Talk:Bourbon

Mix-up of en and io versions
I made a fumble between the en and io version. Please an administrator to put it back. Marc Venot 05:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, I restored the previous version. However, you can do that yourself in the future. Go to the "history" tab, click the date of the previous version, and then click the "edit this page" tab. You can than save the previous version as the current version. Cheers. Wnissen 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Borbon and Borbón need links
I've redirected Borbon and Borbón to Bourbon because they didn't have disambig pages, and the family name and word meaning are similar in French and Spanish. I haven't added many disambig links for Borbon or Borbón yet, however. Anyone who wants to do it before me, feel free. --10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Borbó?!
The Spanish monarchy is not referred to by any stretch of the imagination as "Borbó." Eboracum (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
In my opinion, "bourbon" should direct to the bourbon whiskey page, and this disambiguation page should become a supplementary link at the top of that article. In common usage, I believe people looking for "bourbon" are mostly looking for the whiskey. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Four months have gone by and no one has disagreed (or commented on the subject at all). I tried to take the bold step of proceeding as proposed, but my rename was blocked because of the existence of the other page. I have tagged the Talk:Bourbon (disambiguation) page with a request for deletion, but I'm not sure whether I did it properly. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any major changes to this article need to be made by uninvolved editors, not the 4-month-old SPA making 20+ edits a day, the editor praising and protecting the SPA, or me. Flowanda | Talk 07:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem – I have no problem with further waiting if necessary – I actually thought I was being rather restrained already by tagging the article for a merge for four months and writing a justification on the Talk page before acting. To me, it seems like a very obvious improvement. Ask a random person on the street what Bourbon is, and I am confident that 99% of those asked (at least among those that provide a coherent response) will say it's some kind of alcoholic drink. (Incidentally, I didn't understand some of those remarks – what does "the editor praising and protecting the SPA" mean?) —BarrelProof (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, now three more months have gone by (seven months total), and there is still no objection. I hope that this is a sufficient demonstration of patience, and that the renaming can now proceed. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * 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: rough consensus not to move. Andrewa (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Bourbon → Bourbon (disambiguation) – BarrelProof (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

People looking for "Bourbon" are almost certainly looking for information about Bourbon whiskey. The current Bourbon page is a disambiguation page. The page that is blocking the move from Bourbon to Bourbon (disambiguation) is just a redirect page that has no substantial edit history and has always been a redirect to the article for which the move is requested. The suggestion to move this article was first recorded on the Talk:Bourbon article Talk page at 22:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC). No objections to the rationale for the suggestion have been made for seven months. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Four months after the original suggestion for the move on the Talk:Bourbon, at 04:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC), a Template:Db-move requesting speedy action was added to the Talk:Bourbon (disambiguation) page, under the assumption that the move would be uncontroversial.

Below is the previously-provided rationale used with the Template:Db-move when the speedy action was requested:


 * People looking for "Bourbon" are almost certainly looking for information about Bourbon whiskey. The current Bourbon page is a disambiguation page. The page that is blocking the move from Bourbon to Bourbon (disambiguation) is just a redirect page that has no substantial edit history and has always been a redirect to the article for which the move is requested.

The suggestion that the requested move should be considered uncontroversial was disagreed by User:Flowanda, who removed the Template:Db-move request from the Talk page. The comments provided by User:Flowanda when taking this action were procedural, and did not disagree with (or even discuss) the rationale for the suggested move. Additional comments were then made by the original person who suggested the move (User:BarrelProof), indicating that it would not be a problem to wait longer to see if anyone disagreed with the suggestion, and further reinforcing the rationale. The historical discussion of the move suggestion can be seen under the heading "Requested move" in the Talk:Bourbon article.

Since then, an additional three months have gone by (now seven months total), and there has still been no objection to the merits of the argument in favor of the requested move. I hereby suggest that this situation has gone on long enough. No one has objected to the merits of the rationale that were provided for justifying the move, and the move should proceed.

—BarrelProof (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction: I guess I've been having some trouble with basic math. It's been six months total, not seven. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One relevant policy appears to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also, here are some statistics for the most recent full month: The others that I have checked all seem to have substantially less traffic than those. This confirms my belief that Bourbon whiskey is more commonly viewed than all the others in the disambiguation list combined.
 * Bourbon whiskey was viewed 77469 times in 2011-05. This article ranked 2638 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.
 * House of Bourbon was viewed 34821 times in 2011-05.
 * Bourbon biscuit was viewed 3150 times in 2011-05.
 * Bourbon County, Kentucky was viewed 2659 times in 2011-05.

Moreover, I strongly suggest that someone looking for the word "Bourbon" by itself, rather than that word combined with other words (such as "House of" or "family" or "biscuit" or "county") would almost certainly be looking for information about the whiskey. Certainly, the word "Bourbon" by itself is commonly used to refer to the whiskey, but the word does not seem very commonly used by itself as a reference to the other meanings. In a Google search for "bourbon" (by itself), the first link in the results is to the Wikipedia Bourbon whiskey article, all of the results on the first page refer to the whiskey (except one, which refers to some company not mentioned on Wikipedia at all that provides maritime services for offshore oil & gas fields and wind farms), and none of the results on the first 5 pages of results refers to the House of Bourbon.

—BarrelProof (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: approximately twice as many hits as the next most-visited page doesn't meet the threshold for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in my opinion. It should be around an order of magnitude. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remark in response: Please note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only refers to traffic statistics as one possible element of a discussion toward reaching a consensus on such a suggestion. Another is search engine results, which clearly favour the suggestion. (Take a look for yourself at the results of a web search for "bourbon".) Please also see the argument above about the use of the word "bourbon" by itself, rather than as part of some longer phrase. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Each to their own, BarrelProof. You're a whiskey expert, so when you think "bourbon" you understandably think about whiskey. As a history student, when I think "bourbon" I think about the Bourbon dynasties. And from the traffic stats, it appears we're both in considerable company. No primary topic here. Rennell435 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you'll get your point across much more efficiently if you summarise it. The whole backstory you posted is unnecessary. You've made the right move in requesting move formally. Rennell435 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If I think of bourbon I might think of whisky, but I might also be thinking of the French dynasty or the biscuit. I really don't think there's a primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support by principle of Least Surprise. No one looking for the House of Bourbon should be at all surprised to end up on the page about the whiskey, whereas the converse is not at all true.  Powers T 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Rennell435 (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose A 2:1 ratio is not enough to justify primary topic. The whiskey article comes up first in a Google search, so we can't give it better placement than it already has. But what might happened is that the other Wiki results could drop out and then all the top results would be about whiskey and marine equipment. Kauffner (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2011 (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 follow-up comments

 * Follow-up comment: For what it's worth, the ratio of page visits has become even more lopsided since the above discussion. In August 2011, the ratio of Bourbon whiskey to House of Bourbon article views was 81044 / 24314 = 3.33. In September 2011, the ratio was 67808 / 21616 = 3.14. That's more than 3 to 1 in both periods. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Further follow-up: Holding steady 5 months later. Over the last 90 days, the ratio has been 305820 / 95069 = 3.22. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And again: After more than another year, the ratio for the last 90 days has dropped a bit, currently 248924 / 91291 = 2.73. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)