Talk:Collins Street, Melbourne

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. WP:PRECISION does not require the natural qualifiers here, but WP:COMMONNAME might. Absent a naming convention for streets, not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Collins Street, Melbourne → Collins Street – 00:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• ACDC Lane, Melbourne → ACDC Lane
• Acland Street, Melbourne → Acland Street
• Ballarat Road, Melbourne → Ballarat Road
• Bank Place, Melbourne → Bank Place
• Bligh Place, Melbourne → Bligh Place
• Block Place, Melbourne → Block Place
• Bourke Street, Melbourne → Bourke Street
• Burke Road, Melbourne → Burke Road
• Caledonian Lane, Melbourne → Caledonian Lane
• Campbell Arcade, Melbourne → Campbell Arcade
• Chapel Street, Melbourne → Chapel Street
• Corporation Lane, Melbourne → Corporation Lane
• Degraves Street, Melbourne → Degraves Street
• Exhibition Street, Melbourne → Exhibition Street
• Fitzroy Street, Melbourne → Fitzroy Street
• Flemington Road, Melbourne → Flemington Road
• Flinders Lane, Melbourne → Flinders Lane
• Gertrude Street, Melbourne → Gertrude Street
• Glen Huntly Road, Melbourne → Glen Huntly Road
• Hardware Lane, Melbourne → Hardware Lane
• Hosier Lane, Melbourne → Hosier Lane
• Howey Place, Melbourne → Howey Place
• La Trobe Street, Melbourne → La Trobe Street
• Little Bourke Street, Melbourne → Little Bourke Street
• Little Collins Street, Melbourne → Little Collins Street
• Little Lonsdale Street, Melbourne → Little Lonsdale Street
• Lonsdale Street, Melbourne → Lonsdale Street
• Lygon Street, Melbourne → Lygon Street
• Maling Road, Melbourne → Maling Road

– These articles are all concerned with street names in Melbourne. (I would have include another 17, but the template has a limit of 30.) I do not support these moves; but I know that some very active editors do. It is time to air the matter, once and for all. Is it better to have an article on Collins Street in Melbourne called simply Collins Street, or to have it called Collins Street, Melbourne as at present? Which option serves the needs of Wikipedia's worldwide readership better? In almost all cases that I list there is no content in the destination article, just a redirect. And in almost all cases there is no Wikipedia article that very closely resembles the Melbourne-oriented one. There are, for example, no other Collins Streets with their own articles. Noetica^Tea? 12:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not because of any direct Wikipedia policy, but because without the city name in the title, such titles are less encyclopedic. Like many an old encyclopedia which includes the dates of a person in the article title, I find that the inclusion of the name of a city for a notable road is appropriate. As a reader, it gives me the immediate feedback that I know where I am, namely, in these cases, Melbourne, and not somewhere in Texas. (In passing, I'll note that there is a very fameous fruitcake company on Collin Street in Corsicana, Texas, Collin Street Bakery. Not that the two would be conflated.) So, albeit perhaps indirectly, two of the Wikipedia fundamental principles apply here: (1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and (2) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. How does the second apply? Even where there are no ambiguity considerations, including the city name distances the title from any potential austrocentrism. My own belief is that all city byways should be identified as to city in their article title. I might make an exception for Portobello Road, but exceptions should be in the nature of clearly defined exceptions, such as those for city names at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. --Bejnar (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, here's the problem. Perhaps I've very ignorant, but I couldn't have told you which country Portobello Road (and the same goes for many of the American streets mentioned below) is in and I would bet that most people I know wouldn't either. But to me, Collins, Bourke, Lonsdale, Lygon, La Trobe, Chapel, etc. are all very prominent and well known. Either we should agree that all streets should have the city tacked on, or we should agree to do so only when there are other articles of the same title. Otherwise everyone will have their 'obvious exceptions' – the only problem being that from the other side of the world they don't look so obvious. Jenks24 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. At least some of these are ambiguous to other similarly named streets, and the naming pattern should be consistent. bd2412 T 15:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following a consistent naming pattern would mean unnecessary disambiguation or unnecessary precision in those cases where the street name is unique or primary, which is inconsistent with how we name the vast majority of our articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As I said on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, Place names are a somewhat special case, and I feel that it's a bad idea to follow the general rule to avoid unnecessary precision. There are a few obvious places where the name is unquestionably "primary", but generally things are more understandable on Wikipedia when place names add some sort of localization string.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have verified that every one of these uses meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria (the only iffy one is the first because Collins Street is a dab page, but none of the other uses are sufficiently notable to have their own articles) for its respective base name, which is obviously more concise than its respective current Melbourne-qualified name. The shorter titles also are preferred by the precision (no more precise than necessary for disambiguation) and consistency (consistent with other notable street names that are unique in the WP title domain, like Third Avenue, Shubert Alley, Geary Boulevard, and Mission Street) title naming criteria. On recognizability (to someone familiar with the street) and naturalness (both are equally natural), it's a wash between the two titles. I see no reason to ignore PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:AT/WP:CRITERIA for this particular group of articles, nor for place names in general, and the plethora of red links on the right side alone provides plenty of practical reason to follow it (see my Comment below). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain. I have no problem with it, and no problem with "Melbourne" instead of "Melbourne, New South Wales" or "Melbourne, Australia", or for that matter, "Fort Worth". But doesn't the specific policy for Australia, like the policy for US titles, call for city and province? So if "Fort Worth" was moved to "Fort Worth, Texas" mainly on the basis of what it says in the guidelines, you would have to make an argument for the longer title here as well. Are there search engine considerations here? Might as well throw that into the brew as well. Same rationales, different prism. Neotarf (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Melbourne, New South Wales" shows how much effort went into your comment here. Australian cities, such as Melbourne (which is in Victoria, by the way), never have the state tacked on, unless it's for disambiguation purposes (e.g. Perth, Western Australia). It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but using "Town" or "Town, State" is equally acceptable for Australia places (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia). Personally, I don't see the Fort Worth RM being at all relevant to this one. Jenks24 (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take care that what you cite is actually there. The naming convention you cite states "Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter their state of ambiguity but the undisambiguated Town is also acceptable if the article has a unique name or is the primary topic..." You might note that although Melbourne is apparently as opaque to us in the U.S. as our cities are to them, they still see fit to list "Melbourne" all by its lonesome without a state name. (And although it is ambiguous enough to us, I did identify it as a city, which is more than they could do with Forth Worth.) And I remind you "Fort Worth" was moved to "Fort Worth, Texas" largely in order to conform to the guidelines, and not because it made any sense. Neotarf (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most Australian towns/suburbs are like that because that was the previous naming convention (which is not backed up by any style guides like places in the US are). If I recall correctly, last time there was a discussion about this, most people agreed "Town, State" was pretty silly, but it probably isn't worth the effort to move tens of thousands of articles. By the way, you seem to think I'm an American – actually I'm an Australian. The only reason I haven't voted support is because I live in Melbourne and so I'm of course very familiar with all these streets and would never need ", Melbourne" tacked on to know what people are talking about :) Jenks24 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, Jenks24, g'day, but no, by "to us in the U.S." I mean "to me and to other Americans". It was meant as a gesture of transparency and a reminder of my possible biases, since these discussions sometimes, but not always, break down along geographical lines. Yes, familiarity is part of naming preferences, but I noticed that although England also has a "town, larger political entity" standard that is also honored more in the breach, it is the American place names that seem to end up with RMs. Often this is pushed by Ozzies, but the Americans don't seem to freak out as much over place names in Oz. Neotarf (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, sorry if anyone mistook my extreme irony for serious support of this ridiculous idea. [Dicklyon struck out his old vote; I have removed to the subsection below.–Noetica] In fact, I Oppose all these moves, because policy isn't actually quite as ridiculous as what I made it out to be. WP:D does disallow using a redirect, so that will be the easy way to fix the redlinks that have been complained about. And all the editors in the discussion of the RECOGNIZABILITY wording steered way clear of agreeing that it meant that "recognizability of a title to readers who are not already familiar with the topic is not a goal, and should not be used as an argument in favor of a title" (though one editor did claim later that that's what it means). And PRECISION says nothing like what I said; in fact, it still (barely; see [1]) encourages precision, where it says "Titles usually use names and terms that are precise ... to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." Traditionally, this was expressed as "Articles are named as precisely as is necessary to indicate their scope accurately," but a couple of editors of the TITLE policy kept trying to replace this with a simple need for article titles to be unique; the current policy page is a mess, being moved half way in that direction. PRECISION and RECOGNIZABILITY are the main reasons to not move these articles to ambiguous imprecise titles; that's why I made fun of some outrageous interpretations of those goals and criteria as "policy". Again, I apologize about Poe's law. It looks like Ohconfucius is playing the same game below. Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (on policy grounds only), because this is what the wording at WP:AT guides us to do. However, I'm largely with Bejnar on this issue. There are tens of thousands of such roads around sharing names that, even 'The Mall' 'Pall Mall' are disambiguated while Pennsylvania Avenue is not. I feel it's of little help to the potential reader to make him click on the link when it's more than likely there is no entry on the street name he may be looking for. In actual fact, I would say stuff the algorithmic rules and oppose this move, because the current policy makes little sense. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearcut case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Strong support for all listed here unless someone can demonstrate an actual requirement for disambiguation (i.e. two articles with the same name) rather than a potential requirement for disambiguation. I don't support pre-emptive disambiguation at all. Contra to some of the comments above, it is not (and should not be) the role of the article title to provide additional encyclopedic content. That is what the lede is for. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Then be bold and go against policy, when policy is an ass. I'm sure this RM was launched with a heavy sense of irony. It should fail if we are to avoid a lot of momentary confusion among readers. Tony (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated this RM without irony; I explicitly state in my preamble that I do not support it, but I want to air an important issue to determine the wider community's attitudes. I urge all participants to vote directly according to their true wishes, rather than feigning acceptance of any policies or guidelines. Noetica^Tea? 03:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose several of these are ambiguous. And not all of these should be the primary topic. These should be nominated separately. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose in the general case. Where a street name is unique and likely to remain so (ACDC Lane might fall into this category, perhaps one or two others?) I'm indifferent, but where there's potential for future confusion, I'd prefer to leave in the "Melbourne". People have a tendency to write articles that include wikilinks without bothering to check whether they're linking to the right "Collins Street" (etc) and specifying the city reduces risk of confusing readers. --GenericBob (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for most, as per Chapel Street, way too generic. However if there really is a case for some of these streets to have the same level of encyclopedic recognizability as Pitt Street Mall then why not. Otherwise redirects and including city name in title make more sense. Pall Mall, London would look stupid, In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as for consistency; surburbs and towns throughout Victoria also have this same level of precision. If any of these street names is ambiguous (or can reasonably be anticipated to be so in the future) without the qualifier, then for consistency for editors and readers alike it is helpful that all streets in Melbourne follow this convention. Josh Parris 11:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ?—I think streets in general ought to be eligible for standing alone, such as Pennsylvania Avenue, Pall Mall (although a lot of things seem to be named after it, possibly removing its primacy?), possibly Wilshire Boulevard, etc, but I have no idea if any of the ones in this are primary enough. I suspect many are. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• [NOTE: Long discussion following that contribution is now in a subsection below. Please continue it there. Noetica^Tea? 02:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)][reply]

• Oppose. Some of the discussion here is more like a Middle Ages theological discussion of counting angels on a pin head, than the kind of straight forward clear discussion that we should be having. Adding "Melbourne" makes these categories clearer. That is all that needs saying. Someone please close this and we can move on. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose―there are many cases where the simple issue is whether it should be consistent or not with other relevant topics, and this is one of them. I would say that unless there is one that is unusually famous (and I do not think so), there is no reason to make them inconsistent by having some without the "Melbourne" and some with the "Melbourne."―New questions? 02:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per everyone voted "Oppose". Steam5 (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Bduke; it's clearer to readers. Orderinchaos 08:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: Votes and reasons HERE.]

[NOTE: I am moving long discussion to here so that the voting is readable, and so that newcomers can find their way around. This responds to a request from Born2cycle; it is not intended to marginalise any issue or any point of view. Noetica^Tea? 02:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)][reply]

• • Not only are they "primary enough", but all but the first are totally unique (in the domain of WP title space). As to the first, no other use even has an article, so it's obviously primary too. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I randomly picked one: Bourke Street. It is also the name of a painting, and is not totally unique on WP. But we digress, I'll address your main point below. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that street names are eligible, and that Pennsylvania Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard are good examples of street names with high recognizability and little ambiguity as a title. I'd be surprised if a street in Melbourne rises to that level of recognition, though. I understand that Collins Street might be close, but I haven't seen a case made for any of the others. It makes sense for Wall Street and Madison Avenue and Fifth Avenue, but not Third Avenue, which seems ridiculous. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there is no other notable "Third Avenue" with an article on WP, it's supposed to be at Third Avenue, unless you want to ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:PRECISION (only as precise as necessary to disambiguate from other users on WP), WP:COMMONNAME and the conciseness criterion at WP:AT. The same reasoning applies to all of the streets on this list. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your interpretation of WP:PRECISION seems to be widely rejected. Also, there's no evidence that Third Avenue (Manhattan) itself is notable. Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        Yeah, my reading of PRECISION does not mean we need to ignore it to keep Chapel Street, Melbourne where it is even if there are no other articles. "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary."—The driving philosophy here as worded doesn't have anything to do with other articles. PRIMARYTOPIC even more so; it doesn't even seem to mention other articles; simply topics. Let's stipulate that there are many Chapel Streets. Wikipedia aside, is there a primary topic for the term? Is there a Chapel Street that is more likely to be what people think of than all others put together? If so, there is primary topic for the term, if not then there isn't. Ok, now back to Wikipedia: maybe we should only use the undisambiguated title Chapel Street when that subject is the primary topic. I don't think PRIMARYTOPIC and PRECISION are as opposed to this idea as you seem to think they are, B2C. You have asked elsewhere then what should be at Chapel Street? A disambig page? A redirect? I think a redirect is a good solution, but I don't feel too strongly about it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        This logic leads to some weird conclusions, though: namely, what happens if there is no one topic (out of all topics with that name, whether we have articles on them or not) that is primary, yet we still have only one article that would use that title? So we have only one Chapel Street article, but it's not particularly well known so it can't really be determined to be primary. Do you propose a disambiguation page to disambiguate one article? Powers ^T 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        Yeah, that's what I was referring to with the last few sentences that you were replying to. I think a redirect, as used in Chapel Street, is probably best. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • The top of WP:PRECISION says: This policy section should be read in conjunction with the disambiguation guideline. This is done precisely so as to avoid duplication of information and explanation. The first line of WP:D defines "ambiguous" as "when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." While the wording at PRECISION might not specifically refer to other titles, it's clearly implied in the context we're suppose to consider.

          I agree PRIMARYTOPIC does not give guidance on how to choose between two titles for which the given topic is primary. It does say that whichever is chosen for the title, the other should be a redirect to the more appropriate one.

          WP:CRITERIA is what we use to choose the most appropriate between the two title candidates in cases like this. Given an interpretation of precision that takes into account the guidance to follow WP:D, and specifically the definition of "ambiguous" at the top of WP:D, it indicates the shorter title, as does of course conciseness. I don't see much guidance for either title from the other criteria. But strong guidance from 2 out of 5 that indicates the shorter one is most appropriate is about as definitive as guidance ever gets. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          CRITERIA says "Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously."—I can't think of any reason that the word "unambiguously" here should not be understood as the English word instead of how it is defined on a different page. So "Precision" seems to indicate that we should do something like ", Melbourne" when there is another street with the same name in another city. WRT "Conciseness", obviously Collins Street, Melbourne is not overly long, it's a perfectly natural way to name a street. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          "I can't think of any reason that the word "unambiguously" here should not be understood as the English word instead of how it is defined on a different page." Here's the reason: The preciseness criterion links the word "precise" to WP:PRECISION which in turn says, "This policy section should be read in conjunction with the disambiguation guideline." And the first line of that guideline of course defines "ambiguous".

          Here's the thing. We have other policies/guidelines/criteria that determines notability and what topics are covered in WP. Within the context of deciding titles, notability is not up to us. We assume if it's in WP it's notable (and relevant to us), and, if it's not, then not. If there is only one Collins Street with an article in WP, then we presume it's notable enough to be in WP, and no others are (if and when that changes, we can re-evaluate accordingly then). Since it's unique in the context/name space that matters to deciding titles, it's not ambiguous, by definition.

          The alternative, to interpret "ambiguous" in the broad English sense, instead of in the narrow WP sense, besides ignoring the sequence of two links to WP:D and the context that implies, is to open up a Pandora's Box of ambiguity and debate. To what end? Why pay that price? For what benefit? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          "if it's not, then not"—whoa, I didn't know anyone assumes that we had made all the articles on notable subjects. I certainly don't. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          Okay, there is a very important distinction to be made here. Let's not conflate the general with the specific.

          In general, yes, of course, we know not all notable topics have articles already. But, in any specific title decision case where we have only one article that uses a given name, it would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to make a title decision based on the assumption that there might be articles about other notable uses of that name in the future.

          The alternative is unworkable, because we have no way to draw the line anywhere else (drawing the line at considering only topics with actual articles is clear). So, it would mean assuming that there will be other uses of countless names used as titles on WP, and disambiguating all of them, because they seem ambiguous, even though we don't have any actual collisions in the WP article title name space. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          As far as I know, nobody is arguing for these disambiguators just so that if someone later makes Chapel Street, New Haven we won't have to move anything; that isn't what is driving this. So the CRYSTAL issue you raise here is beside the point. "So, it would mean assuming that there will be other uses of countless names used as titles on WP, and disambiguating all of them, because they seem ambiguous"—No, we don't need to "assume" anything, we can check. In the case of Chapel Street, we can see if there are other Chapel Streets and see if there is a case to be made that the one in Melbourne is primary enough to be the primary topic. It's pretty straightforward. As another example, AFAICT there is only one article on Wikipedia about a topic named Wilshire Boulevard. It's about the one in LA. There's another one in Wilmington, North Carolina. Can we determine which, if any, is the primary topic? Yes, we can, just about as well as we can for any title; it's the one in LA. So Wilshire Boulevard stays where it is. You may have a point that it isn't a good idea, but it's certainly workable. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          You lost me here: "In the case of Chapel Street, we can see if there are other Chapel Streets and see if there is a case to be made that the one in Melbourne is primary enough to be the primary topic. "

          If there are no other articles about any of those other Chapel Streets, then their existence is irrelevant to primary topic determination. If there is only one use of a given name with an article on WP, then that use is the primary topic for that name, by definition. Even with the article at Chapel Street, Melbourne, Chapel Street is a redirect to it. There is no question about that topic being the primary topic for Chapel Street; of course it is, and it will remain so forever, unless and until another use of "Chapel Street" is determined to be notable, and we create an article for it. Even then this use might remain primary, but there is no point in speculating either way about that. What's relevant now is that this use is the only use, therefore it is primary. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          "If there are no other articles about any of those other Chapel Streets, then their existence is irrelevant to primary topic determination."—This entire debate is about whether that is/ought to be true, isn't it? If you state this as fact and ignore everything I'm trying to say, what is the point of this discussion? Are we talking past each other? "If there is only one use of a given name with an article on WP, then that use is the primary topic for that name, by definition."—You keep repeating yourself; I dispute your reading of PRIMARYTOPIC, and have explained why. Can you understand that repeating yourself again is unlikely to be constructive? Do you understand that I do not share your interpretation of PRIMARYTOPIC? "no point in speculating either way about that"—Again, if PRIMARYTOPIC is interpreted as it is worded to be about topics and not just topics with articles, there is still no need to "speculate," we can still examine the evidence in each case just like we would do if there were articles. Can you see that that is true, or are you still convinced that this scheme is unworkable? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not understanding, but I think I do now. Thanks for explaining. Let's see if I got my head around it.

So, your argument is that PRIMARYTOPIC is intended to be, or at least should be, interpreted in terms of all topics, not just topics with articles. Is that right? If so, yes, that's what I think is unworkable.

First, if we're not talking just about topics with articles, are we talking about all topics in the real world associated with the name in question, or just notable topics associated with that name? If you're not limiting it to notable topics, that seems obviously unworkable to me. Let me know if you agree or not; no point in explaining if you agree on that.

Now, if you are talking about just notable topics (whether they actually have articles or not), how do you decide what is notable or not? My position is that the existence or the new creation (that is support or at least not disputed by consensus) of an article establishes notability for title-deciding intents and purposes, and the lack of existence of an article for a given topic (including the failure to find such a topic and create an article for it in the evidence-gathering part of the title decision process) establishes lack of notability.

I think our positions are not that far off. We're both acknowledging that just because another article to which a given name might refer doesn't exist, doesn't mean that the topic of the one and only article to which that name refers is primary. At least I agree that's true at the beginning of the title decision process for a given title. But I'm saying that if someone wants to argue that it's not primary, then the onus is on them to find the evidence - another topic which is notable - and to prove that by creating at least a stub and establish consensus for its notability at least among those participating in the process.

For example, in this discussion, my initial position was to oppose because I assumed at least some of these were not primary. But I was mistaken that articles existed for at least some of the base names, and couldn't prove lack of primary-ness for any, so I changed my position. If someone believes that the topic of Acland Street, Melbourne, for example, is not primary for Acland Street, then they need to make or find an article or dab page that belongs at Acland Street, and get consensus agreement on that. No?

One thing I'm still not clear on... do you agree that the fact that Acland Street redirects to Acland Street, Melbourne establishes that the topic of that article is primary for Acland Street, presuming that's not an identifiable error? That's what I get out of Wikipedia:Primarytopic#Redirecting_to_a_primary_topic, among other things. Agree? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not limiting it to notable topics, that seems obviously unworkable to me.—Why? What difference does it make? If there are 1000 streets named Born2Cycle Blvd, and only one of them barely meets the GNG, is it the primary topic? Not really, unless of course you interpret PRIMARYTOPIC as only considering subjects with WP articles. If there are 1000 other Wilshire Blvds that are not notable, Wilshire Boulevard is still the primary topic. What is the problem? how do you decide what is notable or not—The general and subject notability guidelines. But you know that, I don't understand why you're making this sound difficult. to prove that by creating at least a stub—That is not a reasonable thing to ask someone to do during a different discussion. "You can't win this argument unless you do some chores."—That is a little silly. then they need to make or find an article or dab page that belongs at Acland Street, and get consensus agreement on that. No?—No. opposers here do not need to go create 30 articles in order to carry the day at this RM. do you agree that the fact that Acland Street redirects to Acland Street, Melbourne establishes that the topic of that article is primary for Acland Street—If you're asking whether I think it conveys that message to the reader, no, I don't. I think when a reader sees "Acland Street, Melbourne" at the top of the page that is a bit of a hint that this is less of a primary topic on some sense than seeing "Wilshire Boulevard" at the top of that article; that says to readers "this is the Wilshire Road, and it's big"—am I alone in thinking this? I read Wikipedia:Primarytopic#Redirecting_to_a_primary_topic as mostly talking about how PRIMARYTOPIC means we do things like redirect libel to defamation even when there is a subject that would contend for libel as a standalone article, like the film Libel. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 1000 streets named Born2Cycle Blvd, and only one of them barely meets the GNG, is it the primary topic? Not really, unless of course you interpret PRIMARYTOPIC as only considering subjects with WP articles. Of course it's the primary topic. The article might be at Born2Cycle Blvd, Anytown, but it's still the PRIMARYTOPIC of Born2Cycle Blvd, as Born2Cycle Blvd will redirect to that article. The alternative is ridiculous... to make Born2Cycle Blvd a dab page with one entry. If X redirects to an article at Y, then the PRIMARYTOPIC of X is the topic of the article at Y. Are you seriously challenging this?

Yes, of course the notability guideline determines whether a given topic is notable, and the creation/deletion of articles is decided accordingly. But that comes before the titling decision. That is, first we decide whether a given topic meets the notability guideline, and, if it does, then we decide what to title it. We don't decide how to title something based on notability; the notability of topics of existing articles, and the lack of notability of topics of non-existing articles, is presumed when deciding titles. If notability is in question, that's for an AfD discussion to decide. That's why Born2Cycle Blvd would redirect to Born2cycle Blvd, Anytown even though there are 1000s of other Born2Cycle Blvds... unless they've been deemed sufficiently notable to have articles, as proven by the existence of those articles, they are irrelevant to deciding titles.

opposers here do not need to go create 30 articles in order to carry the day at this RM. No, but anyone who is arguing that these articles are not the PRIMARYTOPIC for their respective base names needs to create those articles. That's why, of all articles being considered in this discussion, the "not the PRIMARYTOPIC for its base name" argument can only possibly apply to Collins Street, Melbourne, because Collins Street is a dab page (but none of the other entries on that dab page have articles, so that's why the argument fails there). For most of the others the base name is a redlink, but should be a redirect to the qualified title, or is already a redirect to the article - in either case establishing that the article's topic is the primary topic for that base name. That can only be seriously challenged for a given base name by the finding or creating of articles to which that base name refers, and showing that the base name should either redirect to one of those other articles, or be the location of a dab page.

If you're asking whether I think it conveys that message to the reader, no, I don't. That's not what I'm asking. Though readers benefit from our articles being titled in accordance with the primary topic concept (by minimizing clicks required to reach a desired article), I doubt most readers are aware of the concept, which is mostly (only?) relevant to the editorial maintenance process of deciding titles, redirects and dab pages. The question about whether Acland Street redirects to Acland Street, Melbourne establishes that the topic of that article is primary for Acland Street has nothing to do with reader perception. This is what Wikipedia:Primarytopic#Redirecting_to_a_primary_topic is talking about:

The title of the primary topic article [e.g., Acland Street, Melbourne] may be different from the ambiguous term [ Acland Street ]. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term [this topic is primary for Acland Street, Melbourne] and for Acland Street ], when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term [ Acland Street ] should redirect to the article (or a section of it) [which it does]

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of an English Wikipedia article as an indication of a lack of existence is a logical fallacy of such proportions that it approaches (if not outright earns) ridiculousness.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is a logical fallacy. But why are you pointing that out here? You don't think anyone is even suggesting that the "lack of an English Wikipedia article [is] an indication of a lack of existence", do you? If so, what did anyone write that caused you to understand that that was intended?

Back in grade school, if we had, say, two Bobs in the class, we had to come up with an alternate nickname, like Bobby, for one of them. But in classes where there was only one Bob, we just called him Bob. We didn't disambiguate just in case another Bob would join us midyear or something... we only disambiguated when necessary to distinguish from another Bob in the class.

WP follows the same approach for similar reasoning. Just because "Bob" or "Collins Street" is ambiguous in the real world, we only bother to disambiguate if there are other uses of that name in the relevant name space, be it a class roster or WP title name space. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said as much in the comment to which I'm replying here: "Since there is no other notable "Third Avenue" with an article on WP...". Erik seems to be saying the same thing, although he's more verbose (and probably more tactful). Regardless, Wikipedia isn't a classroom (and it's certainly not your grade school class!). I'm starting to gain some real insight into some past history here, though. It's clear to me that you're taking the advice at PRECISION to an absurd level. Avoiding "over-precision" is not an absolute, and I'd argue that saying "Collins street, Melbourne" is not even remotely over-precise regardless (in contrast to "Collins street", at least, which in the context of an encyclopedia would clearly indicate the topic of Collins street in general).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But with the Bobs there is a different set of issues, of course, so it might be reasonable to have a different solution. In the class with only one Bob, nobody there is thinking "what about my uncle Bob?" or "what about the Bob who is not in this class?" But obviously Wikipedia has a more global scope than your grade school class. To me, the main issue is that the title of an article says something about the subject; it says that this is the primary topic for this term. When we entitle it Chapel Street, we imply that this is in some sense the Chapel Street, simply by using that title. Is it true that the Melbourne one is really the main one? I don't know, but if it isn't and we move the article we are misleading our readers, who will think, for example, that the one in Melbourne is more significant in some important way than the one in New Haven. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We we entitle an article Chapel Street we imply that it is the Chapel Street no more than when we entitle that article Chapel Street, Melbourne and redirect Chapel Street to it.

Whether Chapel Street, Melbourne redirects to Chapel Street or Chapel Street redirects to Chapel Street, Melbourne, we're suggesting the article is about both the Chapel Street and the Chapel Street, Melbourne, to the same degree. In terms of primary topic or being "the one", there is no difference between a given term being the topic's article title or a redirect to the topic's article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here and just above; I think everyone understands your position—I'm pretty sure I do, in any case. I disagree, obviously; simply stating the opposite of what I stated is not going to get us anywhere, so perhaps this has run its course. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know Ohms law has withdrawn from participation in this discussion[2], but I want to respond to his last point for the record. I asked him to cite something that anyone wrote that caused him to understand that what was intended to be conveyed was the idea that "lack of an English Wikipedia article [is] an indication of a lack of existence". He responded by quoting my words: "Since there is no other notable "Third Avenue" with an article on WP.."

I'm saying the lack of existence of an article suggests a lack of notability. It's impractical to assume otherwise in deciding titles because assuming otherwise would mean requiring raising, questioning and investigating the issue of notability of not only the given topic in a given RM discussion, but also of every other potential use of the name in question in the real world. If that occurs, great, but it's unreasonable to require it. Not requiring it means that it's reasonable to assume that other uses of a given term are not notable if articles for them do not exist. This is done routinely in RM discussions every day. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[NOTE: I have removed peripheral material to this subsection, to keep the discussion clear and readable in the main section above. Please, let's work together to maintain orderly process.–Noetica]

*Oppose group move. Each one needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some are unique or meet primary topic criteria, others do not. Those that are unique or primary need to be moved to just the base name. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC) changing !vote - see below for explanation --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

...

• Comment Something I've long noticed about the practice of predisambiguation (disambiguating a name, like by adding a city name to its title, even though it does not conflict with any other uses on WP), is that when titles are treated like that, certain tasks tend to be neglected. These problems are described and listed on my FAQ at User:Born2cycle/FAQ#NC. Note in particular #1: "missing redirects (the predisambiguated topic's base name is a red link)". Note also that in this list of 30, as of this writing, 16, over 50%, of the base name links in the proposed destination column, are all red links. Perfect example of what I'm talking about. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...

* Speedy close. Even the proposer does not support the move of this entire group (see proposal itself). So, I propose a speedy close per WP:SNOW so that a reasonable proposal can be made for a subset of these (and perhaps include some others) that actually qualify to be moved due to being unique or primary uses of their respective names. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) - See explanation below. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to the proposal for a speedy close. This is a serious and well-considered RM proposal, in which each of the articles listed is selected exactly because it meets formal requirements for status as a "primary topic". The intent is genuinely to test what the community makes of that fact; is it a ground for removal of the precision that is currently included in the title, or not? Let it be shown here, if any of these fail as unique on Wikipedia in their bare form, without "Melbourne" present. This is an important discussion; at least wait for comments to show a range of opinions. Noetica^Tea? 19:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Just let it go, guys. There's no need to start personal arguments every place where you two come together, is there?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Personal arguments? This is substantive discussion, as near as I can tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize, Noetica. Because I knew Collins Street was a dab page, and someone said "at least some of these are ambiguous to other similarly named streets", I was under the impression that at least some on this list were obviously not primary topics, but I admit to not actually verifying that (until now), and not reading the final two sentences of your proposal. My bad. I will now change my !vote accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the apology. Please now accept this refactoring, to keep the discussion readable. Noetica^Tea? 23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon wrote:

Policy REQUIRES that we move these to the more concise names, even though WP:D seems to allow the redirect: "If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic (or should redirect to an article on that topic that uses a different, more appropriate title)." because it goes on to list the reasons that a redirect would be acceptable: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions."

Regarding the "WP:D seems to allow the redirect" comment... yes, regardless of whether the article is at Collins Street or at Collins Street, Melbourne, since the primary topic for both titles is the same article, the other should redirect to the article. PRIMARYTOPIC is agnostic about which of two titles should be the article location and which the redirect, if that article's topic is primary for both titles, except to say that the "more appropriate" one be the article title. We look to WP:AT and WP:CRITERIA in particular to decide which is "more appropriate". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, we agree that there will be no problem keeping the more appropriate titles. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...

[Dicklyon's actual vote is in the main section above; below is his superseded vote.–Noetica]

• Support. I have verified that every one of these uses meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria for its respective base name, which is obviously more concise than its respective current Melbourne-qualified name. Policy REQUIRES that we move these to the more concise names, even though WP:D seems to allow the redirect: "If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic (or should redirect to an article on that topic that uses a different, more appropriate title)." because it goes on to list the reasons that a redirect would be acceptable: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions." -- because we don't have a "naming convention" in policy that makes it OK to include the city where the street is that the article is about, and an advantage to readers knowing what the topic of the article is is not among those other reasons for an exception. And WP:CRITERIA is clear: PRECISION is discouraged, if there's no conflict to putting the article at the more concise name. RECOGNIZABILITY is assured (to people familiar with the street) by just using the street name; it is not a goal to have those familiar with the street know that the article is about the street that they are familiar with; only that the name is familiar to them; and it's certainly not a goal that the name be familiar to anyone not from Australia (though it may seem familiar to some in St. Louis). And "Collins Street" is certainly NATURAL for the name of a street named after Collins. And it's not like it's unprecedented: This reference book has an article titled simply "Collins Street" and referring to that very one in Melbourne. And we have precedents right here in WP in things like Third Avenue (assuming the well-known street names of NYC are analogous to the well-known street names of Melbourne); surely anyone familiar with (but not expert on) Third Avenue finds that title recognizable, and it must be precise, as there's only one article there; surely people like Third Avenue Art District aren't going to want to say where they are, either, if they ever get a WP article, since they have a name and the name says it all. I'd say you have to move them all, which is easy; or change policy, which is harder.

Why you messin' wit' my stuff, mon? I thought it was pretty good. Came close to verifying Poe's law, didn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...

• It's a pity that the RM was posted here instead of at ACDC Lane. Then after it closed, we could all say, "Let's not take another trip down ACDC Lane!" Kauffner (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's actually an important point, if unintended. I hope that this discussion is never pointed to as some sort of absolute consensus to keep the individual articles at their current names at some point in the future. That's the kind of issue that makes these sorts of POINTY uses of process for ulterior motives a bad idea, as well.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: Votes and reasons in the main section above, please; not here.]

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.