Talk:Charles Babcock (architect)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 1 one external link on Charles Babcock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041216104933/http://www.rootsweb.com:80/~nytompki/Landmarks/cornell_ch17.htm to http://www.rootsweb.com/~nytompki/Landmarks/cornell_ch17.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Charles Babcock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017162038/http://aap.cornell.edu/aap/explore/college-history.cfm to http://www.aap.cornell.edu/aap/explore/college-history.cfm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: There is consensus (though not unanimity) that there is no primary topic. Therefore the move is appropriate. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

– No indication that the nine-sentence entry for the architect, who died 106 years ago and has only one brief interwiki (in Farsi Wikipedia), portrays a historical personage so renowned that his biography would take precedence as the natural WP:PRIMARYTOPIC above all others bearing this name or a variation upon it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Charles Babcock → Charles Babcock (architect)
 * Charles Babcock (disambiguation) → Charles Babcock
 * Weak support I'm not seeing justification for this article being the primary topic.  OTOH, I'm not seeing that for any other article either. So I'd support giving the disambig the simpler form of the page name, but I've no strong feelings. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom - no clear primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Charles Babcock, Charles Almanzo Babcock, Chip Babcock and Charlie Babcock all seem to be at their respective best titles, so with no title conflicts, primary topic doesn't come into play. Possible confusion is best handled with hatnotes. Station1 (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose There is no argument here being made that there is not a primary topic. The nomination seems to misunderstand how primary topics are determined -- it is about relative notability. The fact that the nominator does not consider them renowned enough for an arbitrary standard is meaningless, and User:Station1 correctly points out that hatnotes solve any confusion here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is not an arbitrary standard, but one that is earned through historical renown. Moreover, subject's standing in history as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not determined by default through something as arbitrary as simply being the only John Doe or Charles Babcock without a middle name or a middle initial.
 * As for "relative notability", if such notability were to be the prevailing standard, then every human name disambiguation page would feature a primary topic and all others on that dab page would be lined up in order of page views, with such views possibly changing on a day-to-day basis. However, as we all know, most dab pages have no primary topics. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean no, you are wrong. It is not about "earning" primary topic status by reaching a standard you set. There isn't some rule where we say "ah, this person has won enough awards or is a mayor of a big enough city that they are now allowed to be a primary." I am not sure if you are intentionally failing to understand here at this point. The reason every page doesn't necessarily have a primary topic is precisely because it is about relative notability. --Yaksar (let's chat) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What we obviously have here is failure to communicate even if I'm not nominating Cool Hand Luke (band) as the true primary topic of the Cool Hand Luke (disambiguation) page. Of course there are obvious primary topics whose primary status could only be questioned as an April Fools' prank. On the other hand, most putative primary topics, such as Charles Babcock, have never been submitted for consensus and, if a vote was held, would be unlikely candidates for elevation to primary.
 * Some of those, such as John McAvoy (footballer) or Talk:Fred Kennedy (footballer) are one-sentence stubs that may be moved without even a discussion. Even though he may carry greater historical weight that John McAvoy (footballer), if Charles Babcock was unilaterally moved to Charles Babcock (architect) would anyone raise a higher level of objections than the zero degree of objections regarding the move of John McAvoy?
 * Ultimately, discussions of this nature serve a specific purpose in leaving a historical record of arguments since a number of move requests tend to return again and again. If a theoretical default function were to reduce all primary topics to ordinary dab page entries, then arguments would need to be made as to why any specific entry, such as Charles Babcock, which does not bear a unique name, should be elevated to primary topic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But primary topic is irrelevant in this case. If we have 4 articles titled John Doe, Jane Doe, John Roe, and Jane Roe, it makes no difference whatsoever which one of those 4 gets the most pageviews and/or has the most long-term significance. Unless the best title for an article is identical with the best title for another article, we don't even have to consider which is "primary". If two titles are a little bit similar, just stick hatnotes on them and the problem (if any) is solved. Station1 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that is simply not true. Libel (film) does not get to be at "Libel" even though it is primary among the topics for which "Libel" is considered to be the ideal title. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But that comparison is not relevant. There are 4 or 5 articles that would take the title "Libel" if they could, so we need to decide which, if any, is primary. In this case there is only one article that wants the name "Charles Babcock", so primary topic is irrelevant; there's only one! Station1 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point. Let's pretend that the film and defamation are the only possible senses of "Libel". The article on defamation could clearly take "Libel" if it wanted to, but it chooses not to. Nonetheless, even though it is the only article that wants the title of "Libel" the film should obviously not be at that title. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Pages "have never been submitted for consensus" on if they could be a primary topic? That's as absurd as saying "this was never submitted for a consensus on whether it is important enough for an infobox." Please read what actually determines a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC before making these sorts of claims.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If Charles Babcock, a minor American architect from over a century ago, were such an obvious primary topic, then this nomination would receive no support whatsoever, much less the two support votes that it has gotten so far.
 * As for "[S]orry, but this is ridiculous", what does seem ridiculous is the designation of a primary topic on the basis of his being the only entry which does not use a middle name or an initial. On the basis of such reasoning, even if Charles Almanzo Babcock had a higher historical standing than Charles Babcock the architect, "Charles Almanzo" could not become the primary topic because "Charles " had already claimed the base name. To make the example truly ridiculous, we would need to imagine any minor notable named John Kennedy claim the primary spot on the dab page because the president was not known by the base name, "John Kennedy", but as "John Fitzgerald Kennedy".
 * Moreover, the primary topic is indeed relevant in this case since it forces the dab page's undiscussed main header to be saddled with the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" simply so that the header of the architect's entry would not be saddled with the qualifier "(architect)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, the architect has a plurality but not a majority of the collective significance of "Charles Babcock". -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:53, 2 May 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.