Talk:Bladder (disambiguation)

clarification of previous requested move
The way I read the topic below I think it was decided not to move this article. It seems like a redirect was added to it, though. For an uninformed user that us just as frustrating. I would just take out the redirect, but I am not sure how to interpret the move request below. Can the automatic redirect be taken out? Tenbergen (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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The result of the move request was: '''Withdrawn. The target no longer is a redirect.''' 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Bladder (disambiguation) → Bladder — because incoming links and page view data suggest the redirect target Urinary bladder is not the clear primary topic of Bladder. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * September 2010 page views of Bladder (disambiguation) vs page views of (and traffic passing through) the redirect Bladder were 425/6976 = 6.1%. That is a much higher ratio than normal for a disambiguation page/primary topic pair.  See some general discussion of this here. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose 94% success is a very good primary topic. -- Ja Ga  talk 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Page view stats and incoming links don't tell the whole story, nor do they determine what the primary topic is, but per JaGa I think the stats your're quoting support the status quo. The urinary bladder quite clearly is the primary topic here, IMHO. PC78 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * September 2010 page views suggest the primary topic of "bladder" is Gallbladder. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 126523 Gallbladder
 * 45161 Urinary bladder
 * 7383 Swim bladder
 * And as I've just said (if you would care to re-read my comment), you're placing far too much importance on page view stats. They are most certainly not the sole determining factor for a primarty topic. PC78 (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support (nominator) because the disambiguation page was at Bladder for years before it was moved in late 2007 without any prior discussion. If Urinary bladder were the primary topic, why wasn't that article ever moved to Bladder?  69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion is not a prerequisite for a move if it is deemed uncontroversial; it should tell you something that it has taken three years for someone to challenge that move. Urinary bladder need not be moved just because it's the primary topic for "bladder". The redirect is fine in this situation. PC78 (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2
Bladder (disambiguation) → Bladder — Recent examination of incoming links to the former redirect Bladder shows considerable ambiguity and has stimulated the creation of two new articles, Pig bladder and Bladder, in addition to Urinary bladder. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Bladder → Bladder (animal)


 * Oppose. Since the article you created at bladder covers multiple types, I think it makes this move even more undesirable. PC78 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. September 2010 page views of Bladder (disambiguation) vs the redirect Bladder were 425/6976 = 6.1%.  Compare to Nipple (disambiguation) vs Nipple at 493/91645 = 0.5%.  Humans have just one kind of nipple but two kinds of bladder;  "bladder" is intrinsically ambiguous. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you've just created two new articles, your pageview stats are completely invalid. PC78 (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above stats are not invalid. They date from before the new pages were created. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You need to account for the new articles and wait until there is data for them also, if this is to be your line of argument. PC78 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The anatomical urinary organ is clearly the original and primary meaning.  All other types derive from there.  There is no problem naming disambiguation pages "disambiguation," and here we have a similar situation to articles like stomach, brain, kidney, liver, and so on. Those articles have a good set of hatnotes, I think here the same can occur.    Montanabw (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the etymology goes the other way, actually. As for the analogy to Stomach and Brain, those are anatomical parts that evolved only once, so in the context of biology they are relatively unambiguous;  in contrast, "bladder" is a very ambiguous term within biology, and there is a gap in Wikipedia coverage too:  as yet, there is no article about bladders in algae and vascular plants.  Finally, numerous articles in Category:Animal anatomy have disambiguated page names, so there is no precedent being set here.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, This second move request concerns me, especially since it was only mere hours after the last one. Additionally the changing of Bladder from a redirect to an article page I feel is very unhelpful and just confuses the issue; especially since it was done without discussion. From the last move and this one there appears to be general agreement that urinary bladder is the primary topic and that a redirect to urinary bladder was generally reasonable. I too am also in agreement with this. I suggest that this move request be withdraw and the redirect be reinstated to Bladder. If you still feel the need to continue to push your singual POV start a discussion about it instead of carrying out your own agenda anyways. -France3470 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I withdrew the prior proposal in favor of this one, and I am open to discussion of content. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my rather personal comments towards 69.3.72.249 this morning. I have since amended them, however I do still oppose the move request. -France3470 (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
September 2010 page views suggest that if "bladder" has a primary topic then the primary topic is not Urinary bladder but Gallbladder:
 * 126523 Gallbladder
 * 45161 Urinary bladder
 * 7383 Swim bladder
 * 6976 Bladder

Some references to "primary topic" above may actually refer to WP:COMMONNAME. It can be argued that "bladder" is the common name of "urinary bladder". Those wishing to make that argument are welcome to make the corresponding (and competing) request to move Urinary bladder to Bladder. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out to you before, page view stats are "not determining factors" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And these stats disregard the two articles you have since created, both of which need be taken into consideration. PC78 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to a discussion at WP:AN/I, I restored the original redirect at Bladder, and reverted many of 69's disambiguation edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)