Talk:Sebastopol (disambiguation)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by BD2412 in topic Requested move 20 October 2016
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Requested move 20 October 2016

edit
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion is: Moved as proposed. There is, however, not a clear consensus to merge the moved page into an alternate spelling. bd2412 T 15:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

SebastopolSebastopol (disambiguation) – Dab has a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Sebastopol, Crimea . ridiculously surprising obvious primary topic to me for a while which I considered ridiculous that it wasn't fixed by now, but now seemingly contested... :

  • Sebastopol, Crimea is over 30x size (population) of all other places
    • ...so bigger than all others put together
  • Highest encyclopaedic value - historic, derived names, newsworthy (current) compared to all others items
  • (and satisfies our guideline of a valid alternative bolded title in the lede per WP:MOSDAB / WP:D )
    • Don't put much weight on newer spelling vs older spelling per WP:RECENTISM (e.g. see examples of the spellings of derivative places, which if anything indicates a separate "offtopic" from this RM reason to merge the two dabs, which is tangential to deciding the primary topic here and now)

I.e. create (primary topic) redirect from Sebastopol redirecting to Sevastopol. Per usual, we move the dab to Sebastopol (disambiguation) (then format the dab to have a primary topic - partly already done as I considered this uncontroversial maintenance. I think it still is, but the proposal wasn't clearly made). This is happens to be similar (but unrelated) to Sevastopol (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 10:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ping add editors User:Gorthian User:Nyttend ([1] derailed this maintenance), User:Bkonrad, User:Floridasand, User:A bit iffy, User:JHunterJ . Widefox; talk 11:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. And FWIW, I'd be OK with merging the dab pages for Sebastopol and Sevastopol since these are merely variant transliterations of the same primary topic. olderwiser 12:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. I don't think it's as ridiculous or uncontroversial, but while a Google web search (with &pws=0) favors the city in California for "Sebastopol".[2], Google Books search favors Crimea.[3]. If implemented, I'd recommend calling the California city out in the redirect hatnote on Sevastopol along with the link to this dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose, if I understand the proposal correctly Support; [see updated comments below. Nyttend, 21 October]. "Sebastopol" is merely an older spelling of "Sevastopol", and there's no good reason to have separate pages for them. Sebastopol should redirect to Sevastopol, and Sebastopol (disambiguation) should redirect to Sevastopol (disambiguation), with entries for both titles being contained in the same disambiguation page. I think I've misunderstood something somewhere or another, so hopefully my reasoning clarifies my intentions. Please follow up with me if you have any questions. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Proposal is to have Sebastopol redirect to Sevastopol as the primary topic, which would mean first moving this disambiguation page to Sebastopol (disambiguation). IMO, there is no need to combine the two dabs, since they disambiguate different topics. I believe you support the proposal here (to make the Crimean place the primary for "Sebastopol" and get the dab out of the way of that). The merger or not of the two dabs can be proposed separately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Offtopic agree with JHunterJ . The issue of merging the dabs is not an obvious outcome (due to size) so I'd prefer as nom to call that offtopic. I'd be happy if this primary topic redirect is understood for now. There's reasons to merge and reasons not to, but that discussion can be had separately, and later. Before proposing this move, I did of course check if it was an obvious merge, which I'm not convinced it is. User:Nyttend my CSD move wasn't detailed, but still just changing the target to the other dab isn't helpful. (clarified my "ridiculously") Widefox; talk 13:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
So it looks like the stuff I proposed is actually a support. I'll update the initial bit. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
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. No further edits should be made to this section.