Talk:Ann Taylor

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. 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: not moved. —Darkwind (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Taylor → Ann Taylor (disambiguation) – Anyone think the well-known retailer is not the primary topic? This page should be moved to a dab page and "clothing retailer" should be moved here and hatnoted. Woodshed (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page stats (Jan. 2013)

Ann Taylor (clothing retailer) 6,293
Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton 776
Ann Taylor (poet) 652
Ann Taylor (newscaster) 230
Anne Taylor (netball) 4

What links here

Clothing retailer - 4
Baroness/politician - 2 (succession boxes)
Poet - 1
Netball - 1
Actress of the 1960s - 1
Artist - 1 (likely redlink)

Woodshed (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now 3 links for the politician (from Margaret Beckett, Alastair Goodlad, Baron Goodlad and David Blunkett). Peter James (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment - this is a bit of a British/American thing isn't it? Ann Taylor in the UK is the Labour Minister, in the US it's a clothing retailer. The reality is that counting sources gives priority to American uses as WP:PRIMARY. Is there any reason we should keep brackets that only help British wikipedia users find one of their politicians? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If that's true, I have no problem with using Template: Two other uses in the hatnote, though the traffic statistics, plus Google, seem to argue in favor of the primary topic I've suggested. Also, she appears to be retired. Woodshed (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I doubt that the American clothing retailer is well-known outside the U.S. and Canada, since they only operate in those two countries. Thus the above page views are most likely very heavily skewed to American and Canadian users, not representative of a Wikipedia's international audience. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And even though they may ship internationally to different countries, that does not necessarily mean they are well-known or popular to a majority of people in those countries as well. Just because you can ship to, for example France or Japan, does not automatically result in having a high customer base or awareness in those countries. Not counting the actors and models who posed for the company, most of the articles on Special:WhatLinksHere/Ann Taylor (clothing retailer) are American topics. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of the clothes shop (though to be honest the name doesn't ring a bell as a politician either!), but the page view stats do look pretty convincing. Probably sensible to move the dab page to "... (disambiguation)" and set the shop as the primary usage - and then sort out the mixed bag of incoming links. PamD 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose page views and links contradict on whether this is the primary topic, there's also the historical/encyclopedic importance of the topics. Google isn't useful for identifying the primary topic when one of the topics is a company or product. Peter James (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a two-target hatnote pointing first to the politician and then to the disambig. bd2412 T 21:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose usage is based on regionalism. Clothes retailer is for USA, minister is for UK, what of the rest of the world? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Peter James. Andrewa (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per page stats and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Peter James mentions Google, but the proposal didn't rely on Google. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal didn't, but Woodshed did - it was mentioned in support of the move and hadn't already been contested. Peter James (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those proposing the U.K.-centric notability of the politician should note that the English poet — who's most famous for being the sister of a much more famous poet — has essentially the same traffic. Yet nobody is advocating her primacy. (Also, I have no idea what Peter James means by "page views and links contradict on whether this is the primary topic".) Woodshed (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter can reply himself, of course, but he was probably referring to two of the main PRIMARYTOPIC criteria: page views and incoming links. You've demonstrated that the retailer wins on the former, and he's asserting that the politician wins on the latter. I'm not sure to what extent links on templates might skew these numbers, and it could be argued that templates aren't a skewing effect at all. In my experience, page views tend to trump incoming links, but there's no specific reason why that should be the case. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.