Talk:Lincoln Park (disambiguation)

Move to Lincoln Park (disambiguation)

I think that the default for Lincoln Park should be the park in Chicago and this should be at (disambiguation). If nobody disagrees I will move appropriately. Sligocki (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind these suggested changes? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Chicago's Lincoln Park is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term Lincoln Park. Just as Central Park is the New York park, Golden Gate Park is the San Francisco park and Richmond Park is the London park. My question is whether anyone disagrees that it is the primary topic. Cheers, Sligocki (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved; no consensus either way. NW (Talk) 00:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Lincoln Park (disambiguation) → Lincoln Park — Simply put, there is no primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the only issue here is what to move the current article to. Lincoln Park (Chicago park) seems the most logical, but is not the nicest form of disambiguation. For the previous discussion, look here. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not convinced that the Chicago park is not the primary topic. I've lived in Chicago for the last 7 years so I know I have bias, but looking through the list of Lincoln Park articles I can't see anything that strikes me as competing with the Chicago park for primary topic, except for perhaps the chicago community area that is named after the park.—Jeremy (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Clarify. In the light of the discussions below I would support a request to move Lincoln Park, Chicago to Lincoln Park (1st choice) or to make Lincoln Park be a redirect to Lincoln Park, Chicago, but I still oppose the current requested move as I think that the discussions below show that there is a primary topic for Lincoln Park.—Jeremy (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Looking at December pageviews Lincoln Park, Chicago and the related Lincoln Park are clearly ahead of all other uses combined, with Lincoln Park a strong second (half as many views as Lincoln Park, Chicago but almost triple the next highest contender). Station1 (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Should probably use pageviews from November and earlier, since the move and move discussion took place in December. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  You are correct. I didn't realize Lincoln Park redirected to the dab page for part of December. The November pageviews proportions are substantially similar, although slightly stronger for Lincoln Park, Chicago (more than double Lincoln Park), and secondarily for Lincoln Park (more than triple the next highest), than December's views. Station1 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  You are making the point that there is no primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  As I think the spirit (if not the letter) of the Wikipedia naming conventions is to get the readers to where they want to be with the fewest clicks I was interested to develop this line of thinking. I looked at the page views from May, June, and July 2009, which is the last time that [[Lincoln Park]] had stably been the disambiguation page, as is proposed by this requested move. I looked at 21 articles from the disambiguation page that I thought could reasonably be considered candidates for primary topic. For all these articles combined there were 74894 page views during that three month period. The Chicago community area got 60.3% of these views, and the Chicago park 15.5%. Lincoln Park, Michigan was next with 5.3%, then Lincoln Park, New Jersey with 4%.There was one article with 2.6%, another four with a little over 1%, and the rest had less than 1%. I think it clear that during those three months the Chicago community area was the primary topic for Lincoln Park and I don't see any reason to think that the page view proportions will have changed dramatically between then and now. However, as the current WP convention is that US places are disambiguated I think it unlikely that there will be consensus to move Lincoln Park, Chicago to Lincoln Park. Because of this I also looked at just the articles on parks called Lincoln Park, the Chicago park got 65% of the page views on these pages.—Jeremy (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  If Lincoln Park, Chicago is the primary topic, then Lincoln Park should redirect to Lincoln Park, Chicago. The naming conventions don't factor into the primary topic determination. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  I think that the readership data suggests that Lincoln Park, Chicago is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined to be the subject being sought" (to quote WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) by the reader. So I agree, Lincoln Park should redirect to Lincoln Park, Chicago.—Jeremy (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  I forgot to add. If 100 people went to [[Lincoln Park]] today looking for these 21 article in the same proportions as above, it would take 89 extra clicks to get people to the article they are looking for; if this move went ahead that would be increased to 100 clicks.—Jeremy (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  I did not specifically claim that there is a primary topic. If considering only pageviews, by a literal reading of the new version of the primary topic guideline, Lincoln Park, Chicago would be close to but not quite the primary topic (based on November). By the older version of the guideline, which I think is more logical and better reflected consensus (this case is a perfect example of why), it would be a clear primary topic. But in any event, the two related Chicago articles taken together are very clearly what most readers are seeking by a margin of better than 2:1 over numerous relatively minor articles. This makes sense because "Lincoln Park" is most commonly associated with Chicago. If more than 2/3 of readers want info about Chicago, they should not be sent to a dab page; that is the basis of my opposition. Station1 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support; no obvious primary use. Powers ^T 20:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Didn't we just have this discussion at what is now Talk:Lincoln_Park#Requested_move? Anyway, none of the uses of "Lincoln Park" has been shown to meet the primary topic criteria: " highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box". The actual park should be at Lincoln Park (Chicago park). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Right, this discussion was out of place at Talk:Lincoln Park#Requested move before, which is why that discussion was closed with the suggestion to make the appropriate move request for this page on this page's Talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's highly likely that someone putting in 'Lincoln Park' is searching for the park or, at least something in Chicago, like the Zoo (which is in the park), so its been shown to my mind (that and the Google search I did for Lincoln Park). Also. if you are requesting multiple moves, as this request appears to do. It looks like you are suppose to fill out a special form. Besides the inelegance of 'Lincoln Park (park)' in any form such as this proposal is pretty ridiculous. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  If someone is looking for the zoo and enters Lincoln Park, do you think they could find and click on a link to the article about the zoo easier and quicker if they are first taken to the dab page or to this page? Go ahead, time yourself, and you'll see. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Lincoln Park is faster. You don't even have to scroll down to find the zoo link but if that's your concern you could bold the Zoo in the Introduction to Lincoln Park.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  LOL. That argument is novel; I'll give you that. But if someone is fairly likely to be looking for the zoo when entering "Lincoln Park", the scrolling requirement on the dab page can be easily remedied[1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  I have no problem with doing that on the dab page, and now we can close this discussion because all the possible primary uses of Lincoln Park are in that sentence.Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  in As long as there is more than one possible primary use, there is no primary use, and so the dab page should be at the base name. Unless all but one of the primary possibilities can be ruled out, there is no primary topic. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is no primary topic, the ambiguous term should be the title of a disambiguation page." In this case there is no primary topic, the ambiguous topic is "Lincoln Park", and, so, it should be the title of the dab page. I don't even see a smidgen of wiggle room here. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  You' change the dab page and when I agree to it, you now say that does not work. You are in bad faith. Its not ambiguous, as the sentence you wrote on the dab shows. All the titles are clear. There is nothing ambiguous about it.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  You lost me. What does the wording of the lead sentence on a dab page have to do with whether any topic meets primary topic criteria? No topic, not even the Chicago community, park or zoo, is the topic most likely to be sought when a reader enters the term "lincoln park" in the search box. Therefore, no primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  Your making that up ipsa dixet. It's just not true.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support There are just too many uses for any one to be on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  This is an incorrect premise for an argument. The number of uses is not relevant, as long as one use is much more likely than any one other and more likely than all others combined. If there are a million uses, and one of them is the intended one 90% of the time, then there's a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Gotta agree with JHJ in principle here, except I suggest JHJ is reading Tony's point too literally. The relevant issue here is that none of the main uses clearly meets the primary topic criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  I can only read what is written; that is not taking the point too literally. If none of the main uses here meets the primary topic criteria, that would be a relevant issue to try to explain and support. "Too many uses" is not that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  You're right. I struck that part. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Highly ambiguous term, with no clear primary topic. Readers will be best served by having the disambiguation page upfront, which also allows editors to easily identify and fix undisambiguated internal links, which in turn benefits readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not highly ambiguous. There's a famous Park called Lincoln, which is the second most visited park in the US, so we call it Lincoln Park. The other articles outside Chicago almost all show no sign of even editors being interested in them. They are generally places of little note. There is a neighborhood in Chicago, which is named after the famous Park called Lincoln, we follow the naming convention for neighborhoods.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • But as someone else pointed out above, a lot more people read the article on the neighborhood than the one on the park. Powers ^T 15:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
      • And as that person noted when they opposed' the proposed move at issue here: the fact that the neighborhood is more popular than the park (even if true) would not support the present proposal (but another proposal, altogether, defaulting the neighborhood to Lincoln Park). Both the park and the neighborhood are far ahead of all others by that count, and when someone actually proposes the neighborhood be relinked and the park changed to make room for it, we can discuss the merits of that proposal (ie, whther that's really necessary and wise). In the meantime the present proposal should be nixed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
        • In cases where there are two likely destinations, as well as other minor uses, the base page name should be a disambiguation page. That's what the present proposal is. Powers ^T 22:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose On the other side of the Atlantic, Lincoln Park clearly means the park in Chicago, and is a very clear case of primary use. It's well known to tourists and television viewers alike. I doubt that many people over here even knew there were other Lincoln Parks, or that there is a suburb by that name in Chicago. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Whenever a different use appears to be the primary topic depending on context, that's a very good indicator that there is no primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reed Park, née Lincoln Park

Christine Emerson Reed Park in Santa Monica, California was formerly known as Lincoln Park. The band Linkin Park took their name from that park, which is now colloquially known as Reed Park. 144.178.0.204 (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Darwin