Jump to content

Talk:Baron of Renfrew (ship)/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


name

A British baron is referred to by his title without "of" I believe; in this case "Baron Renfrew" as the print has it and as Wikipedia says at Duke of Rothesay; why, then, does this article say "Baron OF Renfrew"? J S Ayer (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this ship named after the Renfrew in Scotland or the Renfrew in Ontario? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.98.35 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hint: The baronial title is Scottish. J S Ayer (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1: Baron of Renfrew (ship) → Baron of Renfrew

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: no consensus. Pretty clearly no consensus here, no prejudice against a new RM suggesting that Baron of Renfrew should be a dab page (though that may get shot down as TWODABS), or if a title/barony article is created per the IP's suggestion. Jenks24 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


Baron of Renfrew (ship) → Baron of Renfrew – At present the Prince of Wales is the primary meaning, on the grounds that "Baron Renfrew" is one of his several subsidiary titles. This is a fairly obscure point about him, I suggest that the ship is the primary meaning. --Relisted JHunterJ (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC) PatGallacher (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Zero benefit to any readers, anywhere, in any way. When readers type "Baron of Re..." in as a Wikipedia search they get two suggestions: "Baron of Renfrew" and "Baron of Renfrew (ship)". Anyone who is after this article will select the latter. Anyone after the natural meaning of "Baron of Renfrew", as a title of nobility, will naturally select simply "Baron of Renfrew" from the options and avoid "Baron of Renfrew (ship)".
    There is a current Baron of Renfrew; but the ship bearing that name was broken up in 1825.
    Note: The proposer of the move has not described the current arrangement accurately. Baron of Renfrew redirects to Duke of Rothesay, and the present Prince of Wales also holds the title "Duke of Rothesay", by traditional right. There are several titles subsidiary to that one: "The Duke of Rothesay also holds other Scottish titles, including those of Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland" (quoted from the article Duke of Rothesay).
    NoeticaTea? 22:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Your argument about the search bar could easily be reversed by having the ship at the primary location and creating "Baron of Renfrew (title)" as an article or redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
How is that a reversal of my argument? I would not raise strong objections if the article for the Duke (the noble title) were moved to Baron of Renfrew (title), though it seems completely unnecessary to do that. It would be like moving Westminster Abbey to Westminster Abbey (Collegiate Church) – because of the existence of Westminster Abbey (UK Parliament constituency) and the monastic community Westminster Abbey (British Columbia). Or moving Dukes of Burgundy to Dukes of Burgundy (nobility) because of the existence of Duke of Burgundy (butterfly). We reasonably and naturally think that most things called abbeys are (or were) abbeys, those called dukes are dukes, and those called barons are barons – not electorates, butterflies, or ships.
So anyone not knowing from earlier experience or reading what "Baron of Renfrew" might refer to would suspect first of all that it refers to a baron, right? They are unlikely to form the hypothesis that it is a ship! Making enquiries, they select the title "Baron of Renfrew" from suggestions, and there it is: an article about a baron. Minimum astonishment. A hatnote shows them another possibility. What's the difficulty? What is there to solve? For the case of enquirers who do know about the ship and want an article about it, read my response to Kauffner, below. NoeticaTea? 07:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. People looking for the ship will obviously benefit from the move. The name "Baron of Renfrew" is more common and more immediately recognizable than "Baron of Renfrew (ship)". Googling "Baron of Renfrew" -wikipedia suggests that interest in the ship and the title are about equal. The largest wooden ship ever built, a massive tax dodge and an engineering disaster, is an encyclopedic topic. Minor titles of nobility, not so much. There is no section of the Duke of Rothesay article that readers interested in the Renfrew title can be directed to, so we don't have anything to offer them anyway. Kauffner (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
How and in what context of use would "people looking for the ship ... obviously benefit from the move", Kauffner? As I have pointed out in my initial contribution, at present enquirers see two options on a Wikipedia search: "Baron of Renfrew" and "Baron of Renfrew (ship)". After the move, they would see "Baron of Renfrew" and ... anything else? We are not told what else there might be, but let's go with Jenks' idea "Baron of Renfrew (title)", as a substitute for the present redirect to Duke of Rothesay. Now explain how anyone is better off under that arrangement. Explain why the absence of the word "ship" helps anyone who is looking for an article about a ship. Show us how that might actually work – with Google, on Wikipedia, or wherever else. And then explain how it is a good thing to risk those searching for the noble title being misdirected to an article about a ship.
NoeticaTea? 07:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
As long we have only one "Baron of Renfrew" article, the primary topic issue should not be a head scratcher. Kauffner (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
"That's it?" I wrote, scratching my head.
Seriously, please explain how that is an adequate response to what I have put to you. About the readers, and usefulness, OK?
NoeticaTea? 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I know you like disambiguators and all, but I don't see how one makes any sense here. There is only one Wiki article that can plausibly be titled "Baron of Renfrew". Perhaps if I was a monarchist, I would consider Charles' more obscure nicknames to be encyclopedic. In general, baronies don't get a whole lot of respect. Wiki has hundreds and hundreds of articles about British titles, but only a couple about baronies. Most readers interested in the title probably just want to know, "Who is the baron of Renfrew?" If someone is looking for material on a ship, they look for the ship's name. We did this all before with Talk:Adele_(singer)#Requested_move. From the page view numbers, it looks like the "singer" disambiguator is causing about 10 percent of readers to go initially to the wrong article. Disambiguators do not work as navigational aids, and they look unprofessional. They exist because our software doesn't support multiple instances of a title. Kauffner (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I like adequate precision, and that depends on context. In an inventory of ships, "Baron of Renfrew" would be taken as the name of a ship. In a general encyclopedia, it is probably going to be taken as referring to a baron. (Duh!) In fact, since there is such a baron (who is also styled Duke of Rothesay, and Prince of Wales), that is how Wikipedia currently treats "Baron of Renfrew". The fact that the natural subject is best covered under a different title (Duke of Rothesay) on Wikipedia has no rational bearing on the matter: Baron of Renfrew very efficiently redirects to there, and this suits readers admirably (given the contexts of use that I discuss above; and you describe no third context). You have not in any way demonstrated otherwise; but compare my analysis above, which shows that everyone is well served.
Is there a policy or guideline provision that a title must, if possible, be taken by a substantive article? You sometimes seem to push for that, as if there were. If there is such a provision, it must often work against optimal choices, and certainly against the interests of readers. This would be such a case, as I have shown. In the end, we have RM discussions to decide what will suit readers best. I have done that; you have not. You say:

"Most readers interested in the title probably just want to know, 'Who is the baron of Renfrew?' If someone is looking for material on a ship, they look for the ship's name."

But I had already shown that under the present arrangement, those enquiring after the ship will obviously select the title that includes "ship"; and those enquiring after the noble appellation have the opportunity to avoid the title that includes "ship", and select the correct one for their needs. You say also, referring to another article:

From the page view numbers, it looks like the 'singer' disambiguator is causing about 10 percent of readers to go initially to the wrong article.

Please demonstrate that what you allege is happening in that case (and it would not be a decisive consideration, but must be weighed with other evidence) is happening in the present case. I see no reason to believe that it is.
NoeticaTea? 23:07, 20 May 2012 (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.

Requested Move 2: Baron of Renfrew (ship) → Baron of Renfrew

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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


Baron of Renfrew (ship) → Baron of Renfrew – "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed", per WP:TWODABS. If this proposal is approved, a hatnote for Baron of Renfrew (title) would be added to the ship article. The ship article would become easier to access and would get a more professional-looking title. The article for the title would remain where it is. From the point of view of the reader, the article for the title is one click away in either setup. The ship got 1,716 (59%) page views in the last 90 days, the title got 1,217 (41%). I don't think there is any issue of the title having more "long term significance", so this should be a straight traffic issue. Kauffner (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Survey

  • Comment What about the other Baron Renfrew? Given that the ship is sometimes called the Baron Renfrew and Prince Charles is also Baron Renfrew, I think we should merge the disambiguation page Baron of Renfrew into Baron Renfrew. DrKiernan (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose, + move Baron of Renfrew (title) to replace twodab - "baron of renfrew" -ship -wikipedia -llc = 453 English GB results since 1980, "baron of renfrew" ship -wikipedia -llc gets 76, evidently the peerage title is the primary meaning, and of course most of those 76 many are double hits mentioning that the Baron of Renfrew (ship) secondary meaning was named after the Baron of Renfrew... Further Prince Charles isn't the subject, the term is more used of King Edward VII VIII etc cf. Virginius Dabney Richmond: The Story of a City - Page 142 - 1990 "He was the nineteen-year-old Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII, traveling under the name of "Baron Renfrew." The youthful prince arrived on October 7,^ 1860, etc . In ictu oculi (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment we have two dab pages Baron Renfrew and Baron of Renfrew, I suggest the two be merged, which would solve the twodabs problem, since there are three pages, and since "Baron of Renfrew" can be considered a variation on "Baron Renfrew". -- 70.24.247.121 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • "Baron Renfrew" got 476 page views in the last 90 days, while "Baron of Renfrew" got 316. So "Baron Renfrew" is a slightly better location for the DAB. A merged DAB would also free up the "Baron of Renfrew" lemma for the ship. Kauffner (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge dabs but retain dab as primary - i.e. merge the disambiguation pages to Baron Renfrew then redirect Baron of Renfrew there. This would seem to be the most useful for our readers as there is no clear primary topic for either of the very similar terms. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • This strikes me as a lawyerly way of evading WP:TWODABS. When there are only two topics for a given term, one or the other must be getting more than 50 percent of the relevant traffic. This topic should be primary. The purpose of this provision is that the reader be "spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page." It is not because a two-item DAB looks too short. There is nothing in this guideline about merging DABs to inflate the number of relevant topics. No reader wants to lands on a DAB, so improving access to them should not be a priority. The goal should be to get as many articles as possible titled under the actual names of their subjects. Britannica, Columbia, AllMusic, Encarta etc. do not use disambiguators. They exist on Wiki due to a software glitch, not because they are "most useful for our readers." The article title gives the name, the opening sentence explains what it is the name of. This is the way reference works do things, and it is the way our readers expect us to do it. Kauffner (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
      • You seem to be under the impression that there must always be a primary topic, but that is not the case (e.g. Korea at the Paralympics). Also, just because one target gets 51% of traffic does not necessarily make it the primary topic (remember we are looking for the clear primary topic). In this case, the terms "Baron Renfrew" and "Baron of Renfrew" are both ambiguous and without clear primary topic, the possible targets overlap and both are likely search terms for the other. My recommendation has nothing to do with WP:TWODABS and everything to do with preventing users needing to navigate via two disambiguation pages when there is a need for only one. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
        • "Korea at the Paralympics" got 131 page views in the last 90 days. This is the most useful DAB you could think of? Kauffner (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
          • What on earth has that got to do with this discussion!? It was top of my mind as it was previously a redirect to the South Korea topic that was discussed at RfD recently. My point in citing it was to show that not every ambiguous title with only two possible articles has a primary topic, refuting your argument that there must be one. If you'd prefer further evidence then I'll find you some, Eastern Standard Time for example, but I really don't understand what it would bring to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
            • So one useless DAB justifies another? Judging from the page view numbers, the vast majority of DABs are parsley on the fish. But from discussions like this, you'd think that they were performing a vital function. I have merged the two DABs per your recommendation. So now we talking about a redirect to a DAB, which is even lower on the chain. Kauffner (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose thank you for merging the two disambiguation pages. I think we should retain the disambiguation page because the difference in page views between the two "Baron of Renfrew" articles is only slight, and there is a third article that gets more views than either of them. DrKiernan (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a mess, but it's no longer a two-way DAB, and the ship never had any convincing claim to be the primary topic. So close this particular proposal and let the dust settle a little. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Baron of Renfrew got two page views in the last four days. There is no benefit to the reader in leaving it as a redirect. The largest all-wooden ship ever build is an encyclopedic topic. Charles's more obscure titles is celebrity fluff. Kauffner (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • A topic is primary with respect to usage if it is "more likely than all the other topics combined...to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." So page views are the logical metric to use. Just knowing how these discussions go, I can tell you that the idea of making the article that gets fewer views primary is a non-starter, at least when the number of readers is large enough for that to be a significant factor. I set up the two titles in the same format so we could get objective numbers for this RM. A topic can also be primary with respect to long term significance, and the GBook numbers are useful for determining that. This standard was created to make it easier to make an academic topic primary, as oppose to a pop culture or commercial topic of the same name. But published reference works rarely have articles about titles, certainly not baronies. On GBooks, it is common to see "Baron of Renfrew" given as an item in a long list titles held by Charles. That doesn't established notability. Kauffner (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Well a wooden ship is obviously not more likely than all the princes/kings who have travelled as Baron [of] Renfrew combined. This isn't any more convincing than your response to Noetica's main objection in the last RM: In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Now explain how anyone is better off under that arrangement. Explain why the absence of the word "ship" helps anyone who is looking for an article about a ship. Show us how that might actually work – with Google, on Wikipedia, or wherever else. And then explain how it is a good thing to risk those searching for the noble title being misdirected to an article about a ship. User_talk:Noetica 07:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ask him. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baron_of_Renfrew_(ship)/Archives/2012&oldid=1079213203"