Talk:March (disambiguation)

Requested move 1 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: pages not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

---

• March (disambiguation) → March
• March → March (month)

– I don't see a clear primary topic between the month, the various walking activities (such as Marching etc) and the place names and other articles. A sample of the views [[1]] do show that the month is most searched for but there are many other articles than just the 9 others that I could include. Yes articles such as Marching and Parade have alternative names while the month is universally called this, also because of it being March its probably getting more views since yesterday it has 3946 views but only 448 on the 30th of November when those sampled 9 got more views combined than the month[[2]]. While in fairness I don't think that this will be successful, its worth a try since I don't think that there is a strong enough case for treating the month as primary. A Google search shows many results for the verb (and a map of the Cambridgeshire town comes up due to my location). The month is given in an "infobox" on the right of the search results with a suggestion of the music. A Google Book search shows more results for the verb than the month (all but 1 of the first results relate to the verb). Similar to Settle[3] WP NC may specify that the verb should be at "Marching" but that doesn't mean readers searching (and editors linking) won't often use just "March". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• oppose for 15 years no one was bothered with the titles. Also it will be weird Month to be singled out with its article title. Also the "marching" article is titled "Marching", not March (activity) or something. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  The Marching article may well be at that name but that doesn't mean its not a common target like Settle/Human settlement, see WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  But you are not suggesting primary redirect here. "March" as non-month hase several meanings which when lumped together may beat month, but taken separately (marching/parade/music/rally) I will not be so sure. To carry out a detailed statistics would be a pitiful waste of wikiedians' energy for such a useless thing, so I say leave it as it is. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Google books search is highly biased here: of course there are much more books about marches than about the month of March. One have to sample common usage, ie search all web. 4,500,000,000 results. Good luck if you have nothing better to do for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I am indeed not suggesting that "March" be a primary redirect to "Marching" but just pointing out that the fact that that article isn't titled "March" doesn't prevent it from being a major contender and that "March" should be the DAB page. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC#1 "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" the page hits outside of this time of year show that just a sample of topics get more views than the month (even if they have alternative names). PT#2 "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" I don't see how the month or the walking activities meet this. Even if Google Books is biased it doesn't make a case for the month being primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Just a note, the guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC say that the primary topic should at generally have much more views than all other uses combined, which is not the case here, even when accounting for the fact that people looking for non-month meanings of "march" will frequently be directed to the month's page because it has the base name.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per nom's own page view stats. Clear primary topic here - more likely to be sought than all the others combined. --В²C ☎ 00:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Born2cycle: Only at this time of year, if you look in December[[4]] the 1st the month had 458 views compared to 296 for Death march and 262 for Parade. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, argument and evidence to move is not convincing. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I've often thought this ought to be done. Deb (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Page views show a distinct lack of a primary topic [5] when page views are considered on average, and not during the obvious spike around the month of March. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, clear primary topic. "Death march" is a subtopic of marching and is not even ambiguous, so it should not be used to determine the primacy of the term "March". —Xezbeth (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The month gets far more views than any other relevant topic. It's dominance is even greater than the nominator's chart suggests since several of the entries on the chart are not in fact ambiguous with the month. For example, the number two topic on the nominator's chart is "death march." Yet a reader who wants information on death marches is not likely to use simply "march" as a search term. Here an improved page view analysis. FineStructure137 (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Those stats show that March only gets around 3.5 times that of March (music) which surely isn't "much more than any other" and if you also took into account views for things like Demonstration (political) you could get a negative number. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Sure it is "much more". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Crouch, Swale, if you got a slice of piece on your plate, and I got a chunk the size of 3 1/2 slices on my plate, would you not agree that I got "much more"? --В²C ☎ 07:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Born2cycle The expectation in that case would be that both you and I get the same size chunk so you getting one 3 1/2x that would probably be seen as "much more". In that case it would indeed probably be said that you got "much more" also due to the fact that that kind of unfairness is likely to be exaggerated but in a literal sense I'd usually interpret "much more" to mean at least 10x. The point with primary topic determination is that we probably don't want to drastically inconvenience around 50% or our readers, only to slightly convenient the other 50%. Primary topics aren't the same as someone getting a bigger share of piece on your plate. In order for a topic to be primary (apart from 2DAB situations) it usually has to have a large difference between at least any other. While I do agree that by both criteria and WP:ASTONISH the month is the best candidate, both the month and verbs are well known and both have substantial encyclopedic value. I'm not pressed on changing this but it does look like this title might well be better served by disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    • We agree the point in PT is don’t inconvenience more readers in the name of conveniencing fewer. But 60/40 accomplishes that, and 60 is only 50% more than 40. In this case we’re talking 350% more. Suggesting the hurdle should be 10x makes no sense. That’s 1000% more. That’s not merely “much more”. That’s “overwhelmingly more”. That’s not what the criteria is. If it were, then we would be inconveniencing many (sending them to a dab page instead of direct to pagethey seek) to avoid inconveniencing (hatnote click to get to dab page) a few. —В²C ☎ 15:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
      • If 40+% want something other than the month that's a lot of readers that we inconvenience far more than the -60% the will easily be able to find the month article, since if this proposal goes ahead we can put the month right at the top so that readers and editors can easily find it. The 350% more only refers to the month v the music (the "much more likely than any other single topic"), not including the others on the DAB ("more likely than all the other topics combined"). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
        • On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is nothing and 10 is an enormous inconvenience like losing a limb, a kidney and your eyesight, how would you rate these two inconveniences:

          Searching for an article with X and ...

          1. ...being taken to the dab page for X instead of to the article you're seeking, from which you have find your article and then one click to get to your desired article.
          2. ...being taken to an article different from the one you're seeking, from which you have one hatnote link click to get to the dab page and one more click to get to your desired article.

        So, clearly #2 is more inconvenient than #1... but how much more? I think the difference is negligible. Maybe a 3 for #1 and 3.1 for #2. Because, either I'm taken to my article or not. If not, being taken directly to a dab page which I have to scan before finding and clicking on my article, or getting there indirectly via one quick hatnote link is nothing. So should we inconvenience 60% with #1 to avoid inconveniencing 40% with #2? I don't think so. But this may be the point on which we disagree. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

        • I would rate landing on the wrong article (with only a hat to the DAB page) and having to work out that, and then having to find you're destination once you locate the DAB as about 10x more difficult if you're not familiar with WP. Consider #7 of you're post here that most people won't understand how primary topics work here and may never even find the DAB page. Yes that problem could be reduced by linking to March (music) and Marking but that would clutter the header and make it even harder to locate other articles. In the case of Holsworthy I don't think it matters as much since the only other is a topic named after the English town (the Australian suburb) and a sub topic of the English town. While in this case there are many subjects that have nothing to do with the month. I'd say #3 is maybe 3/4 times worse than #1 but in the case of Holsworthy there is a reason (it being the original) why we send readers there (who might learn where the Australian suburb gets its name from). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
          • I still think too many are inconvenienced by landing at Plymouth when they're looking for the one in Massachusetts. But even so, they're not very inconvenienced. The hat note is prominent and clear and simple:

This article is about the city in Devon. For the Massachusetts town, see Plymouth, Massachusetts. For other uses, see Plymouth (disambiguation).

I disagree that landing someone on the "wrong" article is any worse than landing them on a dab page. Often, it's better. --В²C ☎ 22:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

If you land on the wrong article you have to load that page (if its a long one that might be more difficult) and work out you're on the wrong article. Yes hatnotes are put in a position where they can be found easily but with a DAB page its much lighter and easier to find you're chosen topic. As noted if this goes ahead we can put the month right at the top of the DAB so that readers can find it easily. And the story of Pilgrim Fathers/Pilgrim Fathers it even mentioned at the 2nd paragraph of the lead so its relevant to readers looking for Plymouth, Massachusetts/Plymouth Colony unlike the verb to the month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I find the rationale behind the move un-moving and the nominator's numbers indicate the month to be the primary topic. Calidum 01:00, 8 March 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.