Talk:Thema

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: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thema (disambiguation) → Thema – Thema currently redirects to Theme (Byzantine district). User:Epeefleche has pointed out to me that Lancia Thema has received twice as many page views in recent months (over 2,000 as compared to about 1,000). Although the current redirect is longstanding, and has had many incoming links (which I have now bypassed), it is not clear that it should remain so. bd2412 T 16:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In addition, I would add that the other articles on the disambig page have an additional 2,600 pages hits in that time period. Added to the Lancia Thema article, that far surpasses the hits on the byzantine district (by a factor of 4.6:1). Furthermore, the phrase "Thema" is not even in the name of the current redirect -- this contrasts with the 11 other articles on the disambig page, all of which have "Thema" in their title.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. On the scale of encyclopedic importance, the Lancia ranks below the Byzantine district. If the redirect were recently created, this would be no problem, but since, as you say, it is longstanding and you had to "correct" many incoming links, which is generally against guidelines, to be ready for this move request, I think it best to leave it put. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we strive to avoid subjective ("I think x is of greater importance") arguments. We look to objective criteria, instead, to avoid inadvertent POV. The objective evidence here is overwhelming. Clearly, the current target is not the one of greatest interest to readers. 82% of the page hits on articles on the disambig page were to articles other than the current target. Two of the articles on the disambig page, each on their own, spark greater reader interest. That's frankly overwhelming, and more than a little convincing compared to any one editor's view. We're not redirecting to Lancia, btw. But to the disambig page. It's counter-productive to send that overwhelming majority who are not interested in Byzantine minutiae first to the Byzantine page (which doesn't even have "Thema" in its title), and then to the disambig page, and only then to the page they are seeking. That's not user-friendly. It's, frankly ... Byszantine.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "I think x is of greater importance". My claim was that one topic is objectively more important to an encyclopedia. Your claim on the other hand is that we should be guided by readers' subjective interests. Measured objectively, of course. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your subjective view that one topic is more important to the encylopedia is ... your subjective view. No basis for it. Its an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument. By dressing up a subjective view with "I (subjectively) think x is more important to the encyclopedia" ... you are simply expressing a wholly subjective view. Unsupported. Personal to you. Lipstick on a pig. And yes -- we should be guided by objective page hits. That is objective data, reflecting interest of thousands of editors. And its within our approach to these matters to weigh objective data, and discount subjective "I believe" views that are not supported by objective data.

The odd thing here -- you want to require 82% of editors to click twice before getting to their article of interest. Rather than once. So that your 18% can save a click? Makes no sense to me. And, in truth, that's the crux of the issue here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. On the scale of encyclopedic importance, the Lancia ranks below the Universe as well, but that's not what English-using readers are looking for when they look up an article under "Thema" in an English encyclopedia either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There doesn't appear to be any clear primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No clear-cut primary topic. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If you google Thema -wikipedia, only one of the top 20 results refers to Byzantines. Kauffner (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2013 (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.