Talk:Clarksville Historic District

Requested move
Clarksville Historic District → Clarksville Historic District (Austin, Texas) Clarksville Historic District (disambiguation) → Clarksville Historic District &mdash; Move Austin Texas page to properly disambiguated name including (City, State). Move disambiguation page of equally significant places, none primary, to the regular disambiguation page name. The disambiguation page was only moved here--combatively, i felt--by an editor who asserted the primacy of the one in Austin, Texas because, randomly, an article had been created for it first. Now several stub articles have been created, all currently equal in their sourcing, that they have just one source (the NRIS database footnote). Please allow restoration of the previous status quo. doncram (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice of this discussion posted at wt:NRHP. doncram (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Only one entry in the disambiguation page has a Wikipedia article of its own, so it should be at the base name as the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I some time ago created a second article, and before opening this requested move i created one more. So there are three now.
 * Also, besides that, you have participated in long previous discussions in which it was abundantly conveyed to you that it is random which one of several NRHP articles of the same name might have been first created. I don't recall ever seeing support for your unusual position that disambiguation pages must be put into non-alphabetical order, and I have seen plenty of opposition.  Your view on how the page should have been arranged is against established consensus. doncram (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry; thought it had only one blue link entry when I checked it earlier. Striking my !vote -- which had nothing to say about the order. However, support for non-alphabetical is here: WP:MOSDAB: "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking your opposition to the move. About the non-alphabetical, you have pointed to that statement in MOSDAB in the previous discussions, and it has been observed that it does not speak to the case of equally valid items, some currently redlinks and some currently bluelinks.  Thanks. doncram (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OTOH, I find the claim that currently blue and currently red links are equally valid items to be unusual and unsupported. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the status quo but please don't take this as a vote, I have no views on primacy, just wanted to bring it all into line. Abtract (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the dab page to show no primary usage for any one district. I believe no one of these is primary, and no one here is asserting primacy, as far as i can tell. doncram (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The existence of an article at the base name is the assertion of primacy. Abtract is also an experienced disambiguation project editor, and seeing the current arrangement, made the same obvious edit I tried to apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think any of these places qualifies as the primary topic, and I have never heard of the one in Texas that now occupies the ambiguous base name. I don't think occupancy equals an assertion of primacy, and in any case assertion is not proof, nor even evidence. --Una Smith (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)