Jump to content

Talk:Cliburn, Cumbria

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

Proposed Redirects

[edit]

The following pages should be redirected to the given section bellow;

Cliburn Hall redirect to section Cliburn#Cliburn Hall

St. Cuthberts church, Cliburn redirected to section Cliburn#St. Cuthberts church

Cliburn Bridge redirected to section Cliburn#Other features

Cliburn Mill Bridge redirected to section Cliburn#Other features

Cliburn Moss redirected to section Cliburn#Other features

Hamish Griffin (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with Category:Geography of Cumbria and sub categorys.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added The Old Rectory, Cliburn as well. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 11:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I have deleted it. We've been here before with you adding redirects for individual premises and as you may recall you ended up being blocked for your efforts. nancy 13:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stub

[edit]

Is this article still a stub, or has it now got sufficient content to no longer be a stub. Hamish Griffin (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree there is sufficient for an "Start Class" article or even C class given the relatively minor status of the topic , see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Quality_scale .Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a comparison Smardale was just given a C grade.Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cliburn → Cliburn, Cumbria — The topic of this article is a small and relatively obscure village with a negligible population (none mentioned in the article). The article receives a few hundred views per month, sometimes only about 100, sometimes even less than 20. The title should be disambiguated in order to make Cliburn a redirect to Van Cliburn, which regularly gets several thousand views per month and so has a much better claim on being the primary topic for "Cliburn".

In case anyone opposes this on the grounds that "Cliburn" is a partial match for "Van Cliburn", please note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states: "The title of the primary topic article (Van Cliburn) may be different from the ambiguous term ("Cliburn") being considered. ... When this is the case, the term (Cliburn) should redirect to the article (Van Cliburn) ... The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Nothing to disambiguate; The statistics above don't show that people are looking under this name. Agree a hatnote is required, and I've added it. Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Page-view statistics have many problems when used for making decisions about making requested moves. This seems a particularly good case of this - yes Van Cliburn may well got a lot more page views than Cliburn but we have no evidence to suggest how many viewers of Van Cliburn actually searched for Cliburn and so no support for Van Cliburn being th eprimary topic. To support a move I'd expect at the very least to see some evidence that Cliburn was actually used to represent Van Cliburn and that isn't given here. Dpmuk (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No evidence that people searching with just "Cliburn" are seeking the pianist? Have you googled for "Cliburn"? See my related comments above. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just have and I've got to say that I'm not surprised - pretty much all the result that refer to Van Cliburn have Van in front of the occurrence of Cliburn so this proves nothing. Google will return references to Van Cliburn when searching for Cliburn as this is how google works since "Van Cliburn" includes the word Cliburn. There is little evidence to suggest that people searching for Cliburn using google were actually looking for Van Cliburn. Dpmuk (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't confuse basic pattern matching with the sophisticated searching that Google employs. Google sorts results from a given search based on the popularity of the pages in terms of clicks when other users use that search. You can see this by comparing the search results for "dyke" and "van dyke". They are quite different, while the results for "cliburn" and "van cliburn" are very similar. That shows that people searching for "dyke" tend to be looking for different topics than people searching for "van dyke", while people searching for "cliburn" tend to be searching for the same topics as people searching for "van cliburn".

          Here's another way to look at it. Let's say most or even many people using Google to search for "cliburn" are looking for something other than "Van Cliburn". What would happen is they would scroll through the results until they did find what they were looking for, and click on it. Google would note this, one user after another, and subtly adjust their results for the next search for "cliburn" accordingly.

          Google is even smarter than that. If you search for "Cliburn" and don't click on anything (because you're looking for the village and don't see it), and so you redo the search to look for "cliburn village", and find the information that way and click on it, Google takes account of this too, giving those village pages higher priority for the next time someone searches for "cliburn".

          As more and more search for "cliburn" and end up clicking on web pages about the village, then those pages about the village would move higher and higher up in the results, until, finally, they would be near the top, if not at the top, of any search for "cliburn". It's precisely because of these behind-the-scenes intelligent learning searches that makes Google so much more useful, and why Google results are much more relevant to determining primary topic than they would be if Google only did simple dumb pattern matching.

          This is why the fact that basically only stuff about "Van Cliburn" shows up when you search for "cliburn" is very strong evidence that that is the subject usually sought when people search for "Cliburn". --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • Right that was almsot WP:TLDR but I waded through it. Yes I am aware that Google does clever stuff but I'm still not convinced for several reasons. We don't know what the sample size is for this particular search on Google nor do we know the exact algorithms used by Google so I don't find it convincing - although in my personal experience Google often get it right they don't always. Even accepting that it is broadly right you're still making the big assumption that people search the same way on google as they do on wikipedia. If, as older ≠ wiser suggests, after some months disambiguation page views are suggestive of people wanting something other than the village then I'll support a move but I can't support a move on the current evidence. Dpmuk (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, no evidence. The Google search you may be looking for is: cliburn -"van cliburn" pianist -wikipedia, 50,100 hits[2] (those that don't refer to him as "Van Cliburn"), vs. "cliburn cumbria -wikipedia" 86,100 hits[3]. So the village article is in the right place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What? No one is suggesting that anyone refers to "Van Cliburn" as just "Cliburn" in writing about him. The claim is that people, in general, often search for people by entering just the surname in the search box, and, in particular, search for "Van Cliburn" just by entering "cliburn". Looking at the results of a search that explicitly excludes "van cliburn" tells us nothing about what people are seeking when they enter "cliburn" in the search box.

          As I just explained in detail above in my reply to Dpmuk, the fact that basically only stuff about "Van Cliburn" shows up when you Google search for "cliburn" is very strong evidence that that is the subject usually sought when people search for "Cliburn".

          For that to be untrue would mean Google employs unintelligent search algorithms that don't learn by taking into account user search behavior, which is nonsense. Google's success is due precisely to having this type of learning intelligence employed in its search algorithms. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • By claiming him to be the primary topic for the title "Cliburn", you are suggesting that he is referred to as just Cliburn. You have assumed that "best Google results for a search term" is the ultimate criterion for determining primary topic, but that isn't one of the criteria, let alone the top one. We use ambiguous topics in Google search results (web, scholar, book, and news) to gauge how WP readers might be using the title, we use incoming wikilinks, and we use traffic stats, but we don't use them blindly. That's why my search string includes -"van cliburn". If there are problems with the use of one tool (such as traffic for a non-ambiguous topic outstripping the traffic for an ambiguous topic), we use other tools. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look no further than our own article about Van Cliburn to find plenty of references to Cliburn as just Cliburn. Certainly claiming a particular topic is primary for a given term is not a suggestion that that term is used to refer in writing to that topic as just that term without any other kind of fuller clarification. For example, where is Steve Ballmer referred to as just Ballmer in writing without fuller clarification? Nowhere, yet Ballmer is a redirect to Steve Ballmer despite the existence of other lesser known uses of Ballmer because it's normal to search for people by surname only, and Steve is by far the most searched use of that term. Anyway, primary topic is defined exclusively in terms of how topics are searched, period, not in terms of how they are referred to in writing without fuller clarification. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. While Van Cliburn may be a more popular topic, but it is (IMO) a weak partial title match and there are at present no strong indication that people coming to Wikipedia looking for Cliburn are expecting anything other than the village and parish. If after some time page stats show consistently that a significant proportion of readers are going to the disambiguation page, that would be a case to move the disambiguation page. Note that my oppose here is not support for the view that surname holders should not be taken into account when evaluating whether there is primary topic. older ≠ wiser 00:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very strong evidence that people searching with "Cliburn" are much more likely to be looking for the pianist and not the village is the fact that when you search for "cliburn" at google, the results are all about the pianist. If people often used "cliburn" to not look for the pianist but for the village, then the results would reflect that because Google uses artificial intelligence to sort their results; that's their hallmark in fact. That is, if most people searching for "cliburn" either waded through page results to find links for the village, or refined their search to include the word "village" in the search before clicking on anything, then those pages about the village would move up higher and higher in the search results for "Cliburn". But they're not there; that's how we know that when people enter "cliburn" they are most likely looking for the pianist - Google search results tell us that loud and clear, and quite reliably. Their business depends on it.

      Contrast these results with, say, "dyke" and "van dyke". In that case if you search for just "dyke" you see many topics that have nothing to do with "van dyke", obviously because people searching for "dyke" have ultimately and regularly clicked on those other things. Any other uses of "cliburn" would also make it up higher in the search results for "cliburn" if indeed people tended to be looking for those topics when searching for "cliburn".

      This characteristic of Google search results is key to determining primary topic. We use it objectively to argue against redirecting Dyke to Van Dyke, but for redirecting Cliburn to Van Cliburn. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is a similar disctuusin for Freston, Suffolk Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 09:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a pretty silly request, if he were often referred to only as Cliburn then you might have a case, and your compeltely misunderstanding of how google searches work doesn't help any. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is often referred to as just Cliburn. See #use of just Cliburn to refer to the pianist below. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are mistaking how you write in an article about someone, ie using only the last name after you have initially used the full name with someone who is actually known only by their last name. They are two completely different things. Everyone, falls under the first category as its proper writing. But that does not mean they are known only by their last name which relatively few people ever fall into that category. ie Einstein. -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not mistaking anything. Cliburn is a homograph. In English usage, it may refer to the well-known pianist or to some relatively obscure meanings like the village. All that matters to us when determining primary topic is how likely readers who enter "cliburn" in the search box are seeking each of the topics to which the homograph may refer.

          How one writes (and reads about) someone in an article is relevant here because it indicates how someone is likely to search for that someone. Since Cliburn is regularly referred to as Cliburn in written and spoken English, it is natural and likely for people to be looking for him when they enter "cliburn" in the search box. The idea that people almost always use a person's full name, and almost never use just the surname, when searching for information about that person is ridiculous. That's what's relevant here, not the convention of using a full name when first writing about someone. Consider the context; people who are searching are not writing articles - those conventions don't apply in this context. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • I think you are beating a dead horse at this point. You haven't much support at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • My motivation is that the encyclopedia improve in general, including in terms of helping readers get to what they are seeking in fewer clicks. Conveying how to do that and what that means in terms of primary topic determination is more important than this one proposal. I just don't see how anyone benefits when readers looking for one of the greatest pianists of our time enter his surname into the search box, press "Go", and then are taken to an article about some village so obscure that it didn't even have an article in WP until a year ago. This is precisely the type of thing that makes Wikipedia seem, well, amateurish, and it's worth it to me to try to fix it.

              Those in opposition are probably already dug into their positions here, but maybe someone will think twice next time about dismissing the surname search likelihoods "because the article won't be at just the surname" in deciding primary topic, and will remember why that's not relevant to primary topic determination. I can hope, can't I? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (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.

Uses of Cliburn - page views

[edit]

For each of the uses linked at Cliburn (disambiguation), here are the page view statistics from October 2010, ordered from least to most frequently viewed:

This is about as an obvious case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as there can be. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good list of uses of names that include the word "Cliburn", but not an obvious case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since you've just got search results, not ambiguous topics. You'd need to cook up things like Cliburn (pianist), Cliburn (bridge), etc., set up a disambiguation page at the base name and only use those redirects on that page, let simmer for a few months, then do the traffic counts on those redirects. I've used this kind of exercise at EA and Lincoln. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think searching with just "Cliburn" at google proves that the pianist is primary for that. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And again, thinking that anything from Google "proves" anything is a disconnect from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifically recommends using google search results for determining primary topic. Of course google results alone don't prove it's primary, but combined with the strong page view counts it's about as solid a case as can be expected for any primary topic determination. See my concurrent reply to Bkonrad above as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a tool, not as the authority. Using better searches shows that it's not the solid case you present. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but how does a search that specifically excludes matches to the most common name of one of the "candidates" a "better" search? Yes, cliburn -"van cliburn" is better for finding references to "cliburn" that exclude references to "van cliburn", but what's the point? That's like determining how popular The Duke is for referring to John Wayne by searching for "The Duke" -"John Wayne". What does that show? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shows whether the subject is ambiguous with the title or whether the title is just a descriptor or placeholder. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how would that discovery be relevant to determining primary topic? Please answer in terms of what the guidelines actually say - quoting from them - not your personal interpretation of what they mean. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to beat a dead horse, but to clarify in the archive... JHJ wrote, "since you've just got search results, not ambiguous topics."... "Ambiguous topics" is nonsensical. Topics cannot be ambiguous.

Cliburn is an ambiguous term; it is a homograph that may refer to several topics, depending on context. One of the topics to which the homograph "cliburn" may refer is the pianist in a speaking or written context in which he is referred to by surname only, as he often is, as most persons are in the English speaking world. The idea that users who are entering "cliburn" in the search box are not likely to be looking for the pianist but more likely to be looking for the obscure little village that is the topic of this article is quite silly, and, yet, that's the only justification for claiming the village is the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of just Cliburn to refer to the pianist

[edit]

We need go no further than our article about Cliburn to find plenty of examples of references to the pianist as just Cliburn, here are just a few:

  • "At six years old, Cliburn moved with his family ..."
  • "At age 20, Cliburn won ..."
  • "... that propelled Cliburn to ..."
  • "... in October 1957. Cliburn's performance at ..."
  • "Upon returning to the U.S., Cliburn appeared..."
  • "Other famous concerti Cliburn has ..."

This is typical of writing about Cliburn; he is normally and regularly referred to as just Cliburn (normally, but not always, after being introduced with full name, just like anyone else).

Here are some more examples, including website names as well as reliable sources like newspapers, of using just Cliburn to refer to him:

--Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First one's not about the pianist (but still uses "Van"). I haven't clicked through the rest. Which of those do not include the word "Van"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not about him, but I never claimed that. I said these are examples of references to him (like "he's no Einstein" is not about the scientist) that use just Cliburn.
This is just too much. First, these are the claims made by you and others opposed to this move proposal:
  • "No ambiguity to be resolved". (which implies the pianist is never referred to as just "Cliburn")
  • "...both are commonly referred to by the simple names Einstein and Nixon, while Van Cliburn is, well, Van Cliburn."
  • "No one calls the pianist (or the competition) just "Cliburn". "
  • "To support a move I'd expect at the very least to see some evidence that Cliburn was actually used to represent Van Cliburn and that isn't given here. "
  • "if he were often referred to only as Cliburn then you might have a case,"
Now that I compile all this material refuting all this, you move the goalpost to say you now require a source that not only refers to the pianist as "Cliburn", but also does not refer to him with his full name. Not even Albert Einstein can meet that absurd standard, not to mention there is absolutely no basis for it in any policy, guideline or convention anywhere, which is ultimately what this is about: do we make these decisions consistently, based on policy and guidelines, or do we just rationalize whatever we like or don't like? The latter is clearly prevailing here. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goalposts haven't moved.[4] Einstein (re)met the standard yesterday in the Memphis Daily News.[5] That is the conventional test for actual ambiguity (the exception) vs. standard name-holder (partial title match, not ambiguous, separated from the ambiguous entries on a disambiguation page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not a goalpost move, from you. However, I've asked over and over what relevance the non-existence of sources that refer to Cliburn exclusively as just Cliburn has to determining whether he is likely to be searched only with the term "cliburn", and I've taken your non-answer as concession that there is no relevance. Yet it doesn't keep you from raising this irrelevant challenge repeatedly. I suggest you either owe me an explanation based in policy and guidelines, or stop raising it. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've answered the question repeatedly, that would be a mistake. Primary topic, part of the disambiguation project, used for disambiguating ambiguous entries, partial title matches are not ambiguous entries, surname-holders are partial title matches unless they are commonly referred to only by only the surname. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only other person involved in that discussion at Talk:Freston, Suffolk, older ≠ wiser, agrees that this personal view of yours (partial title matches including surname-holders that are not commonly referred to only by only the surname are not ambiguous entries) is unsupported by the links you've cited in support, and you've not addressed those objections either. If that's not a concession, please respond there [1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that you and I will continue to disagree. I have, however answered everything repeatedly and consistently (although I have stopped responding to every one of your repetitions), so to help you avoid drawing any incorrect inferences: that's not a concession. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the question is about basis in guidelines for your position, and your "answer" consists of links that no one involved sees as relevant or substantiating your position, that not's an answer, nor is saying, repeatedly, that you've already answered. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator is using their own recent changes to policy which have not achieved consensus at WT:D to justify the move request. As with all of these similar discussions, the nominator's rationale is misguided. The person called Van Cliburn is known by that name. The place Cliburn is known by that name. There is nothing to disambiguate. There are incredibly few people who are generally known by a single name, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that this is the case here. Quantpole (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A note on the comments above. It is common practice in biographies or reports about people to use their full name at the beginning and then a single name throughout the rest of the text. That is common no matter whether they are are incredibly well known or not, and does not give evidence as to whether that person is commonly known by that single name. (For example this news report from today). Quantpole (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People don't call Gordon Brown, Brown or Tony Blair Blair, do they. I have created Cliburn (disambiguation) for the few who might, so that Cliburn doesn't need to be moved Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one, until now, has erred in objecting to the move on the grounds that the pianist is not commonly known as just Cliburn. This is presumably because most understand that the basis for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has nothing to do with how someone is "commonly known" (and never has, AFAIK), and has everything to do with how likely readers are to search for the topic with the term in question. How a subject is "commonly known" is very relevant to deciding on a title, and certainly explains the village article's "claim" to that title, but it's completely irrelevant to disambiguation in general and determining whether the village is the primary topic for "Cliburn" in particular; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC even explicitly says so: "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary". In other words, the fact that the article about the pianist has the title Van Cliburn and not Cliburn is not a factor in determining whether the village is primary for "Cliburn".

    Yes, it is a common practice to use a person's full name at the beginning and then refer to them by surname only thoughout the text of a biography, article, etc. For the same reasons only the surname is used in those contexts (mostly conciseness), it is also common practice to search for persons by surname only (especially for relatively unusual surnames like Cliburn, McNealy and Palmisano, but of course not for very common ones like Brown and Blair), and the likelihood of the term "cliburn" being used to search for the village relative to the pianist (and any other topics which are likely to be searched by "cliburn") is the only factor we're supposed to be looking at in determining whether the village is the primary topic.

    The point of determining primary topics and disambiguating and redirecting accordingly is not about putting articles at the "correct" titles, but about serving readers, especially in the context of topic search, as best as we can. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a load of comments on something I didn't refer to. To expand - I wasn't referring to the policy WP:COMMONNAME, I was meaning that if people don't talk about Van Cliburn as Cliburn they are unlikely to search for that term. You are making an assumption about how people search for a term. It is an assumption I (and it seems others) do not agree with. Nowhere have you shown that the incomplete title "Cliburn" is a common search term for "Van Cliburn". There is a tacit admission in your comments that people with 'common' surnames would not be searched for by the surname. So what happens if someone doesn't know the first name of someone with a common surname? They have to go through dab pages of course, or use search functions. I do not see why it is any different with an uncommon surname, apart from with an uncommon surname it is generally easier to find who you were after. Quantpole (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Van Cliburn was created in March 2004 1, while Cliburn was created in December 2009 2, it doesn't seem as if many people had any proble getting to Van Cliburn, until now...., but for those who did, we have Cliburn (disambiguation). Even though the fact that no editer has bothered to do something, doesn't mean that it doesn't need doing. But I think in this case Cliburn (disambiguation) is enough. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 19:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's because when you search with a term for which there is no article or redirect and press GO (which was the case for "cliburn" all those years), you are taken to search results, and Van Cliburn would be at the top of those results, so readers searching for the pianist with just "cliburn" were only one click away from getting to the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name holders not ambiguous?

[edit]

J, this is getting ridiculous. "Name holders are not ambiguous" in the edit summary of your revert has no meaning in English. "Ambiguous" is an adjective that can only apply to something that is interpreted (and if it can be interpreted in more than one way it is ambiguous), like a term, title, or name. A name holder is one who holds a name; a person. People are not interpreted, though some characteristics of people, like gender, are interpreted and might be ambiguous, so of course persons are not ambiguous . "Names-holders are not ambiguous" is as meaningless as "diamonds are not alive". That is, "ambiguous" can apply to name-holders no more than "alive" can apply to diamonds. I also don't understand the relevance of the reference to MOS:DABNAME which is about how to format dab pages. Please explain your revert in comprehensible English. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If any other editor does not understand what that means, I will try to explain it again. As you and I have already generated many kilobytes around this topic and it is apparent that other editors have understood my explanations during those discussions, I'd rather not go into yet another splinter of that discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, better, you made a bold edit to add Van Cliburn to the hatnote, it was reverted, and now you should seek consensus for your bold addition. WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cliburn (disambiguation) is enough as Van Cliburn was created in March 2004 1 while Cliburn was created in December 2009 2
Therefore it doesn't seem as if many people had any problem getting to Van Cliburn in the years that we didn't have an article called Cliburn, but for those who did, I think Cliburn (disambiguation) is enough. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 12:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When there was no Cliburn, Van Cliburn would show up at the top of "Cliburn" search results, making that article one click away from anyone searching for the article about the pianist entering just his surname in the search box and pressing go. Now, a reader using such a search is immediately taken to this article about the village, a click on the hatnote link takes her to the dab page, and then finally she can click on the link for the pianist. By including a link to the pianist in the hatnote, we return the situation to what is was before for readers searching for the pianist with just his surname... one click away. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go again. "the other uses are not ambiguous with the title."

Yes, I agree, no uses of "Simister" are "ambiguous with the title" because that's a nonsensical/non-English use of the term "ambiguous". The definition of Ambiguity is "a condition where information can be understood or interpreted in more than one way", and Merriam-Webster defines "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more senses or ways". So "uses of a term" cannot be ambiguous, because each use is not understood in multiple ways. However, a term like "Simister" is ambiguous, because it can be understood in more than one way. In fact, "Simister" is capable of being understood in three ways with respect to what is covered in Wikipedia:

  1. the Olympic luger surnamed Simister
  2. the footballer surnamed Simister
  3. the village named Simister

Clearly each of the three ways Simister can be understood are valid uses of the term (persons are commonly referred to by just surname in English), and, so, we should aid readers in finding each of these uses when they search for any one of them with "Simister". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here we go again with you treating these as legalese. Since you had to fall back to the verb "surnamed" instead of "named", I think you make the point that there are two ambiguous topics (topics that might have the same title): Simister the village and Simister the surname. Which is what I said. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legalese? Do you deny that persons surnamed X are often referred to as X in English? Regardless, Kotniski has agreed that the hatnote in this case is appropriate. Is that enough to keep you from reverting it again? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this enough to keep you from adding it again? I still have not seen any indication that the pianist is ever referred to by just the surname. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently you haven't been following along. B2C has shown the pianist is sometimes referred to as just Cliburn. Splitting out a separate surname page for such a small list seems unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splits

[edit]

Templates have been placed in the article suggesting articles be split off for Cliburn Moss and St Cuthbert's Church. Currently the article contains very little info on either, so unless there was a substantial expansion I see no point in splitting these off. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Ilikeeatingwaffles, absolutely no point in creating articles with so little information such as Cliburn Moss. The church is a possibility but needs verifiable references to create it.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that there's little point splitting these articles out while there's so little information on them. Dpmuk (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rather odd. I expect there would be a greater clamour to merge them back if they were split. Occuli (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review????

[edit]

Why on earth would a short article likethis need a peer review?--J3Mrs (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review starts off: "Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." I don't think that this article fulfils these criteria. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record - the editor closing the peer review suggested that Wikipedia:Requests for feedback would be a better place to ask.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 18:40, 03 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

[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: page moved and new DAB created. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– The city is not the primary topic for the term Cliburn, largely due to the existence of the pianist Van Cliburn. Google.com results are entirely about the pianist. On google.co.uk, a search for Cliburn brings up 7 for the pianist, including the first result, and 3 for the town. Google news results for Cliburn are almost entirely about The Cliburn foundation and the associated competition, or its winners. Google books results are also, unsurprisingly, equally dominated by Van Cliburn.

For those who may argue that "Cliburn" without Van would never be used for the pianist, I would note that the competition is very commonly referred simply as The Cliburn in numerous reliable and official sources. There's a much easier way to see this, however. This page, Cliburn, usually gets around 10views per day. An odd exception is February 2013, when views bounced up to 99 on the 27th and 135 on the 28th. Now, I guess it's possible that something unrelated prompted a sudden interest in the town, but I think common sense dictates that this bump is because of the pianist's death on the 27th.

I'll also point out that the surname disambiguation page received roughly 1/3 the views of this page, indicating that an incredibly high proportion of the editors directed here are looking for something else.

The page currently at Cliburn (surname) can be converted into a disambiguation. Alternatively, the suggestion by the IP below to create a new disambiguation page which would include a link to the surname page seems totally acceptable. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose moving the surname article, as it should not be converted into a disambiguation page, which would delete all of the information currently located at the article except the people list. Support displacing the locality. Instead create a new disambiguation page after the city is moved. There are other choices besides people and the city, such as Cliburn railway station, to make up the minimum of 3 entries. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2014 (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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cliburn, Cumbria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cliburn,_Cumbria&oldid=1206882711"