Talk:Miley (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. I don't think anyone is particularly happy about this, but it's borne out by policy. --BDD (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miley → Miley (disambiguation) – The articles Miley (name), Miley (surname), Fort Miley Military Reservation, Miley, California, and Miley Memorial Field have each received no more than 900 views in the last three months. However, Miley Cyrus has pulled in exponentially higher numbers, which should come as no surprise to anyone (whether she is twerking or not); it is clear that she is the primary topic of the plain name. Consequently, the disambiguation for the term "Miley" should be treated the same as that for the term "Britney", which redirects to Britney Spears and whose disambiguation page is located at Britney (disambiguation). Renaming this page as "Miley (disambiguation)" would allow for the plain term "Miley" to be redirected over to good ol' Miss Sledgehammer; a hatnote placed at the top of her article would be placed in case anyone was actually looking for one of the other topics. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I mean really? REALLY?... What's the point? This doesn't appear to be doing anyone any favours. Are we really to believe people searching for twerker are just using one name? It seems doubtful. And with regards to the hat-notes, you've surely seen how viciously they are despised by fandom editors on those sorts of articles? The same as they seem to despise any brackets in the article names. The "primary topic" seems to be used far too often as a prize, often to the detriment of this encylopedia and ignoring policy. I really can't see the point of this move tbh. --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three items on the dab page called simply "Miley". A relatively rare given name with a decent stub article. A surname list with no content at all and a town without a population(?). I have created a redirect from this DAB page at "Miley Cyrus (entertainer)" to measure the number of readers who arrive here and are seeking the Miley Cyrus article. — AjaxSmack 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The argument by the OP about the Britney redirect seems to be an invalid "other stuff exists" reason. All items listed on Britney (disambiguation) are either related to, or based on, Britney Spears. Hence, there is a primary topic there. Here, that is not the case: all topics listed here are not necessarily based on or related to Miley Cyrus. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm actually startled that Britney redirects to Britney Spears and would oppose that. Britney is too common of a name. But Miley? Sure. Red Slash 03:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Talk:Britney (disambiguation) doesn't seem to have arrived at sensible conclusion and should be fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support My knee-jerk reaction was to oppose, assuming there were many notable Mileys and a viewer searching for Miley could be looking for any number of topics, however viewing the current disambiguation page there seems to be little competition—even accounting for recenticism—hence support the move. benmoore 11:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no one calls Miley Cyrus by the mononym "Miley" In ictu oculi (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm finding a fair few articles on Google News by searching "Miley" -"Miley Cyrus", which is rather impressive. (Especially after pages 1 and 2.) So I've got to say that apparently people do call her by the mononym "Miley". Red Slash 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But those articles aren't about Miley Cyrus, they are people with the surname Miley. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. Many of the articles I found are about Miley Cyrus, and every time it used the unqualified title "Miley" (which is all we care about here) it referred to her, even though I removed any mention of her actual name. Red Slash 02:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see it even looking again. My comment was based on searching "Miley was", and refs to Bubber Miley were most common, but there is no particular standout, as you can see. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Support, unless the stats for the redirect created by AjaxSmack show that relatively few people reaching this page click through to the entertainer. As with Britney, the question is what is someone entering "Miley" in the search box most likely to be seeking? If, as it seems, the vast majority are looking for the twerking former child star, then I see little reason not to send them merrily on their way to the expected article. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:RECENTISM -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't seem to be applicable (and is an essay, anyway). Care to explain what you mean? Red Slash 02:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - She has only recently come to prominence without "Cyrus" attached, so we should wait and see if it remains that way, or will "Cyrus" be reattached. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support. A Google web ranking is a better indication of what readers are looking for than an artificial redirect. I note that such redirects are not mentioned anywhere in the guidelines. Debrained (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC) SOCK[reply]
When I click that link every hit on the first page refers to Miley Cyrus, did you mean to oppose or support the proposed move? benmoore 14:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Ben Moore. I was also instinctively in favor of Opposing, but a look through the other links on the DAB page, including Miley (name), indicate that Miley Cyrus was the originator of most references and namings (and no one else is listed on the Miley (name) page other than Cyrus herself). Thus almost all references with Miley seem to be to Miley Cyrus. Ithinkicahn (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems pretty obvious what the primary topic for Miley is (or should be). I'm surprised it doesn't already redirect there. Hot Stop 15:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - wikipedia is not popularity contest. The name does not belong to a person. Hence he person cannot be "primary", unless the name originally was for this person and later re-used by others. Barack does not redirect to Barack Obama. - Altenmann >t 09:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Obama does. And indeed, if you're going to call either of these people by one name, it would be "Miley" and "Obama," not "Cyrus" and "Barack." --BDD (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was going to oppose, but I realized that the dab page itself received 1227 page views in the last 30 days. That's more than double all the other topics called just "Miley" combined. Even if ever single one of those readers had gotten there through the dab page, Miley Cyrus would still be the primary topic among them. It's pretty clear what are readers are looking for in this case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Miley Cyrus is not commonly known by only her first name, unlike the Britney example. 71.192.116.112 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.