Talk:Corella (bird)

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

Requested move[edit]

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 NO CONSENSUS to move page at this time. If updated statistics become available later that indicate a clear primary usage of the word "Corella," we can certainly revisit this question then. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that Corella (bird) be renamed and moved to Corella to have the article as the appropriate primary page. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: (as nominator). Corella (a small cockatoo) seems to be the most popular use of "Corella", and so should be the primary page. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Corella to me means a kind of cockatoo. Maias (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but requires simultaneous move of Corella to Corella (disambiguation), which needs to be included in the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already covered that by saying that Corella (the bird) should be the primary page, so no extra discussions are required. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Google and the other terms on the DAB page suggest this is clearly a primary topic and should be moved. --Rogerb67 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no evidence this page meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requirements. The statistics for page views of all the possible uses or Corella for January are Corella (bird) 55, Corella (journal) 55, Corella, Bohol 285, Corella, Spain 95, and Corella, Italy 59. The disambiguation page at Corella got 476. The vast majority of people who are searching for Corella are obviously not looking for the bird. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states: "...much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)", and clearly this page does not meet that requirement. Tassedethe (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per evidence here. Dekimasuよ! 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But using evidence more appropriately.... The page about the bird was moved over a redirect on 26 February 2009 (this edit), so the page view statistics for January are are incomplete as used above. Licmetis (the previous page for the bird) has been viewed 573 times in January 2009, so the statistics seem to help to prove that Corella (the cockatoo) should be the primary page. It seems to me that the two oppose votes above are based on a misunderstanding of page views, and in the light of a correct explanation which includes "Licmetis" page views, perhaps the two people opposing above might like to revise their votes. Snowman (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The hits for Licmetis are actually irrelevant. Those hits are not due to people looking for Corella; people looking for Corella are not looking for the bird as shown by the stats, they are most likely to be wanting Corella, Spain. Even if those hits are counted that only gives the bird a bare majority, not significantly more per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (Totals are 573+55=628 for the cockatoo, 285+95+59+55=494 for other uses of Corella.) I see no reason to change my vote. Tassedethe (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions. I expect that the page move from "Licmetis" to "Corella (bird)" will have the effect of increasing the page views on "Corella (bird)", so I think that your page counts for January are largely irrelevant. Snowman (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The point he's trying to make is that the number of total views for the article itself (including names other than "Corella") isn't relevant to the question of what most people think of when they think of "Corella". Dekimasuよ! 12:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It seems to me that some subset of the people viewing the Licmetis page must have arrived there after searching for Corella initially. I don't know how one would gauge this. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the urban centres will have a location after them anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I did a quick google search for Corella -wikipedia, and of the first 50 returns, there were 11 hits for the bird, far outweighed by Angel Corella (note that he got 623 page views in January. That, combined with the stats tool evidence provided by Tassedethe seems to indicate that this does not meet the requirements for a primary topic. In this case, the dab page needs to remain at the plain location. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this is without regard to long-term historical perspective. See Wikipedia:Recentism. Snowman (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using a google search with Corella Cockatoo -Wikipedia indicates 30,700 pages. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lack of evidence that the bird meets primary topic criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corella_(bird)&oldid=1201148504"