Talk:Wickland (Bardstown, Kentucky)

Requested move

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 move request was: undecided. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Wickland (Bardstown, Kentucky) → Wickland — Original name for article, which should have never been moved in the first place. This is the main Wickland, which is indisputable. The only other one was named for this one, is is fairly unknown. This one is famed thru the state, and should not be burdened with a clunky appellation. King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:36, 3 April 2010 (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.

• Oppose The principal behind the proposal appears to be that this is the primary use of Wickland. Maybe to those in Kentucky, but to anyone outside the state, both are pretty obscure. In any case, Wickland is at present a disambiguation page (though with only two examples, it is questionable whether there should even be a disambiguation page: hatnotes are preferred in instances like this). Skinsmoke (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Bardstown is a small tourist mecca for Kentucky, with the State Park, history (of which Wickland is part of), and bourbon production. Wickland is promoited as a site for tourism, including a prominent annual dinner every Sunday after Derby Day. The other one is unknown unless you look thru the NRHP roster.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support If there are only two uses, then making either one the primary topic (with a WP:HATNOTE link to the other article) is preferable to placing a disambiguation page at the primary topic. People looking for Topic 1 will be taken straight to the article without the extra click on the disambiguation page; and people looking for Topic 2 can click the hatnote instead of clicking the disambiguation entry, so they're no worse off. Propaniac (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This seems like it should be a regular wp:RM requested move discussion with automatic posting at the pages involved. I'm the person who moved the article to make way for disambiguation, and created the two-item disambiguation page. There wasn't any hatnote disambiguation at the Wickland (Bardstown) article, and it did not at first glance appear that there was any awareness of the Shelby one. As i noted at Talk:Wickland#note, i later saw mention of the Shelby one deep in the Bardstown article. Just because one place is older and the namesake doesn't automatically make it more important, necessarily. But, I do not oppose someone deeming the Bardstown one to be wp:primaryusage and moving it back, if hatnote disambiguation is added. If that is to be done, the current disambiguation page can be moved to Wickland (disambiguation) and kept, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing wrong with a dab page being at the primary name space. Clearly both of these are not very well known outside of the area and having both in one state is confusing. I see nothing that says one is clearly the primary topic. I note that the Shelbyville one had 169 hits last month and Bardstown had zero! Clearly not a case for this move. I say leave the dab where it is. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What's wrong is that it creates an extra step and click for every user instead of only some users. If you do not see that as an issue, that's your opinion, but I can only assume since you didn't address my point that you did not read it or understand it. Propaniac (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That's nice, but I'm going to avoid further comment so this does not get into a name calling game. My oppose clearly states why the proposed move is wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry you're not able to participate in a discussion, even simply to clarify and further support your own viewpoint, without calling people names. Propaniac (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Info: Disambig Wickland now has 4 meanings. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:36, 3 April 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.