Jump to content

Talk:Corvette (disambiguation)

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

Requested move 9 February 2018

[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: no consensus. The supporters argue that Corvette the ship is not the primary topic for the article. The opposers, however, bring up that the car (and other items on the disambig page) is named after the ship and therefore has more long-term significance, and therefore is the primary topic. Since there is equal disagreement over this, I'm closing this as no consensus. (closed by page mover) SkyWarrior 03:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The ship is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Corvette" and so should not be at the plain title; this dab page should be there. The car consistently gets twice as many page views as the ship does. Twice as many! There is a strong argument to be made that the car is the primary topic, but in the end probably neither one is - the dab page should be at Corvette. В²C ☎ 01:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Neither is 100% the primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as well per above. Springee (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The ship has long-term encyclopedic significance and is the namesake of the car and other items on the disambig page. It already has a hatnote directing readers to the car article which is already WP:NATURALDISAMBIG at Chevrolet Corvette, and so doesn't compete for this article title. This move doesn't save a reader looking for the car any time, and in fact makes it harder for them as there are more links to parse through. -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The car also has long-term encyclopedic significance. Trying to measure by objective length of existence is just splitting hairs.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you have a valid argument that was supported by guidelines in the past, but guidelines and practice has since drifted away from this practical consideration. Look in particular where WP:TWODABS has gone. It used to basically say when there are only two uses there is no need for a dab page - now it says one of the uses has to be the primary topic or there has to be a dab page at the base name. --В²C ☎ 18:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Born2cycle: To expand a bit - in my view, unless you are proposing to move Chevrolet Corvette>Corvette, the relative page views don't matter at all. You might as well compare Lego to Corvette - they are different page names which aren't competing for a particular primary topic. So what's left if we ignore Chevrolet Corvette is to decide whether Corvette (aka the ship) is primary over any [[Corvette (xxxx)]]]' disambiguated articles, and in this case, the ship is primary over those others. Unfortunately, I think because of this misunderstanding, this request is a bit malformed, and I worry people are knee-jerk reacting to the car vs ship, when really they aren't meant to contest for the name. -- Netoholic @ 20:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand your view and I'm probably more sympathetic to it than you realize. But what I'm saying is that that view is not in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and everything else relevant to this at WP:D. The relative page views do matter, because even at Chevrolet Corvette that topic has a potential claim to Corvette as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. That's why the car gets consideration and the relative page views determine how everything gets titled, dabbed and redirected. A good way to look at it is to ask where we would redirect Corvette if the ship was already at Corvette (ship)? Would we have Corvette redirect to the ship, the car, or the dab page? Whatever is the answer to that question, that tells us what should be at Corvette. --В²C ☎ 21:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the primary redirect also wasn't being proposed there either. Instead, you proposed the dab at the primary topic, not a redirect. Had it been proposed the otehr way, then my point wouldn't be relevant. As proposed, though, the car should not be considered at all. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't have to be proposed as a primary redirect (or primary topic) to be considered. For example, if Mercury (planet) was at Mercury I wouldn't have to propose that Mercury (element) be moved to Mercury, or that Mercury be a primary redirect to Mercury (element), in order to consider Mercury (element) in the proposal that Mercury be the dab page. Same here. We consider all potential uses of X, primary topic and primary redirect, in order to decide what to do with [[X]]. Put another way, we consider all articles linked on the dab page in question in deciding whether that dab page or one of those linked articles should be at the base name. --В²C ☎ 21:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree, but you gave in your request a specific resolution to what should happen to Corvette. That's why I said the request was a bit malformed - the page moves you requested didn't match the rationale you were giving. So my Oppose vote stands, since I'm responding to the solution you proposed on the grounds I stated. --Netoholic @ 22:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Now you've lost me. The rationale I provided was for the point that the ship is not the primary topic for "Corvette". It is not the primary topic because of the page views the car gets, which (I thought went without saying) has a legitimate potential primary redirect claim on Corvette as that is how it is commonly called. Because there is no primary topic, the dab page should be a the base name, and the title of the article there currently (the ship) needs to be disambiguated. Those are the moves I proposed. How does these moves not match the rationale? --В²C ☎ 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netoholic: I agree with what B2C says above. The fact that an alternative contender for this title does not actually reside at the title in question has no bearing on its claim to be the primary topic. We treat the decision identically to how we would treat it if the Chevrolet Corvette article were instead named Corvette (automobile). That's why (after years of debate) the state of New York is now at New York (state), with New York a dab page, and the city at New York City. Because both city and state are contenders for the primary name.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per principle of least surprise. The ship meaning of corvette is neither a topic in the natural world like Apple, nor a common historical aspect of the human experience like Tinder. bd2412 T 17:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One thing I neglected to realize is that simply using (ship) as a disambiguation implies that it is the name of a single ship. I think that (ship class) should be used instead per WP:CRITERIA.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support — I appreciate Netoholic's point that the ship class is the origin and longer-term meaning of the word and thus more encyclopaedic (the Apple argument). However, this term is clearly ambiguous and doesn't seem to have a primary topic. We have links to Corvette which were clearly intended for the car brand, such as this and this, which would appear on reports and get fixed more promptly if Corvette were a dab page. The change would also bring minor meanings such as the bicycle and the video game one click nearer. Certes (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, having bad links is a justification to fix the links not rename the target. Editors would still put in the bad links if the target was a DAB page. -- Netoholic @ 22:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bad links are a minor point but could help to sway a close debate. I've just fixed all those I could spot. The change wouldn't prevent bad links but would enable them to be found and fixed much faster. Certes (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would distinguish "apple" here on the grounds that virtually every English-speaking person knows what an apple is. If you showed them a picture of one, they would say, "that's an apple". If you asked anyone, "what is an apple, other than a computer", they would say something like "a kind of fruit". Show anyone who isn't a naval buff a picture of a this kind of ship, and they'll say, "it's a ship"; ask them what kind of ship and they'll probably throw out a dozen words that are not corvette. Perhaps a sailing ship, or a warship, or a yacht, or a sloop, or a clipper, but to the average person, corvette referring to a ship is obscure. bd2412 T 00:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, using (ship class) instead of (ship). Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The disambiguation term (ship class) is not appropriate. A class of ships are a number of ships built to approximately the same design like the Flower-class corvette. "Corvette" itself refers to at least two very different types of ship, much like frigate does. That also makes (ship type) unsuitable, but that's better than class as it avoids the specific connotation of class.
There is nothing wrong with just (ship), that matches the disambiguation used for other types of ship (like Cog, Junk or Pink).--Nilfanion (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. —В²C ☎ 21:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The car is probably better known than the ship class at this point, but neither is a clearcut primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The corvette term was defined probably 3 full centuries before cars were invented. Page views is nothing to do with it. We are building an encyclopaedia, the way information is supposed to be structured correctly is the proper way to go. Also the car is a distinctly American product, and I don’t think it s that well known outside the US. We are looking to build a global encyclopaedia. scope_creep (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you aware of any support for this argument in policy? Besides WP:IAR? —В²C ☎ 18:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • IAR isn't so wrong in this instance. We are building an encyclopedia, not a catalog of products. Encyclopedic subjects, such as this ship, deserve primary topic over commercial products, even if the "rules" say that page views, etc. make the other one more of a primary topic. -- Netoholic @ 00:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which solution best serves readers who type in "Corvette", and surprises them least? The fact that a panel of experienced editors disagree suggests that the answer is a dab. WP:IAR is for exceptional cases. I see an argument for debating and possibly changing the rules, but what unusual feature of this title leads us to ignore them as not applicable here? Certes (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since a car searcher is going to have to click through either a hatnote (present case) or a list of links (disambig, if this RM wins out), then there is functionally almost no difference, and the encyclopedic nature of this ship type should win out. Someone clicking here may educate themselves for the first time ever what "corvette" even means.... how the car got its name. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (Wikipedia:Five Pillars, and education is our primary purpose. This HAS to mean we should linmk to encyclopedic subjects far more often than we link to similarly named commercial products. In 100 years, which topic do you think will still be encyclopedic? -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a good question, and one I ask myself when in doubt, though with a 10—20 year horizon rather than 100. Maybe go for a dab, and revert in the 2030s if the car has been forgotten? Certes (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't see any reason to apply IAR here. It's a classic case of the two primary topic criteria being in conflict, and editors are supposed to weigh both to determine if one or neither is primary. If in such cases the historical significance should trump the likelihood of being sought criteria, then we need widespread agreement on that principle and have it reflected accordingly at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Same with the notion that WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT candidates (like the car in this case) should not be given as much weight in deciding PT. If that's the case, we should have PRIMARYTOPIC say so. But I don't see why I should be so only in this case. I suppose one can argue that either or both principles should be reflected there, and this is a test case, but I don't see anyone arguing that. --В²C ☎ 18:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, either as proposed or to Corvette (ship type) The ship only (barely) satisfies one criteria for primary topic and fails in the other main criteria. Having dab page at the base name will facilitate identifying and fixing mistaken links. older ≠ wiser 12:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Comment What is driving this, is not scientific methodology, merely the power of the crowd, which is ascendant, and where popularity and commonality are valued, which is driven by social media, and idea that the crowd is right, and if the crowd decides the name of something, by how many searches it can find and it is now the most important, which is unscientific and is completely dolally, (and can be faked) then that is what it will be called. I'm not just talking about this RFC. I'm talking about all the ones in this series, which subvert the scientific method. In the scientific methodology, what was invented first, gets first shout. On the article name for the Big Ben article. To explain, Big Ben is the bell. When people talk about Big Ben, they are talking about the noise, of Big Ben sounding, not the clock tower. It may be plainly obvious, when talking to a Londoner, about the Big Ben and the Tower. They assume the person is talking about the whole tower, when in fact they are taking about the bell. That is the key, when you are trying to convey information, you have to careful what is being communicated, otherwise assumptions are made, and facts are absent, in general. The solution is the scientific method which was designed, to ensure key facts are conveyed without assumption. It has worked happily for 400 years, naming stuff according to scientific method, not by the edicts and power of social media, or what is found on a search engine. What are the Gen Y crowd, which constitutes the social crowd now, going to do in 25 years time, moving from being free radicals (When young) to conservatives (When middle aged), which may be a trope, but is largely true. Tying Wikipedia to the vagaries of Google search is madness, which alone is worth considering. scope_creep (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we do with the (rather elderly) poster child for twodabs, John Quested? Pick one of the meanings at random to be the primary topic, on the grounds that it saves a click for 50% of readers? Certes (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One wonders what exactly that has to do with this discussion. The point of moving this page is to increase the utility to readers. I fail to see how making this change does that for probably 99.99% of people typing in "corvette" into the search bar. Can you address that?
On saving clicks, the importance of which you seem to minimize - if that is not the point of moving the page, what justification are we left with? Slavishly enforcing editing guidelines?
But to answer your irrelevant question, This should not have been done in the first place (and is the logical choice to "fix" the situation). But the fact that some people at some point decided that that sort of change is useful does not have any bearing on this discussion - editing guidelines are not a suicide pact. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An international usage of centuries matters is more significant than a North American private brand name used for decades. Kablammo (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is international, not just American. To most people outside America, a corvette is a ship. We might know that it is also a model of car, but it's certainly not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is arguing that the car is the primary topic. The argument is that enough WP users associate the term Corvette with the car such that neither the car nor the ship is the primary topic. --В²C ☎ 18:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Ship type is the primary and rightfully so. The DAB already is a DAB and all are well-linked with lead templates so I see no reason for change. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I assume that for most people outside the US (with the exception of the UK), corvette is associated more with the car: E.g. in my native language German, de:Corvette is the car and de:Korvette is a ship type, thus I had to learn that corvette is the English translation of the German Korvette, but of course I know the car. And for US and UK users, В²C's argument with the page views holds.--Cyfal (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the previous discussions. The ship meaning is the primary topic, not the car made by Chevrolet. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose IMO the ship type should have pride of place. Everything currently on the disambiguation page is a mere footnote.

    We are not supposed to set ourselves up as subject-field experts, on the topics we cover. Rather we are supposed to defer to the opinions of published subject field experts, and other RS. Nevertheless, I think we have an obligation to make sure we have a basic understanding of the topics we work on.

    When we don't understand the topics of the articles we work on, we make really lame, unforgiveably lame mistakes, mistakes that are a huge embarrassment. Every entry on the disambiguation page has a name inspired by the original ship type Corvette. Geo Swan (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not aware of the WP:PRIDEOFPLACE policy, guideline or convention. I'm fascinated by all these oppose arguments conjuring up imaginary rules to bolster their indefensible position. I hope the closer discounts them accordingly. --В²C ☎ 22:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I find more fascinating is that no one can seem to answer my question. Why are we moving these pages? Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Short answer: comply with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Long answer: Actual practice sets precedent on Wikipedia, and influences how the rules are written and how related decisions are made. So every title that is inconsistent with the rules can influence other titles to be inconsistent, and the effect can ultimately snowball. That why it's important to "fix" inconsistencies with the rules, like this one. --В²C ☎ 22:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Slavishly enforcing rules, got it. I hope the closer treats your rationale with as much weight as you hope they treat the above opposes. Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Almost all RMs fall into this category. Go through WP:RM and see how many you can find that will make a real practical positive difference for users. Most are about better compliance with the rules. That's no argument to hold against an RM. That said, this proposal does have practical benefits, not the least of which is making bad links much easier to identify and fix, and minimizing user surprise. --В²C ☎ 23:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know, I used to be a regular admin at RM (check the top 10 editors of the page). That doesn't mean it's a good argument. As for fixing links, I just went through the links to Corvette and fixed the one bad one out of a few thousand. It wasn't all that onerous. And reader surprise? A vague, squishy, and unknowable metric if I ever saw one. Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again, compliance with PRIMARYTOPIC is the main reason for the move, as noted in the proposal originally. Discounting the significance of any practical reasons for making the move is a straw man fallacy based on the false presumption that practical reasons are or should be significant reasons for this (or any other) RM. That's simply not the case, and you've already conceded as much. What's very interesting is the level of effort the "it doesn't matter" crowd puts into a matter that supposedly "doesn't matter". We've seen it here for ten years, and saw it for eight years at Yogurt. --В²C ☎ 00:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There are two interpretations of PRIMARYTOPIC - long-term significance and usage/page views. You seem to be arguing for usage, while opposes are citing long-term significance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and general knowledge topics must be given higher weight over commercial products, even if the commercial product has some temporary page views advantage. And Usage itself is hard to figure. Do we go simply by page views, which are going to be skewed towards car shoppers? Which topic do you think more students are looking for? Which topic is closer to being a vital article? -- Netoholic @ 00:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Speaking of strawmen, B2C, I don’t believe I said anywhere that this move “doesn’t matter”. I’m also unsure of where you think I’ve conceded anything. I said the moves serve no useful purpose, and thus there is no reason to upend the status quo. The idea that we ought not to take “practical reasons” into consideration when moving pages is, frankly, among the most ludicrous things I’ve ever heard in a Wikipedia discussion (and I’ve been around for some time). I also said that if there are guidelines that mandate useless changes simply for the sake of those guidelines, the problem lies with the guidelines, not cases like this one that do not conform. Parsecboy (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • (edit conflict) Netoholic, No, I'm arguing that neither should dominate. Again, the argument is that there is no primary topic here, not that the car is the primary topic. As I noted above earlier today, this is a classic case of the two primary topic criteria being in conflict, and editors are supposed to weigh both to determine if one or neither is primary. If in such cases the historical significance should trump the likelihood of being sought criteria, as the opposes seem to feel, then we need widespread agreement on that principle and have it reflected accordingly at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Currently, we don't have that. Same with the notion that WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT candidates (like the car in this case) should not be given as much weight in deciding PT. If that's the case, we should get community consensus on this point and have WP:D say so. That's also not the case, currently. Further, for better or for worse, though not documented, the recognizability of the topic with historical significance, and its likelihood of being sought, seems to matter to determining how significant the historical significance is, by convention. Countless topics are named after original uses that are not very well known, and that matters. Consider these terms with well-known popular uses, not so well known original uses, which are titles of dab pages (just as what we propose to do here): Ajax (Greek mythology), Avis (Latin for bird, or Aves), Collier (Collier (ship)), Ford (actually in that case the car brand is primary despite it being named after the man), etc. And, wow, I haven't see anyone mention WP:VITAL in years, and have never seen anyone refer to the notion of "closest to vital", LOL. You're really digging, man. But, that said, I think you might be underestimating the historical significance of the car which was long considered the only "true" American sports car, and which legacy continues to grow to this day. In the end, primary topic should apply when there is one obvious primary use of the given term. That's just not the case here. --В²C ☎ 01:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Parsecboy, saying "I submit we ought to find a more productive way to spend our time" suggested to me you didn't think it mattered much. When I said "Almost all RMs [fall into the category of enforcing rules rather than have practical reasons]", and you replied "I know" and "that doesn't mean it's a good argument" - that's what I thought you conceded... that it's normal for an RM to be based on enforcing rules rather than making practical improvements. In retrospect I recognize I might have been reading a bit too much into your words, and misreading a bit; my apologies. As to "practical reasons", editors have long noted that articles could have randomly generated strings as titles (and corresponding urls) and everything would work just fine (practically speaking) as long as redirects were set up correctly. This is why I say titles often don't really matter for practical reasons. That said, the whole original point of primary topic was to take users directly to the article they are most likely to be seeking when they type in a certain term, which of course is a practical consideration. The whole concept of "historical significance" was only added to PT relatively recently, and arguably interferes with the original practical considerations. --В²C ☎ 02:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                        • No, what that meant was this discussion is pointless, because your proposed solution is to a problem that does not exist. It would be more productive if we, you know, actually wrote an article instead of this useless wall of text. On conceding, that's not at all what you said. You implied that I conceded that there exists some "fallacy based on the false presumption that practical reasons are or should be significant reasons for this (or any other) RM", which is decidedly not the case. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Parsecboy B2C understands your argument all too well. It is the exact argument he used himself at Talk:Mustang/Archive_2#Alternative_proposal, where he advocates making the horse the primary topic, despite the car consistently getting four times the page hits (four times!), [[1]] because, "...How does having all readers searching for "Mustang" landing on the dab page serve them better than having them land on the article about the horse? I have favored making Corvette a dab page in the past, following similar reasoning. But now I think having a use, the traditional use, at the base name, is better than having a dab page there. Same with this case"(В²C ☎ 14:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)) Perhaps he has changed his mind again!--Ykraps (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Perhaps more amusingly, B2C's second comment in that discussion includes the lines: " I don't think a compromise among disparate philosophies is necessarily how we arrive at decisions that serve the readers the best. Such a compromise is likely to be worse than going with either favored approach. In other words, I think leaving the dab page at the base name is the fourth best option - having either the car, the horse or even the plane at the base name would be better." - all it takes is 4 years to do a mental 180 and then pretend like the idea that article titles should serve readers is, you know, absolutely preposterous. Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • The reason Corvette had only one car-related incoming link is that other editors have repaired them. (I fixed 40 the other day, plus one for the video game.) Certes (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree that there is no clear primary topic, but I feel the disambiguation of having the ship at Corvette and the car at Chevrolet Corvette is better than any alternative. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think this falls into the same category as apple the fruit versus Apple the company, the company not being primary despite consistently getting roughly three times as many page views as the fruit. It makes sense for an encyclopedia to give some weight to long-term significance and educational value as described in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and to keep the original ship class primary. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would also tend to think the car would be the primarytopic, since it has far more pageviews, and being significant for over sixty years seems like reasonably long-term significance. But at a minimum, the ship is not primary for the above reasons. The basename at the dab page will at least allow us to more easily spot mislinks. Dohn joe (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So? Popularity is fickle and temporary. Clearly, search engines have no problem finding the car topic on WP no matter what the title is. Corporate brands should not come primary ahead of general knowledge topics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine, advertising platform, or popularity contest. -- Netoholic @ 14:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It should be clear to everyone by now that page hits can easily be manipulated (bot, anyone) to serve private pecuniary, political, or personal interests. All a company needs to do to promote a brand is to flood web sites with searches for the term. We should not be so naive as to think that Wikipedia will be exempt from that. Kablammo (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is something to be very cautious of especially in a situation like this where the difference is between a general knowledge topic and one which is a commercial product. Commercial products have vast resources dedicated to getting them to the top of search engines, making that method of comparison heavily bias away from what should be our primary focus - the general knowledge topics. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no conflict between the titles Corvette and Chevrolet Corvette and no proposal to move the car. If both articles are currently at their best titles, a move would not benefit any reader seeking the car, who would still have to click through a dab page rather than a hatnote, and would be a detriment to the substantial number seeking the ship, who would now have to click through a dab page for no reason. Station1 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I cite WP:IAR. It's all about the readers. I consider WP:PRIMARYTOPIC both out-of-date and misguided (although that's another story). The only question that needs be asked is, "What will best serve our readers?" Nothing else matters at all.
My test for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is: "Does everyone who knows of B also know of A?" If they do, then A may be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If they do not, then it is not.
I happen to know both major meanings. But, imagine that you're an English speaker in (let's say) the Indian Subcontinent, who's just come across the word "Corvette" for the first time, and has looked it up in Wikipedia. He or she might be puzzled to learn that their neighbour was driving a warship; not everyone reads hatnotes.
If even one or two editors argue persuasively that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If they see none, there is none. This isn't a matter for counting votes, but one of WP:POLICY. (And as for page views, ptuuiiy!) Narky Blert (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how many Chevrolets are exported to India, do you think? Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The primary topic may be the car, as that's the only usage I've heard of, and it gets twice the page views. Long-term significance isn't really a factor in my view either, corvette is too obscure a topic to be considered a major long-term primary topic. It's not bell, apple or poppy by any stretch of the imagination. For now, a disambiguation page serves best, and perhaps down the road even consider making it PTOPIC of the car.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Putting the (ship) hint in the page title would help everyone, whether they are looking for the ship article or not. I expect most people looking up Corvette are not looking for the ship article. I am one of those who does look for the ship article, and having (ship) in the title would mean giving me earlier confirmation that I was being given the correct page when part of (eg) a list of google search hits. TTK (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2018 (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.

"Corvette (disambiguation) (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corvette (disambiguation) (redirect). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 23:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corvette_(disambiguation)&oldid=1201163397"