- 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 discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved, disambiguation page created at Sandra Hill in the meantime. No such user (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sandra Hill (footballer) → Sandra Hill – Sole Wikipedia main title header that bears this exact name, thus obviating the need for the parenthetical qualifier "(footballer)". Although Wikipedia does contain entries for two women surnamed "Hill" whose given name at birth was "Sandra" — Sandy Hill (television personality) and Sandy Hill (mountaineer) — both women are or have been celebrities whose stage name / pen name is "Sandy Hill" and neither one would be recognizable to the public as "Sandra Hill". A hatnote atop the footballer's entry — For those with a similar name, see Sandy Hill (disambiguation) — would attend to any possible uncertainties. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Strong oppose both Sandy Hill (mountaineer) and Sandy Hill (television personality) are "Sandra Hill" and the views are 4,449 and 817 v only 32[[1]] for this one. Even if the others are only occasionally called "Sandra Hill" its still unlikely the footballer would be primary. In other words even if the other 2 were only called "Sandra Hill" 1% of the time they would still be more likely than the footballer. Google also doesn't appear to show anything for the footballer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Comment. It should be made clear that the nomination neither makes a claim that Sandra Hill (footballer) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Sandy Hill disambiguation page nor that Sandra Hill (footballer) is primary at all. If another woman named "Sandra Hill" achieves notability sufficient for creation of a Wikipedia article, this Sandra Hill should certainly have the parenthetical qualifier "(footballer)" restored.
- However, it would be counterintuitive to compare the footballer Sandra Hill to two celebrities named "Sandy Hill" since those two women have never been referenced as "Sandra Hill", are not known to the public as "Sandra Hill" and no one would search for either of them under the name "Sandra Hill". As for the footballer, the only way to know that her entry exists is to be redirected to the Sandy Hill dab page and peruse the listings there, most of which are for places, not people, although there is no indication that Sandra the footballer is known as "Sandy". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Support per nom, which provides enough disambiguation between this page and others who are primarily known as Sandy Hill. Seany91 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Primarily known is not the same thing as primarily associated with. As noted even if the others were known as "Sandy" instead of "Sandra" 99% of the time the term with Sandra would not be primarily associated with the footballer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Comment. To put this nomination into perspective, the Sandy Hill disambiguation page has 11 entries. Eight of those entries, under section header "Places", list actual sandy hills, i.e. geographical features named "Sandy Hill", none of which is also known as "Sandra Hill".
- As for the remaining three entries, which are under header "Other uses", not "People", two entries list celebrity women whose professional name is "Sandy Hill" and who have never been known to the public as "Sandra Hill". That leaves a single, out-of-place entry for "Sandra Hill (footballer)", who is not referenced as "Sandy", and would be more usefully handled via a hatnote.
- No one would look for Sandra Hill at Sandy Hill, thus making the Sandra Hill redirect to the "Sandy Hill" disambiguation page seem counterintuitive —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 16:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose - absolutely not the PRIMARYTOIPIC. Instead Sandra Hill should be turned into a standalone dab page. GiantSnowman 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Support The logic behind the proposal appears to me to be impeccable. I think some opponents may not have fully understood the issues here. PatGallacher (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose per Crouch, Swale, who says it all. Narky Blert (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Close as moot. I just realised that Sandra Hill was created as a disambiguation page on 11 September 2021 by User:Joeykai, who appears not to have been involved in this disussion. That structurally changes the nature of the perceived problem, as only User:Narky Blert's comment was created after the new disambiguation page. From what I can infer, it looks much the same as what was argued for in the original nomination by User:Roman Spinner. Narky Blert did a round-robin page swap with Sandra Hill (disambiguation) on 12 September, about 36 hours later, and 23 minutes before posting here. Neither username appears in the history of WP:RM/TR around that date, nor can I find anything around the start of September at WP:RFD. So it is very difficult for me to trace the history from the start of this discussion, but I infer a disambiguation page substantially similar to the current one must have existed before 11/12 September. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
