Talk:Gaspar (disambiguation)

Requested move 8 November 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A consensus to move this page did not form. The question of whether to merge Gaspar (disambiguation) into Gaspar was also raised during the discussion, but did not result in a consensus either for or against merging. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspar (disambiguation) → Gaspar
Gaspar → Gaspar (given name)

– No PRIMARY useage for the word "Gaspar", between a famous saint, the given name, and various locations. Therefore DAB should be at base name. Ortizesp (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think you need to demonstrate how these relatively small locations would be at over 50% of interest of readers compared to the relatively common human name. I did a Google Books search and in the first three pages all seemed to be assorted references to people named Gaspar, of which only Gaspar de Portola and Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos appeared twice, there were a lot of fictional characters, and I didn't observe any geographical references. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and Shwcz as well as per arguments in the recent successful nomination at Mike (disambiguation) → Mike / Mike → Mike (given name) at Talk:Mike#Requested move 28 September 2022. No reason to suppose that users search for a list of men named "Gaspar" to such a degree that those searches overwhelm the combined searches for all remaining entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those arguments are meaningless here because there's no common "microphone" or "micrometer" meaning equivalent here. What is the other meaning of "Gaspar" that you think users would be searching for if not the human name? Can you demonstrate any notion of a proof of that, per WP:PTOPIC? Because there seems to be no substantiation to these claims so far. If we look at e.g. the outgoing traffic analysis on this page, there's ~8.7% clicks on the hatnote, which is moot, and if we look at e.g. the general page view analysis of items on the disambiguation page, the article with the most traffic is the presumed primary topic page itself. Then if we look at the outgoing traffic analysis on the disambiguation page nothing other than Gaspar and Casper is there, so we only have proof of people clicking on the hatnote and then actually going back into anthroponymy articles. Maybe we should not make blind assertions about what the readers do? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be noted that some other disambiguation pages that highlight names as primary topics have been trending against this practice — Talk:Antony#Requested move 13 November 2022, Talk:Pedro#Requested move 13 November 2022, Talk:Pepe#Requested move 13 November 2022, Talk:Danilo#Requested move 17 November 2022. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner thanks for linking these, apparently it's been trendy for nobody to examine this with a bit more care :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Gaspar (disambiguation) back into Gaspar: that was the status quo from the page's creation in 2005 until the dab page was split out in June. I understand that some editors view such splits as the default action, but as far as I can see, this is warranted in only two situations: either when there's meaningful encyclopedic content about the name (which would be out of place on a dab) or when the dab page would otherwise get too long. Neither of these apply here. Gaspar has no sources at all and it doesn't seem likely that it could turn into a decent encyclopedic article in the foreseeable future. The combined dab page isn't long either: it's got about 55 entries organised into 3-4 clear sections, and moving five of those into a separate dab page doesn't really improve navigation. – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A round of pings: Joy, you're the one who performed the split, so I assume you'd be opposed to reverting it? What do the others think: Roman Spinner, Ortizesp, Shwcz? – Uanfala (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues woth reverting the split. Ortizesp (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see what's the benefit of putting these minority geo usages back in, it doesn't seem to fit with WP:PTOPIC or WP:NAMELIST. I went back and checked and the edit that moved them out and it was a removal of just 226 bytes from a 3,967 byte total (~6%). That diff already shows that this just wasn't really a disambiguation page focused on anything other than the human name - the locations had already not been prominent in it at all. The WikiNav observations of results of the change don't seem to indicate it being wrong - I've yet to see someone interpret them at all, let alone differently. I appreciate the idea of gathering consensus and getting people's opinions, but this sounds a tad bit like WP:LIKE at this point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per Uanfala; oppose the proposal as worded. There was no point in splitting a few dozen minor entries from a list of 50 entries. No such user (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.