Talk:Ultimo

Requested move

There is no primary topic at Ultimo, so the disambiguation page should be at that title. PamD (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ultimo, New South Wales was at this name until recently, but agree there's no primary topic. It means a lot of links need fixing, unfortunately. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have just dabbed all the links - mostly from various models to the lingerie company, but several to the NSW location too. PamD (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move has now been made on the basis that this was a misplaced disambiguation page. PamD (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look at the hitcount the lingerie company is out in front by some distance, and you'd save a lot of extra clicks by putting the lingerie article here with an {{otheruses4}} template on it. The fact that most of the incoming links are to the lingerie company is another argument for primacy. I was going to rename that article to Ultimo (lingerie) - as well as being less verbose, the "designer" bit could be considered POV - but having seen the "competition" I think it should come here. FlagSteward (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "heads-up". I'm not convinced, and would contest any proposal to move this disambiguation page, as there are too many diverse meanings for "ultimo". PamD (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and I've moved it to the shorter title and cleaned up the incoming links to the dab page again - by no means all were to the lingerie, several to the place. PamD (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be many possible meanings, but accessibility requires you to minimise the number of clicks people have to make to find what they're looking for. That would be achieved by having lingerie here with an {{otheruses4}} to Ultimo (disambiguation) - it's exactly what {{otheruses4}} is intended for. Now I know it may be uncomfortable to recognise the primacy of a knicker company over other uses of a word with a distinguished pedigree, but that's pop culture for you (and a tribute to the strategic use of celebrity totty <g>). But I'm not going to go to war over this, maybe we can revisit it in a few months time when we have more data.

That said - I think pageviews are an important tool for deciding how to organise dabs. It's an example of how Wikipedia can use the fact that it's WP:NOTPAPER to do things differently and better than conventional encyclopaedias, rather than relying on a voice from on high deciding what's important. FlagSteward (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]