Jump to content

Talk:People's Park

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

Generic usage

[edit]

Isn't the generic usage of the term the primary use? 'People's Park' refers to any park used for political meetings, rallies or other gatherings. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)+[reply]

  • I agree. The primary use is not (should not be) determined by the most "popular" page on Wikipedia, i.e., the page that receives the most "hits." I think that it is a safe assumption that if People's Park were made a disambiguation page, the page visits between the various People's Park pages would tend to even out, with the People's Park in California receiving fewer visits. Gjs238 (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the primary topic is the most searched for and read topic, which is not necessarily the generic usage. In this case, there is no article for the generic usage, so that can't be the primary topic article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is carrying an idea too far to the point of being ridiculous. A good example of the intention of the guideline is the topic horse. Yes, by and far most people searching for horse are most likely looking for the animal, not the many other pages listed on horse (disambiguation). However, I cannot believe that out of all the People's Parks in the world, the vast majority of Wikipedia users are searching for the one in Berkeley. Gjs238 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of a generic article does not mean it is not the primary use. That just means it gets placed at the top of the dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a primary, generic topic for "Horse", therefore there must be a primary generic topic for "People's Park"? I'm not sure what's unbelievable about the one in Berkeley being primary, given its history. And yes, lack of an article (generic or specific) does indeed mean that it's not the primary topic, although it sounds like you just mean there is no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic?

[edit]

The article now at People's Park (Berkeley) has been for many years at the title People's Park, and has a large number of incoming links. It has recently been moved without discussion to the disambiguated title, and the base title redirected to this dab page, thus breaking many links. I have reverted the change of redirect (so that those links are not broken), and restructured the dab page, leaving the Berkeley park as the Primary Topic. There have been various previous discussions about whether it was the primary topic, though not recently - see above and also archived discussion.

If anyone believes that this dab page should be at the primary topic, they should follow the proper procedure in WP:RM so that there can be proper discussion, and then clean up the incoming links after any page move. Thanks. PamD 07:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for this undiscussed move to be reverted, at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Requests_to_revert_undiscussed_moves. PamD 07:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 16 April 2014

[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. 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: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens, possibly hundreds, of People's Parks in the world (many Chinese cities have a park of that name). It's hard to imagine that the one in Berkeley is more notable than all others combined. People's Park (Shanghai), for example, a popular tourist destination in the center of one of the world's largest cities, is far more notable. A Google search for "people's park" berkeley returns 80,000 results, while "people's park" shanghai returns 134,000 results. And that's just English results, which naturally favor American targets. The equivalent Google search for "people's park" shanghai in Chinese produces more than 4 million results. Then consider some of the other parks: "people's park" chennai 193,000 google results, "people's park" zhengzhou 327,000, "people's park" guangzhou 40,000, "people's park" tianjin 335,000, and so on. Each of these parks, centrally located in cities of millions of people, is probably more notable than the park in Berkeley. Zanhe (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
  • Comment I'm neutral about the primary topic, but was alerted to the previous undiscussed move because the dab page was on my watchlist after work on it a couple of years ago. If the outcome of this discussion is that the Berkeley park is no longer at the base name, then a large number of incoming links need to be fixed ... though on closer investigation it looks as if a lot of them are from one navbox {{Hippies}} so it won't be such a problem. PamD 10:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts I've updated that template anyway, while I had it on screen, to link to the term "People's Park (Berkeley)" which is currently a redirect. That way it'll be easier to pick out any other links which need to be updated, if (as seems quite likely), the consensus is to move that article. PamD 10:16, 16 April 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.

Discussion after move

[edit]
User:PamD, this doesn't make any sense. The RM nominator is relying solely on WP:GOOGLEHITS, an argument to avoid. The question isn't whether those other parks exist in other languages, the question is what is the most common English name that Wikipedia users are looking for? The answer is People's Park in Berkeley, and it is the primary topic in English. The nominator says "Each of these parks, centrally located in cities of millions of people, is probably more notable than the park in Berkeley", yet there is zero evidence for that statement. It was a watershed moment in United States history for the counterculture in California, and there are entire scholarly articles, books, and encyclopedia entries devoted to its study. I think I can safely that say that the nominators claim that these other People's Parks are as notable or represent what other people are looking for, is entirely wrong. What is the average reader of English Wikipedia looking for when searching for People's Park? Given the ~300 links to this subject, it is clear that it meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both in terms of incoming links and sheer sources on the subject. Is anyone actually making the argument that People's Park in Berkeley is not the primary topic? Has anyone actually looked at the other articles the nominator claims are notable? There are virtually no good sources on the subjects, nor do those sources indicate historical notability. This RM discussion appears to have been erroneously closed. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A major reason to avoid WP:GOOGLEHITS is to avoid WP:Systemic bias. In this case, it's hard to argue that Google hits unfairly favour targets in non-English speaking countries. Your argument, on the other hand, is almost entirely based on WP:Systemic bias. I didn't list sources on the notability of other parks because most of them are not in English. If you can read this article, for example, you'll see that the People's Park in Guangzhou has a history of more than 1,000 years as the former site of the provincial government, played an important role in the Second Opium War, and was the first public park in a city of more than 10 million, proposed by Sun Yat-sen, the founder of modern China. And it doesn't even have an article (yet) on English Wikipedia! -Zanhe (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't appeal to a future article that has not yet been created! If our English readers aren't looking for it, why should it be the primary topic? Have you visited any of the People's Park articles listed on the current dab page? The only one notable as a primary topic on the English Wikipedia is the park in Berkeley. This isn't systemic bias at all, we provide links to what our readers are looking for and for what the sources indicate are historically significant. Your example doesn't have an article because sources in English don't consider it important and English readers aren't looking for it. Again, your argument concerns WP:GOOGLEHITS, not what our English readers are looking for on Wikipedia. As far as usage goes, the park in Berkeley meets the primary topic requirement. With respect to long-term significance, opinion might vary given the different topics, but clearly the Park has met the criteria for longevity. Why was the primary topic moved to a dab page, where most articles do not meet these two standards? I'm sorry, but the outcome of this RM is incomprehensible, and your argument based on GOOGLEHITS isn't valid for the purpose of a primary topic discussion. However, if there is systemic bias, you will need to create an actual article and link to it in order to even compete against the park in Berkeley. As it stands, the park in Berkeley is the primary topic that our readers are looking for at this time. That's how it works. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions (which WP:GOOGLEHITS links to), but is one of the main factors to consider in determining whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, along with usage stats. As demonstrated above, Google results for other People's Parks dwarf those for People's Park Berkeley. I know the Berkeley park is significant in American counterculture, (I lived in the Bay Area for years and have been to the park myself), but its long-term significance is dwarfed by the Guangzhou park, in my opinion. Even so, I'm not advocating for the Guangzhou park to be the primary topic as you claim, but only one of the many on the dab page. I suggest that you give WP:Systemic bias#The nature of Wikipedia's bias a good read. -Zanhe (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe, GOOGLEHITS by itself is an argument to avoid in all discussions. The arguments to avoid in deletion discussions are not endemic to deletion discussions—they are logical fallacies. In any case, you unilaterally moved this article without consensus. When it was reverted, you started a requested move discussion. Unfortunately, you did not follow the procedure outlined at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; you ignored the preponderance of incoming links and article traffic statistics, which is the reason the article on the Berkeley park has remained the primary topic since its inception. And, when you argued using google hits, you did not follow the instructions at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to best determine the results, which stipulates that you must rely solely on English reliable sources to determine the best result. You talk about systemic bias here, but the greatest bias here is your own, as you did not properly analyze the evidence for and against. Finally, you started a requested move discussion on April 16, four days before Easter, when many Wikipedians are on extended vacations and are unable to participate in this discussion. As a result, only two registered editors participated, plus an additional IP who began editing several days before the discussion. Three editors is not a representative sample of the community required for moving a primary topic. There's a lot of bad judgment and poor decision making going on here. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC#Determining a primary topic: "Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches". Who says Googlehits is to be avoided in all discussions? And Google was not the only argument presented, other arguments include the fact that there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of parks in major cities all over the world named People's Park, and there's no reason to believe the Berkeley park is more likely to be sought than all other parks combined, or has more long-term significance than all other parks (see the history of People's Park (Guangzhou) and People's Park (Shanghai), for example, which I've expanded and still working on).
And I take strong offense in your WP:Assume bad faith, although it's not surprising from someone who's been blocked about a dozen times for all kinds of uncivil behaviour. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to reason with someone with such a combative attitude. As PamD suggested, if you disagree with the consensus, contact Andrewa or go through WP:MR. -Zanhe (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests looking at incoming links, page views, and Google etc searches. Incoming links doesn't work as an argument here, as it just shows that editors have been conscientious in pointing to the intended page. But I've just had a look at some page view statistics for January (ie before any of this discussion): Shanghai 425, Berkeley 395 (Feb was similar). And anyone looking for "People's Park" will have landed on the Berkeley page whether they intended to or not, increasing its stats. So it really doesn't look as if Berkeley is the Primary Topic. A whole lot more analysis could be done, if anyone wanted to bother. (Oh, and it's not a case of "MR or A's talk page": the rules for MR specify that you discuss it on the closer's talkpage first.) PamD 10:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the last 30 days, People's Park (Berkeley) was viewed 626 times,[1], People's Park (Shanghai) was viewed 591 times,[2] Hua Luogeng Park was viewed 80 times, People's Park (Zhengzhou) was viewed 56 times, and People's Park (Guangzhou) was viewed 0 times. The page histories show that Zanhe just created People's Park (Guangzhou) with a non-English source, further skewing the primary topic requirement of proving the primary topic with English reliable sources. People's Park in Berkeley is the primary topic in English reliable sources, and has the most incoming links on Wikipedia out of all of these other articles (at last count, another needs to be done). An appeal to GOOGLEHITS is a form of argumentum ad numerum when appealed in isolation; narrowly focusing on one piece of evidence to make a case while ignoring other evidence is the problem. Zanhe's counterargument is "there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of parks in major cities all over the world named People's Park", again, a variation on the original argumentum ad numerum. That there are numerous parks with the same name does not mean we should remove the current primary topic and redirect it to a general dab page. In fact, the arguments demonstrating incoming links and traffic statistics show otherwise, and that is precisely the reason the Berkeley park is more likely to be sought than all other parks combined. Long term significance in English reliable sources points to People's Park in Berkeley as the primary topic. People's Park (Shanghai) does not seem to be very significant. Recent edits by Zanhe have attempted to give it a new significance that it did not have yesterday.[3] However, it has very few incoming links,[4] indicating little historical significance on English Wikipedia. On Google Scholar and Google Books alone, People's Park in Berkeley is the clear leader in English reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this discussion was addressed to me. I didn't close the discussion or make the move. I think there exists a "Move Review" process: try that if you disagree with Andrewa who closed. PamD 05:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The process is WP:MR but the first step is the closer's talk page. PamD 05:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A better possibility than MR may be to raise a new move request, if you feel that there is evidence to support it. Now that the matter has been raised on my talk page, you could try WP:MR if you feel that the close was in error, but I don't myself think that's the way to go. Not one of the arguments above, or evidence supporting them, was presented at the time of the close. Not everyone takes an Easter break. Please read the instructions at WP:MR carefully before taking that route.

Or we could invoke WP:SNOW and/or WP:IAR and reopen the move without going to MR. That's the other sensible option. Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC carefully and present the evidence informally but logically, and I'm happy to consider reversing the close.

I suspect that a new RM would be neater if it's done properly, but either way can work. But if you do raise a new RM, please stick to the issues. A new RM would not be about reversing my error or criticising those who raised the original RM, but just of presenting a case for one particular People's Park being the primary topic. And then, either way, we move on. Andrewa (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from newcomer to discussion. its obvious to anyone that the most notable peoples park in the western world is the one in berkeley. its historic, controversial. other parks may be larger, have more attendees, but this is the main one with this name in the english speaking and european world. I am not particularly bothered by the move, however, as its still easy to link to. i do think that having the berkeley park at the end of the long list is silly.50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Park&oldid=1241354592"