Jump to content

Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation)

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

Requested move 3 January 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed 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. The discussion has been open for over a month, and there is no support for the proposed move. Number 57 14:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Blake (disambiguation) → Katharine Blake – Absence of a high-notability WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as demonstrated here, obviates the need for the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the central aim/concern of the original proposal is to delete the superfluous qualifier "(disambiguation)", with any of the three name variations capable of serving as the main title header, the differing count of the three names needs clarification. According to both the existing listing and the revised listing, there are two of each, yes, 2 Catherines, but only 2 Katherines (pen name of Dorothy J. Heydt and Katherine Blake (Shortland Street)) and, subsequently, 2 Katharines (Katharine Blake (singer) and Katharine Blake (actress)). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a Google Books search for "Catherine Blake" "Catherine+Blake"&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 and it seems William Blake's wife is indeed the primary topic, I didn't seem to find anything else other than her in the first three pages, thought I admit I didn't look very closely. At the same time, it's clear it's a rather generic name with a variety of spellings. How long has this disambiguation been set up this way, do we have an important reason to move anything? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following the Google Books links did not support the contention of Mrs. William Blake being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. All the links focus upon the high-historical-notabiity William Blake and those which mention his wife simply note that he was married to a woman named Catherine who assisted and worked with him. Most disambiguation pages do not highlight a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and those that do, need a strong consensus to support the contention of such overriding notability, not simply the largest number of links, which is not even being claimed in this instance. It is sufficient to glance at the large number of other Catherine/Catharine/Katharine/Katherine/Kathryn disambiguation pages, such as Kathryn Bailey, which lists, among others, both Catherine Bailey and Katherine Bailey, to realize that all such variants are able to coexist under any agreed-upon form of the name without resorting to a forced WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I see no reason for this change. "Catherine" is the original spelling of the given name, and pigeon holing the disambiguation page into one of the "Katharine" varieties just because it happens not to require (disambiguation) after the title is unnecessary and confusing.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Catherine" is only the original spelling of the given name of Mrs. William Blake and of the American Federal Judge for the District of Maryland, Catherine C. Blake. It is not the original spelling of the given name of the London-born performer Katharine Blake (singer), nor of the South African performer Katharine Blake (actress). Neither is it the Katherine Blake (pen name) of American fantasy writer Dorothy J. Heydt nor of the Katherine Blake (Shortland Street) character. In fact, if one were to maintain an (unsustainable) insistence on a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a rhetorical argument could be made for either the South African actress or the American judge since each, separately, has many more links than Mrs. William Blake. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no consensus for keeping Mrs. William Blake as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No one has presented any arguments why she should hold such a prominent position. If the consensus is simply for keeping "Catherine" as the main title header of the disambiguation page, such an outcome presents no problem — simply restore the main header of the article Catherine Blake (wife of William Blake) and excise the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" on the dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Catherine Blake which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 February 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed 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: no consensus. Sorry Roman Spinner, I gave this a relist in the hope more people might join in as I see you've been frustrated about the lack of input in previous RMs. Unfortunately it's now been three weeks since the RM was opened and ten days since the last comment. No further input seems to be forthcoming and there has been no support for the move. Jenks24 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Blake (disambiguation) → Katherine Blake – Since this dab page has no obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, certainly not one which engenders more searches than all the other topics combined, the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" is unnecessary. In view of the fact that the dab page lists two Catherines, two Katherines and two Katharines, the choice of "Catherine" was arbitrary and resulted in the need for the qualifier. Ultimately, this page can just as easily be named Katherine Blake or Katharine Blake, both of which redirect to this page and do not require a qualifier, thus enabling us to discard "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Oppose per Amakuru above. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that if a dab page has no primary topic, then the deletion of the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" would represent a benefit on its own merit. Such a view appeared to be the consensus at the most recent four RMs on this general topic (Talk:Kenneth Young#Requested move 2 February 2017, Talk:The Man Upstairs (short story collection)#Requested move 27 January 2017, Talk:Hans Ziegler (physicist)#Requested move 25 January 2017, Talk:Hollywood High (video game)#Requested move 19 January 2017 as well as numerous other examples from previous RMs).
A proposal to retain "Catherine Blake" as the dab page's main title header [without the qualifier "(disambiguation)"] at Talk:Catherine Blake#Requested move 1 November 2016, had scant participation, with 3 !votes — 1 Oppose, 1 Mild Oppose and 1 Support, resulting in a finding of "no consensus".
An earlier proposal (3 January 2015, above) to replace "Catherine" with "Katharine", had an equally small attendance, with 2 Oppose and 1 non-vote which seemed to lean towards opposing.
Finally, there is no indication of a specific consensus to use "Catherine" as the main title header, rather than "Katherine" or "Katherine", with those latter two serving as redirects to "Catherine", which is the only one of the three variants that still requires the qualifier "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Catherine Blake is the primary topic for Catherine with a C as established at RM. I agree that she may not be more looked at than the others put together. It is worth mentioning that although I found a 3rd Katherine, 2 of the Katherines do not have an article named as such - one is a pen name which redirects to the author's name and one is a fictional character which redirects to the main article. The 3rd, Katherine Devereux Blake, may only be a partial match, as her sister is also 'Devereux Blake'. Boleyn (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The additional entry, Katherine Devereux Blake, is much appreciated since it bolsters the case that now with 3 Katherines (with or without appearances in main title headers, these still count as legitimate dab page entries), 2 Katharines and 2 Catherines, "Katherine" has become the most frequently indicated given name on this dab page. Moreover, "Katherine Devereux Blake" does appear to be a full match, rather than a partial one, since various sources ([1], [2] or [3]) indicate the alphabetized name as "Blake, Katherine Devereux" rather than as "Devereux Blake, Katherine". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 3 Katherines get less views than the 2 Catherines and are less notable, which may need to be taken into account. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a ranking should certainly be taken into consideration if dab page entries were listed in order of page views or notability. However, other than relatively rare circumstances in which two (or more) potential primary topics cancel each other and are thus listed at the top of a dab page for users' convenience, dabs which contain name variants such as Bob, Rob, Bobby, Robby, Robert or Lis, Liz, Lizzie, Elisabeth, Elizabeth, etc on the same page, consider all listed names of equal importance and list them in chronological order (many, if not most, pages are in random or fitful alphabetical order) under section headers when such headers exist. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a very complex case with many subtleties. Nobody has yet come up with any convincing improvement on the current setup. It's quite OK as is. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It should be taken into account that although there are, as of this writing, two "Oppose" votes which indicate preference for the existing form, that is, retention of the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" and retention of Mrs William Blake as the primary topic, no argument has been attempted on behalf of presenting Mrs Blake as the obvious and unchallenged center of attention upon this dab page, whose positioning as the primary topic is due to her receiving more page views than all the other entries combined. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't you already have a move discussion about moving Catherine BLake and there was no consensus to do it? Plus a similar discussion to this in 2015. I don't think there's any consensus for these changes and this is not worth spending hours of discussion on. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your continued interest in this topic and would like to specify that the key word in your question is "similar". None of the three discussions is exactly the same. As I wrote more than two years ago, in January 2015, "There is also no consensus for keeping Mrs. William Blake as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No one has presented any arguments why she should hold such a prominent position… etc"…
WP:Consensus can change and, as I pointed out, again, above, "A proposal to retain "Catherine Blake" as the dab page's main title header… had scant participation… An earlier proposal… to replace "Catherine" with "Katharine", had an equally small attendance…"
As for "this is not worth spending hours of discussion on", we are all volunteer editors here and have been around a long time (more than eleven years of editing on a nearly-daily basis, in my case) and we all make choices regarding the use of our resources. For some, nothing here may deserve any devotion of one's time and energy, while for others, everything here does so deserve. I leave it to each individual user and editor to make his or her own choice. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:10, 13 February 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 30 June 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Little to nothing seems to have changed from the last several RMs on this. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Blake (disambiguation) → Katherine Blake – There are nine women listed upon the Catherine Blake (disambiguation) page, with no indication that any single one among them holds such an overwhelming place in history as to dwarf the combined notability of the remaining eight women. Since three of the women are named "Katherine" — Katherine Devereux Blake, Katherine Blake (writer) and Katherine Blake (Shortland Street) — it would seem intuitive to use that form as the dab page's main title header, thus obviating need for the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)". All other forms — Catherine Blake, Catharine Blake, Cathryn Blake, Kathryn Blake, Katharine Blake, Katarina Blake, etc — would of course continue to serve as redirects, flowing to the proposed Katherine Blake dab page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 08:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the last time this topic was raised was five-and-a-half years ago (in February 2017) and WP:Consensus can change.
Secondly, there was indeed at least one direct support vote and another vote that can count as a support vote, to quote, "I would support a move from Catherine Blake (disambiguation) to Katherine Blake, and Catherine Blake to Catherine Blake (wife of William Blake)." (The bold text appears in the original vote)
Thirdly, in countering the WP:BROKE argument, it would seem that if a dab page has no primary topic, then the deletion of the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" would represent a benefit on its own merit. Such a view appeared to be the consensus at four RMs on this general topic (Talk:Kenneth Young (physicist)#Requested move 2 February 2017, Talk:The Man Upstairs (short story collection)#Requested move 27 January 2017, Talk:Hans Ziegler (physicist)#Requested move 25 January 2017, Talk:Hollywood High (video game)#Requested move 19 January 2017 as well as numerous other examples from previous RMs).
A proposal to retain "Catherine Blake" as the dab page's main title header [without the qualifier "(disambiguation)"] at Talk:Catherine Blake#Requested move 1 November 2016, had scant participation, with 3 !votes — 1 Oppose, 1 Mild Oppose and 1 Support, resulting in a finding of "no consensus".
An earlier proposal (3 January 2015, above) to replace "Catherine" with "Katharine", had an equally small attendance, with 2 Oppose and 1 non-vote which seemed to lean towards opposing.
Finally, there is also no indication in any of the previous discussions of a specific consensus or argument for using "Catherine" as this dab page's the main title header, rather than using "Katherine" or "Katharine", with those latter two currently serving as redirects to "Catherine", the only one of the three variants that theoretically would still requires the qualifier "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The idea that if a dab page has no primary topic, then the deletion of the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" would represent a benefit on its own merit doesn't seem to be supported by policy: WP:CONCISE applies only to "article titles", and WP:DABNAME suggests focusing on other considerations. I don't see a strong DABNAME argument either way (neither spelling "reflects the majority of items on the page", nor is either term simpler than the other), so there's no compelling argument for a move. If the nominator really feels strongly that non-parenthetical titles should be favored, I think it would be more efficient to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation so that the issue can be resolved at a global-consensus level. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a global-consensus discussion — the matter of dab page main title header has had consensus since Wikipedia's early years. Since no one has argued that, among the nine women listed upon the dab page, one has made such a profound impact upon history that the combined renown of the other eight women cannot rise above it, then the longstanding WP:NOPRIMARY provides guidance — If "there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term", thus obviating the need for the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that there's longstanding consensus on this issue—surely you're aware that RMs similar to this one have been unsuccessful many times before, e.g. Talk:Glory of Love (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 May 2019, Talk:Joseph Weber (disambiguation)#Requested move 6 November 2020, Talk:Alexandru Ioan Cuza (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 December 2020, Talk:Unthinkable (disambiguation)#Requested move 23 March 2021, the two previous RMs on this very page, etc. If you think that "(disambiguation)" titles should be disfavored (and I understand that argument even though I don't personally agree with it), wouldn't it be best to have a single centralized discussion about adding that criterion to WP:DABNAME? I also don't understand why you think WP:NOPRIMARY supports your case: the base name Katherine Blake already does "lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term", so that requirement is satisfied. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response to last (22:35, 14 July 2022) posting

[edit]

Although the above 30 June 2022 RM is now closed, its last posting posed issues that should be answered. My reference to a longstanding consensus was simply an understanding that presence of the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)", within a dab page main title header, signifies that the dab page has an agreed-upon WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. Nearly all editors appear to concur with this understanding and even the above-linked four unsuccessful RMs that I submitted between May 2019 and March 2021, plus the two additional unsuccessful RMs that I submitted on this page, seem to be the exceptions that prove the primary-topic rule.

None of my six unsuccessful RMs challenged the putative primary topic of each respective dab page, but were simply roundabout proposals to obviate the need for "(disambiguation)". Although each case should be considered upon its own merits, my approach to dispensing with main header "(disambiguation)" in the above-highlighted examples fell obviously short of the goal.

As for the last sentence's description of the redirect Katherine Blake as a "base name", editors participating in RMs which regularly challenge dab page primary topics, appear to understand the term "base name" as referring to the existing dab page main title header without "(disambiguation)", not to redirects.

The entire purpose of the just-concluded RM was in fact aimed at Katherine Blake becoming the dab page base name, thus obviating the need of removing Catherine Blake as the putative primary topic through the method of arriving at and appending an agreed-upon parenthetical qualifier to her article's main header. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine_Blake_(disambiguation)&oldid=1248643201"