Talk:Duluth (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing statement: the result was no consensus to move at this time. I am closing this move discussion so primarily due to its having been running for so long, and without prejudice against a re-proposal. Skomorokh, barbarian 10:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth → Duluth (disambiguation) — so that Duluth can redirect to Duluth, Minnesota, which is the overwhelming primary use of the term.--Ken Gallager (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Gets 2-4 times the pageviews of Duluth, Georgia, and only 5 of 43 incoming mainspace links intended for Georgia (now corrected). Station1 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Georgia town is just as notable and has good claim. Incoming links are NOT a reliable indicator since many people (including myself) try and make sure links to disambiguation pages get fixed to point to the right page. TJ Spyke 20:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's unlikely anyone would fix only the links meant for Georgia while ignoring Minnesota. Station1 (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the novel by one of the most well known authors in the world. Also, for all you know someone from Georgia went through to fix most of the links to their town (not likely, but possible). My point is that "what links here" should never be used as a factor in deciding whether to move a page or not. TJ Spyke 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should "never" be used? Sorry, but that's simply untrue. Consider the Wikipedia guideline:

Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors, include:
* Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere

* Wikipedia article traffic statistics

* Google web, news, scholar, or book searches

When I start fixing ambiguous links and every article but one so far links properly to Duluth, Minnesota, that is a very strong indication to me as to what the primary topic is. (Sorry about my lousy indenting skills.) --Ken Gallager (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC) [indents fixed][reply]

Numbers of incoming links are highly unreliable. They can show that there is a clear need to disambiguate, but not the opposite. They don't show the opposite because it is so easy to "game the system" to make a case for a given "primary topic" by going through the list and fixing links that intend other topics. --Una Smith (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to do a Google search just on "Duluth -Wikipedia" (so as to exclude wikipedia results). Of the first 100 returns, it looks like over 85 directly relate to the Minnesota city or attractions in it, and 10-12 to the Georgia one. (There is some duplication so I didn't make an exact count.)

The issue here is one of where to draw the line. Certainly no one would say that London or Atlanta should be a dab page; but at some level a name should be disambiguated. Kablammo (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it unlikely? I think it is normal practice by someone who isn't really into fixing links to dab pages. --Una Smith (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I find that hard to believe. I've tried that method with Washington (looking for links that are supposed to go to Washington, D.C.), and it's an arduous, tedious process sorting out the few articles that need to be corrected. (This, of course, can also be an argument for keeping things the way they are in this case, since it would be really hard to find the few Georgia links that would show up.) If we're not going by page links, though, let's just say that Duluth, Minnesota is a major port and the center of a metropolitan area, while Duluth, Georgia is a suburb. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A primary topic is supposed to be "clearly" primary. In 2009 to date, the prime contender for primary topic article gets 3.4 times more page views than one other article. --Una Smith (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una, could you clarify that? Does the 3.4 figure apply to primary topics across Wikipedia, or for Duluth, Minnesota versus Duluth, Georgia?--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth, Minnesota gets 3.4 times the pageviews of Duluth, Georgia. --Una Smith (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Duluth, Minnesota doesn't seem to be the primary topic here. --Una Smith (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not that this has any bearing on the outcome of this discussion, but there's a funny tale about how Duluth, Georgia, got its name. See Duluth, Minnesota#The Untold Delights of Duluth. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Duluth, Minnesota is well-known not only for its size, but importance as a port. Where one use is primary or more common the name is often used for the article on that use, even though other uses exist. Atlanta and Minneapolis are examples. Kablammo (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside-- one thing this page does not need is every entity with Duluth in its title. Folks looking for an airport, school, depot, religious institution, or Precambrian rock formation are not likely to just search for the single word. We should eliminate the excess. Kablammo (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Those items were added after discussion started and are certainly not useful or recommended by MOS:DAB. Station1 (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience repairing incoming links to dab pages, when there is a cluster of articles related to a geographic name, and the base name is ambiguous, it is especially helpful to have a dab page occupy the base name. --Una Smith (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since it is not clear that with everything on the dab page that there is a primary use. Duluth is more then the two cities which is all everyone seems to be focusing on. Also leaving the dab page where it is makes disambiguation cleanup possible. Moving a dab page needs a strong consensus and a strong case. That case is not made here. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason everyone is focusing on the two cities is that all of the other uses have some relation to the city in Minnesota. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why even if there were no Duluth GA the disambiguation page should remain here. There are similar clusters of related articles on the dab pages Weymouth and Enfield: those articles are on the dab pages because the incoming links to the dab so often intended an article in the cluster other than the presumptive "primary topic". --Una Smith (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With both Weymouth and Enfield, unlike Duluth, there are many other places that share that name. It really isn't a very useful comparison. older ≠ wiser 11:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are very useful comparisons in terms of what actually needs to be disambiguated. Many of the incoming links to Weymouth intend one of several articles related to Weymouth, Dorset. Many of the incoming links to Enfield intend ditto some article related to London Borough of Enfield. Hence the subsets. (I see the Weymouth subset got deleted; I've restored it.) --Una Smith (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why editors don't like dab pages. Not every article needs to be the primary use and not every page will have a primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because dab pages are not articles. No reader expects to wind up on a dab page and ideally no one ever should. In cases where article titles are ambiguous, we should serve the majority. A hatnote is usually the more unobtrusive way to direct the minority. Sure, there will be a few cases where a primary use can't be determined among several possibilities, but they are a small minority. Station1 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that is why dab pages exist. Article links should not drop the reader at a dab page. However if a reader tries to go to an ambiguous name, they should wind up at a dab page and not a page that is not what they are looking for. Its the principle of least surprise. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using this as an example, as things now stand 3500-4000 viewers per month are surprised they landed on a dab page and need to click through. If Duluth redirected to Minnesota, only a quarter to a half that many would be surprised they were at Duluth, Minn, and need to click through (estimating based on pageviews). Station1 (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if half as many are not there for Duluth, Minnesota, then it is clear that there is no a primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support When one topic on a dab page gets over 3 times as many hits as the second most popular topic, and all the others are related to the first, that's a primary topic ("much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer"). Also, per the principle of least surprise. I agree with Station1 that we want to minimize user encounters with dab pages. In this case (assuming the move succeeds) a plain search for Duluth will take them to this article (through a redirect, unfortunately, but that's another issue). Most will be where they want to be right away. Most others will be one hat link click from getting to their intended destination, while only the rare remainder will have to click to and sift through the dab page. Perfect. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think it's been demonstrated that the Georgia town is "just as notable", and the page views show that this article is much more often searched for by readers than the other one. Jafeluv (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2009 (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.

Duluth University

I just now accidentally hit the "enter" key while undoing an edit. What I meant to type was "[Person X] graduated from Duluth", as an example of why Duluth University should remain linked on this page. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]