Talk:Britannia Range

Primary Topic
Originally posted on my talk page:

I just found this by dablink notification as I'd used it on M Creek, I see you made the dab page in 2011... but per WP:TWODAB (or is it WP:TWODABS?) aren't two-dab pages supposed to be avoided and hatnotes used instead. And as to primary topic here, while the Howe Sound range isn't all that well-known (despite being some high-priced real estate), surely the Antarctic one isn't either? Incoming links to the BC one are and will be many....same maybe with pageviews. Prove me wrong about incoming links to the Antarctic one, but I'm seeing a PRIMARYTOPIC RM brewing here and on various other TWODABs and similar lately: the most-linked/used on should be undabbed.Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In November 2004 I created the original Britannia Range article which was about the range in Antarctica (I was not aware of a range by the same name in Canada at the time). In January 2009 Skookum1 created the Britannia Range (Canada) page and created a hatnote to the Antarctica range which remained at Britannia Range. In June 2011, I made Britannia Range a disambiguation page, creating Britannia Range (Antarctica) in the process from the then contents of Britannia Range. At that time, I don't know if the TWODABS policy was already in effect or something that came along later. The creation date of WP:TWODAB is February 2013 but it's not immediately apparent when exactly the TWODABS MOS came into effect. Nevertheless, current wording indicates that using a disambiguation page in this case is not strictly wrong. However, if one of the two meanings can be considered a Primary topic, then that meaning should (must?) become the primary topic page with appropriate hatnotes added. So the question to be answered now is: does the Brittania Range (Canada) page have sufficient merit to warrant it becoming the primary topic? While comparing the incoming page links (using "What links here" for example) for the two pages may indicate one is primary based on counts, the use of templates balloon the counts by adding what I would call "soft" links rather than "hard" links (i.e. those actually used in the page itself). This is one of my pet peeves about "What links here": I cannot easily find all the "hard" links and I must fight through all the links pollution caused by templates. Given that the Canadian range is close to Vancouver, a major population centre, development within or near the range is likely going to give it more significance and thus more 'primary topic points' than the Antarctic range. While I'm Canadian and thus could bring a bias towards the Canadian range as primary, I'm currently inclined to keep the disambiguation page as-is. So I'm currently a weak oppose to designating a primary topic but am open to further discussion that could change my position. RedWolf (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I just did a quick google books search. "Britannia Range" Antarctica had about five times more hits than "Britannia Range" Canada. However, I didn't analyse the results in any detail. BTW I'm not Canadian.... or Antarctican! Bermicourt (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)