Talk:Coachella

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coachella which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2024

 * 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: moved. (non-admin closure) JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Coachella (festival) → Coachella – The festival is the primary topic of "Coachella". The disambiguation page only lists two complete title matches, Coachella (festival) and Coachella, California; the rest are partial title matches that are rarely used without a qualifier, so we can disregard them. In terms of pageviews, the festival dwarfs the city 13 times; in terms of long-term significance, the festival is, according to the article itself. This is comparable to Stanford, where the university receives nine times the nearest full title match; and Woodstock, where the festival receives seven times the nearest full title match. Ngrams show more hits for the festival than the city, and it's not even close. Google surfaces info and results for the festival. The festival also receives. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412  T 17:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion on this topic just a month ago, and the consensus was oppose. I don't see how anything has transpired since then that would warrant reconsideration. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 03:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change; the fact that a previous RM ended with oppose has no relevance unless I'm simply repeating the same arguments, which I'm not. The previous RM was weakly argued, based solely on pageviews. I think I've presented a far more convincing case here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. This is basically the same case as Woodstock, with the festival being more notable than the town nearby and for which it is named, and more notable than any other subject by the same name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per consensus at Talk:Coachella. 162 etc. (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not permanent and does not preclude future RMs. The previous RM had a weak rationale and little participation. Unless you have an actual position on the proposed title, this !vote is a classic WP:LASTTIME argument and doesn't mean anything. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:DPT and WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What about them? You can't jump drop links to certain guidelines and be done with it. WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Surely you realize I have closely examined all relevant guidelines and responded to them at length in the nomination? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As your nomination itself states, Coachella, California is also named "Coachella". It also has more long-term notability than the Coachella festival. Therefore, Coachella (festival) is not the primary topic.
 * I also think that it is very bad form to bring forward this nomination only a month after the previous one, especially given the "Not moved" consensus. See WP:THREEOUTCOMES. 162 etc. (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you believe a town with six times fewer inhabitants, virtually unknown to anyone outside of the region, and with zero practical significance, has "more long-term notability" than one of the largest and most well-known music festivals in the world? Also, it is not bad form at all to start a new RM when a previous RM was argued solely based pageviews and closed with weak consensus based on three editors' opinion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per previous RM, as noted it might be better to move Woodstock and Stanford to the base name.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Crouch, Swale, I actually did read the previous RM and made sure to provide counterarguments to each of the objections (namely, it does have long-term notability, and it doesn't just "barely" meet PT1). Do you remain unconvinced? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can someone please relist this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The festival is not the primary topic by long-term significance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Festival is the primary topic of note. Flabshoe1 (talk) Flabshoe1 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relisting per request, and for clearer consensus. BD2412  T 17:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * close no new evidence presented from last RM—blindlynx 17:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There clearly is, and that's not how RMs work. If you have an actual opinion on the matter, you are welcome to leave a meaningful !vote or comment. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The last RM was two months ago and people thought it didn't meet WP:PT2---which is your argument here. So you're reopening a discussion without presenting anything new just to get a different result?—blindlynx 01:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to doubt you actually read my nomination if you think I "didn't present any new evidence". The previous RM was initiated by an inexperienced, now-blocked user who only cited pageviews and nothing else, which is weak evidence, so I am not surprised it failed. By "people thought it didn't meet PT2", you mean three people, two of which were weak/leaning !votes. The fact that the festival literally has 6x more attendees than the population of the small town itself easily quashes any doubts about PT2, and I've presented plenty of other evidence such as ngrams and similar articles. Coachella is quite literally the largest and most well-known festival of the music industry; if the Grammys are the Oscars of music, Coachella is the Super Bowl of music. "Per the previous RM" is not a valid rationale here, so unless you have an actual reason for opposing or supporting this RM, your !vote (and 162 etc.'s) is meaningless and should be summarily discarded by the closer. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * from WP:THREEOUTCOMES While it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change) [...](Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one.
 * You have not presented a evidence that anything has changed since the last RM and are disagreeing with close on the grounds that it meets in fact WP:PT2—blindlynx 20:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * More WP:WIKILAWYERING. One must not be so preoccupied with procedure... InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * for the record i didn't !vote because i'm not trying to achieve anything here other than point out this RM is bad form—blindlynx 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I'm only read vague and unsupported assertions from opposers. We are talking about navigational functions—readers are looking for this page, much more often than not.  Aza24  (talk)   20:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Question: Could you please explain how you are interpreting the NGRAM you provided? Using "Coachella - Coachella California" to represent the festival does not seem a clear cut demonstration of use in referring to the festival.  A key problem there is the fact that the divergence starts as early as 1902, and peaks in 1950, long before the festival was founded, and even before one of the founders was born.  I don't know that I'm necessarily opposed, but from a reader perspective, I'm not sure how this benefits when a single click suffices (provided I even end up at the dab page instead of clicking one of the auto-populate drop-down options).  The number of attendees and the population is not relevant in my mind.  Readers are looking for information; searches for the town would not be limited to residents of said town.  Additionally, people often go hiking and camping in "Coachella" (outside attending the festival), referring to the valley, not necessarily the town, so dismissal of Coachella Valley as a partial title match doesn't quite seem right.  Traffic seems the best argument, but showing traffic outweighs long-term significance is always a challenge (or establishing said significance). -2pou (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ouch... Examining the traffic a little closer doesn't seem to help... The pageviews provided were certainly a lot higher, but it was a table that wasn't jiving with what I saw in a one-month lookback chart.  If you look at the traffic visually, the festival dwarfing other possibilities is skewed by a spike at festival time, then the |Coachella_(festival)|Coachella,_California traffic drops drastically.  In an average, non-festival month, the festival is barely on the edge of doubling the valley and the city, combined, which often reduces weight to primary traffic threshold held by various volunteers.  Long-term significance is a hefty claim when it visually looks very short-term and periodic. -2pou (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course there are going to be periodic spikes, but the fact that (1) the festival receives more pageviews overall and (2) the small town has less notability and signficance still stands. The valley is a partial title match that can't be referred to as simply "Coachella", so it is irrelevant. If you're concerned about clicks, think about it this way: currently, Coachella is a disambiguation page, and let's say readers are truly equally likely to search for the festival and city (which is not the case, but let's pretend). Those looking for the festival will have to click once more, and those looking for the city will also have to click once more, so 0% of readers are satisfied. On the other hand, if Coachella becomes an article about the festival, only the readers looking for the city will have to click once more, thus helping 50% of readers. But based on PT1 and PT2, this isn't a 50/50 split, more like 80/20, and one of the pages is already happyily disambiguated with ", California". As for ngrams, if you don't like the one I used (there isn't a perfect way to do this), here's a different one, with the same result. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support — this is not California Wikipedia or American Wikipedia. This is an English Wikipedia with global English-speaking users. From an international standpoint, users would be more familiar with the festival (this article here says that 22% of Coachella attendees were foreign) rather than the city of Coachella, California. Doing a Google search (with incognito mode) shows searching for Coachella brings up the festival the supermajority of the time. cookie monster   755  20:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)