Talk:Arbuthnot

Disambiguation or redirect to category?
Relocating from my talk:

I see you [JHunterJ]] reverted first Giano, then me, at Arbuthnot without giving any reason. None in the edit summary, nothing on Talk. I can only see this as edit warring, and as taking advantage of other editors' reluctance to do the same. Please stop. I invite you to self-revert. (P. S. Explaining your addition of a See also cat isn't explaining your revert, of course.) Bishonen | talk 15:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Both of those changes included the reason on the edit summary. "Arbuthnot" needs a disambiguation, which the category doesn't provide. -- JHunterJ 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

-- JHunterJ 18:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I misunderstood your edit summary as "Undid revision 135303025 by Bishonen (talk)" followed by "since a dab is needed, add Category as a see also", sorry. But the problem from where I stand is that you seem quite uninterested in Giano's reasoning, or mine. I would say, also, that dab pages are supposed to "list articles associated with the same title." Now, "Arbuthnot" isn't something that anybody ever used to refer to, say, the "Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot". It just doesn't make sense to claim that it is. When people type "Arbuthnot" in the search field, it ought to take them to what they're most likely to be looking for, right? Would you agree that they're most likely to be looking for somebody called Arbuthnot? (Such as for instance Harriet Arbuthnot, today's Main Page article, written by Giano.) That category page is a convenient place for them to find themselves. And, at this point, I was going to suggest, as a compromise, that I create an Arbuthnot (disambiguation) page... but I see you already did. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
 * That's a placeholder for the disambiguation content that you and Giano II were deleting by turning this page into a redirect I think that a mainspace redirect to a Category page is a bad idea in general.  If there is no article for a primary meaning (and there doesn't appear to be, since the family article was deleted), the base name article should be the disambiguation page, per WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. As to being uninterested in Giano II's reasoning or yours, since no reasons were given for the removal of the disambiguation page and since I did not edit this page after the initial Talk contact, why would you assume I'm uninterested? I actually have a lot of previous work on surname articles (and given name articles, and dabs that either point to or include such lists); yes, I would agree that in this case the most likely target would be someone with the surname, which is why, when I split off the (valid link target) surname article, I made it first in the dab list. BTW, I only found this article by searching on the last name of today's main page featured article; I was unaware of any of the history of the family name article deletion and fixes until after this page was locked. -- JHunterJ


 * Needs? No it doesn't.  If you're thrown to the category, there is a huge list of all things Arbuthnot.  The only "likely to be confused" Arbuthnot is John, and he already has a redirect from his common alternate name (Doctor Arbuthnot).  Beyond that, anyone absolutely mesmerized by the last name and unable to remember the first name will be more helped by the list you see at the category than the duplication of a dab page.  Geogre 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The schooner, for instance, isn't (and shouldn't be) in the category, but should still be disambiguated. -- JHunterJ 20:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Would you agree that they're most likely to be looking for somebody called Arbuthnot?" I'm not sure I do, but if I thought that 98% were indeed looking for somebody called Arbuthnot, and not the ship or the town, I would arrange for them to go to an article such as "Arbuthnot (surname)", and not send them to a category. When I got to the category the first time, I missed the hatnote. Only after reading this whole talk page was I made aware of the existence of the disambig page. In my opinion, there is no good and compelling reason not to have the disambig page at "Arbuthnot" itself. Chris the speller 04:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
This seemed like the conclusion here, but I made the usual RM rather than just implementing it (again) myself. -- JHunterJ 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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. 

already moved in accordance with the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Arbuthnot (disambiguation) → Arbuthnot — make the base name the disambiguation, because there is no clear primary target and a base name redirect to a category can be surprising to the reader —JHunterJ 11:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as nominator -- JHunterJ 12:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as per Disambiguation --Russ (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support since there are places as well as people. Can't assume that readers only want to know about the Arbuthnot family. Chris the speller 15:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom; there is nothing here that would lead me to believe that the vast majority of readers searching "Arbuthnot" would be wanting the Category page to which the redirect currently points. --Paul Erik 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . 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.