Talk:Highland (disambiguation)

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: pages moved as per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad-concept articles. Aervanath (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highland → Highland (disambiguation)
Highland (landform) → Highland

– Relisted.--Aervanath (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC) – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Highland (landform) is certainly the primary meaning for the term 'highland'. While the term itself is indeed vague, and the article rather poor, per WP:CONCEPTDAB that should not be a dab page, but an overview of the concept and its applications. At least, highland could redirect to plateau, although two concepts are not identical. No such user (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As stated in the proposal, this move is completely in line with WP:CONCEPTDAB. I don't see any need to redirect to plateau, highland (landform) seems to be an acceptable article, though further discussion about the two articles can certainly continue after the move. BlindMic (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no indication of potential for an encyclopedic conceptual article. Similarly, I see no evidence that people looking for "highland" or "highlands" are looking for conceptual information rather than a specific highland. older ≠ wiser 04:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:CONCEPTDAB again. "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page." It seems to me that that description fits this situation pretty clearly. Highland is the broad type, and most of the links asserted to be ambiguous are indeed specific examples of highlands, such as the Scottish Highlands or the Brazilian Highlands. What people are looking for when searching for "highland" isn't really relevant in this circumstance. BlindMic (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Where is the evidence that the landform is the primary topic? You say that What people are looking for when searching for "highland" isn't really relevant in this circumstance. -- why not? That is often one of the most important considerations? older ≠ wiser 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page views are irrelevant because the proposed page is a broad-concept article, not a primary topic article. The articles Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean have just as many page views as Ocean, but Wikipedia still has the page land at Ocean rather than Ocean (disambiguation) because "Ocean" is the broad-concept of which the other pages are specific instances. BlindMic (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. You're comparing apples and oranges. Ocean is a both a full-fledged article in its own right and a primary topic. Despite your claims, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that the landform is the primary topic or that readers will benefit by placing the landform article at the base name. older ≠ wiser 23:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per convincing nom. --RJFF (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per o≠w; I'd dispute that the general broad concept is the primary topic. A cursory glance at page stats shows that Highland (landform) was viewed 933 times in the last 30 days,[1] against (for example) Scottish Highlands which had almost 30,000.[2] Quite a few of the other articles have page counts in the '000s as well. At the moment, it's a one-click process to get to any of those articles from the dab page. Make the landform article primary (with a hatnote) and every one of those views is now two clicks away. That does not benefit our readers. --DeLarge (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the number of page views isn't really relevant here because the rationale for the proposal is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's WP:CONCEPTDAB. For reference, the articles Atlantic Ocean and Gobi Desert have just as many views as Ocean and Desert, but the latter two don't use disambiguation pages because they are each broad-concepts of which the other two are specific instances. Also, I doubt researchers looking for articles like Scottish Highlands or Brazilian Highlands will try to find them by simply typing Highlands into the search bar, and in fact, most researchers typing simply Highlands are probably trying to find information on the broad geographical landform. BlindMic (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- My initial reaction was negative, but Highland (landform) is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The article will need the usual "otheruses" dab hatnote, but that is little hindrance to those wnating something in the dab-article. I found Highland (geography) listed in the dab-article, but have removed it because it proved to be a redirect to the main (landform) article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge The Highlands (disambiguation) into Highland (disambiguation)

Split Highlands (disambiguation) from this page

I propose that we split Highlands (disambiguation) from this page, as there are several precedents that follow the example, such as Spire (disambiguation) and Spires (disambiguation). ToThAc (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closed After many months of this proposal receiving no interest, I've closed the discussion and removed the split tag, without prejudice to future discussion or bold edits. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]