Talk:Clive (disambiguation)

Requested move 14 February 2020

 * 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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 09:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

– No primary topic per views[|Clive,_Shropshire|Clive,_Alberta|Clive,_New_Zealand|Clive,_New_South_Wales|Clive,_Iowa|Clive,_Utah|Clive_(New_Zealand_electorate)|Clive_(Doctor_Who)|Clive_(Garfield_character)], the name gets 286 but the place in Iowa gets 1,787, the NZ one gets 220, the Shropshire one gets 134, the Alberta one gets 123 and the Utah one gets 115. Move the name to Clive (name).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Clive (disambiguation) → Clive
 * Clive → Clive (name)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943  (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim (or claim of lack thereof) = potential for controversy by default. Steel1943  (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so, given the page views its unlikely this is primary so its not likely to be controversial in addition to this not being a major topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In my experiences, there's usually someone who comes from the woodwork who's going to cry foul on that. Either way, a discussion will help enforce this as the correct/preferred option. Steel1943  (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * True; this will solidify this. It's impossible to reasonably argue against this move. Some may object to a proposed future split of Clive (name) into Clive (given name) and Clive (surname), but I can't see as how anyone would reasonably object to the move as proposed above. This should have no issues moving forward and, as a result, we'll have this discussion to back us up. Doug Mehus T · C  18:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support for processing this as an uncontroversial request. Looking through the list, nothing sounds out as a primary topic. As much as I'd like to think that Clive, Alberta in the primary topic, I know in my gut that it isn't. My only question for is, what takes precedence over the base name, the surname dab page or a normal dab page? What's our policy on that? Doug Mehus  T · C  18:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Dmehus, the normal DAB. Maybe the given name and surname should also have separate articles.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:APOAT. Steel1943  (talk)
 * , Thanks for clarifying that. In the case of Mehus, a surname stub article/dab, since Mehus, Norway may not be notable as a place, it's fine for it to stay where it is, right? As to the given name and surnames, yes, I'd support that split if you want to propose that. In such a case, Clive (name) would then redirect to the normal dab page, right? Doug Mehus T · C  18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes User:Dmehus "Clive (name)" would redirect to the general DAB page if split, see Lewis (name) for example. Note that this page was originally set up as a DAB page with just 2 places rather than the name.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Taking a look at, it is clear that the most popular use of the word "Clive" on enwiki is as a name. The anthroponymy/name article should therefore remain at the base name title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't follow that logic at all. For one thing, most of those names are given names. I could literally pick any given name and generate a huge list and we simply don't always give preference to name pages as the base name on the basis of the given name. What matters is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so unless you've done a pageview analysis on all the "Clive" pages, I'm pretty certain there's no clear primary topic here., do you have anything to add here? You have more experience with disambiguation pages than I. Doug Mehus T · C  03:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * if the name page was split that would somewhat negate this especially since the article doesn't contain any info on either the give name or the surname (which are 2 different things anyway).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. None of the non-name entries are are of much significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2020 (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.