Talk:War Memorial Park, Coventry

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move "War Memorial Park, Coventry" to "War Memorial Park", because War Memorial Park is clearly the primary page. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are many, many other parks by this name, several dozen in Australia alone. I've just created a stub for one that I happen to know reaonably well. Andrewa (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the wiki concept of a "primary page"? See the "Central Park" page. Snowman (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See below. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As noted there are many more parks referred to by this name. In Britain there are also ones in Basingstoke, Marple, Herne Bay, Pontypridd... Simply by being the first article to appear on Wikipedia should not automatically confer on the page 'primary topic' status. Tassedethe (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose How many people outside of Coventry would think that this Park is the War Memorial Park? 70.55.200.51 (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • There are many war memorial parks and similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But only one has a wikipage. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page's title should make it clear that it means the Coventry example and no other. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for a primary page. Snowman (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a the template to the articles talk page, and a section for discussion there. I thought that it would have been incumbent on the person that moved a discussion from the uncontroversial proposals to "Others" (here) here to do notify other users on the articles talk page. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Coventry's example is not apparently "much more used than any other" (from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), so needs to keep it's geographical disambiguator, and the dab page needs to stay at plain War Memorial Park. PamD (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a disambig page at War Memorial Park (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Now a redirect to War Memorial Park. Snowman (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "war memorial park" is a generic concept of a park that serves as a war memorial. Capitalization based disambiguation is generally a bad idea. There are many parks in the world that are war memorials. People even refer to these as the "War Memorial Park", instead of its actual name. 70.55.200.51 (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thinking; the name of the dab page may need changing. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I didn't really take the claim that this park is the primary usage of the term War Memorial Park very seriously, but the nominator has quite rightly pointed out that we must. They have offered no evidence that it is, just asserted it, and the onus of proof IMO is with them, and several others seem to agree with me that this isn't a credible claim. But let's have a quick look for evidence.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22War+Memorial+Park%22+Coventry&btnG=Search 5,560 ghits

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22War+Memorial+Park%22+-Coventry&btnG=Search 72,000 ghits

Please note that your results may differ depending on where Google thinks you are geographically.

The more than 10:1 ratio against Coventry is not large enough to be conclusive, but it suggests that there's no primary usage, confirming the rough consensus forming above. Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.