disambiguation) - there are several places called "Kipling" but Kipling actually redirects to Rudyard Kipling since that's what the vast majority of readers have in mind when they type in "Kipling". bobrayner (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support. I'm not sure there's a primary topic here. 172.56.21.69 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current setup, with the hatnote, is better for readers than making the disambiguation page the primary one. Srnec (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  The move proposal doesn't suggest placing the disambiguation page at the base title; that is open to a different discussion, that is yet to happen. This case is particular in that none of the other articles in the DAB page share the exact title, so it may merit an WP:IAR solution. Diego (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  So where will Lorca redirect? The move request is defective. Do you plan to have Lorca redirect to Lorca, Spain? In any case, I oppose. Maybe Lorca could redirect to the poet and the hatnote be put there, but the current setup is also fine. The disambiguation page is full of derivative uses. Srnec (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Can someone explain why is there such strong desire to keep a small regional city as the primary topic, over a world-wide famous writer commonly referred by the same name? None of the arguments opposing the move seem to be based on policy so far. Diego (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I've set up special redirects in the hatnote to track how many people come to the "Lorca" article and then go directly to the poet article (and the dab page as well). While not definitive, it should give us a reasonable idea fairly soon how many people coming to this article were actually wanting the poet article. Dohn joe (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ok. The first days will need to be discarded, as they'll likely be affected by people participating in this move discussion. Diego (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Dohn joe (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I see that we have reached the 7-day minimum for this RM discussion. I would please ask any potential closer to hold off on moving any of the pages for at least one more week, however. As noted directly above, there are special redirects in place to track reader usage. The longer they're there, the more useful they become. If the page arrangement is altered, they become useless from that point on. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Can this RM be closed now? It's been open for 14 days. Diego (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you all don't mind holding off just a bit more, I'll try to post my reader usage report later today. It may or may not influence anybody here, but I'm interested to see what the numbers say.... Dohn joe (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. But Lorca (disambiguation) have to move to Lorca. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 14:50, 27 October 2013 (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.

Belated stats

Sorry for the delay, but here are the relevant stats I gathered, from October 10 to October 28 (I included the entire range, as there did not seem to be a statistically significant spike in the early days, as was feared):

• total views of "Lorca" (the article on the town) - 1,595
• hatnote clicks to "Federico García Lorca" - 190
• hatnote clicks to "Lorca (disambiguation)" - 64

So, of the 1,595 visits to the Spanish town page, about 16% left for either the poet page (12%) or the dab page (4%). If that means that 84% of people coming to "Lorca" were in fact looking for the Spanish town, then that's a very strong argument to return this page to the base name. But now that it's been moved, I suggest waiting a bit and checking back in on usage in a while. Dohn joe (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is probably best to wait and see the new page statistics then. CRwikiCA talk 23:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lorca, Spain. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517074244/http://www.lorcaturismo.es/solPlayaING/index.asp to http://www.lorcaturismo.es/solplayaing/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320100611/http://www.spain.info/no/resultados/resultados.html?municipio=Lorca&c1=Beaches&c2=Beaches&text=false to http://www.spain.info/no/resultados/resultados.html?municipio=Lorca&c1=Beaches&c2=Beaches&text=false
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921110907/http://lorcaturismo.es/turismoUrbanoING/monumentosDetalle.asp?id=17 to http://www.lorcaturismo.es/turismoUrbanoING/monumentosDetalle.asp?id=17
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324031540/http://www.investinmurcia.com/invest/docbasico.jsp?id=3&sub=&s=&doc=562 to http://www.investinmurcia.com/invest/docbasico.jsp?id=3&sub=&s=&doc=562
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929041741/http://www.culture-routes.lu/picture/IMG/pdf/Best_practice_24.pdf to http://www.culture-routes.lu/picture/IMG/pdf/Best_practice_24.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.camaracomlorca.es/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lorca area.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)