Wikipedia

Talk:Enclosure/Archive 2

< Talk:Enclosure
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Buidhe in topic Requested move 26 April 2021
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 23 September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago93 comments28 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved.

There is a clear consensus per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that no other primary encyclopedic topic named 'Enclosure' is present which would necessitate a disambiguation moving this page. The obvious fact that the dictionary definition of 'Enclosure' is not a primary encyclopedia topic has been suggested, with no clear rebuttal.

Despite the numerous suggestions, no favored alternate title for this article has emerged, it is possible that several of the proposed alternate titles infact better apply to other topics, with no clear and coherent argument put forward to address these issues. No clear need to change the title has been proposed, nor has any such need been identified during the discussion.

It is clear that there are issues with the content of this article that could be dealt with by an expert, that is another matter. Many other issues are being discussed here which are not really relevant to a page move.

It is additionally suggested that any future proposed move should identify both why the existing title is unsuitable (with reference to PRIMARYTOPIC), and provide a reasoned alternative. It is suggested that a disambiguation may be created with a hat-note on this page pointing to it, which would deal with much of the concerns raised here. Already done.. Dysklyver 15:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

Enclosure → ? – Should this article be moved from the longstanding title "Enclosure" to "Enclosure (legal)". Tazerdadog (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

** Just because it's been there since 2005, doesn't mean it's a good title. as the encyclopaedia grows, the probability of ambiguity is going to increase. 'enclosure' is a very general word. I've never heard of this use until today; in the context of land I would have thought it meant a physical fence. I encountered it after looking at 'enclosures' in engineering contexts (Enclosure (electrical), etc). As I went through renaming, just as I expected, I found articles linked to enclosure from completely different contexts: a burial mound, an 'enclosure' in a boeing aircraft Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems',Sanmina Corporation(engineering) and several instances of a 'earthworks' enclosures,eg in Stonehenge. electrical enclosure Bud Industries, lol. 'animal enclosures':Swan pit, Polar Zoo, Zwinger. Even if enclosure (legal) is the *most common* use in wikipedia today, thats because it's listed in many historical articles about places; it's really one context. It is not the most common use in day to day parlance, not by a long shot. Having the disambiguation page as the default will alert anyone in future when trying to link to check. The old title 'inclosure' was at least better because it's an unambiguous word MfortyoneA (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

      • (edit conflict) First, you're forgetting WP:COMMONNAME. Inclosure isn't the spelling found in most of the citations. Second, unless the aggregate believes the term could refer to anything, the article that sits in this place should be the most prevalent meaning. Per WP:HATCHEAP, we shouldn't disambiguate unnecessarily, which is what you've done. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, " If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." We're having the discussion now to determine if the aggregate buys your "probability of ambiguity" argument. It was uncalled for to unilaterally change it and then run with changing every internal link. Perhaps had you not ignored this conversation we could have prevented some heartburn. The fact that you're not historically illiterate underlines why discussions should happen sooner than later. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

**** well i know now. lets stick to discussing 'the best title'. I'm telling you that seeing the use of this term came as a big surprise to me. wikipedia shouldn't prioritise one domain over any other (e.g. history, science, whatever).. the magic of it surely is many subjects with the potential to overlap and find new connections (todays I learned this new use of the word, which I had no reason to look for otherwise). I would have thought the guidelines would be friendly toward this resource expanding. I would have thought the safest default is to disambiguate if in any doubt as it is more future-proof. redirects are cheap, and I saw many places where the context could do the job of identifying the specific meaning (e.g. enclosure act, enclosure movement) MfortyoneA (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC) ** Further ambiguity: see talk:Enclosure (old english). is enclosure a legally (or physically) enclosed region, or a specific event in the C18th? MfortyoneA (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

*Support , see rationale here talk:enclosure (legal). to summarise again, i found examples of mis-linking. if the plain word was a dab, it would highlight instantly, forcing you to pick the right meaning. The word is incredibly broad in use; as such tying it to one specific meaning seems insane. The probability of ambiguity rises as the project grows, as such better to be more specific surely, aren't redirects cheap? Surely a more precise title will also focus the content of the article better, see confusion over 18th century vs middle ages MfortyoneA(talk) 18:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

**** I certainly agree enclosure (historical..) has merit, but I'd ask: is it just a past event, or is it theoretically a process which could still be applied. One thing I learned is the article is *still* misleading, it says 'in england..' but chris also tells me 'it happened throughout europe'. Is it something that could still happen in any region as it's laws change. MfortyoneA (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

** accurate links increase the utility & value of this great resource. they could be used as translation hints, or tools to auto-illustrate pages, or things we haven't considered yet MfortyoneA (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC) ** "The other uses seem like minor technical/specialist terms" .. you're kidding .. people in day to day life deal with 'enclosures' all the time. cases, walls, fences. There's far more practical information related to those. Why are certain enclosures the way they are , whats the correct jargon relating to components , etc etc. The history is great to know, but surely that is the 'specialist subject'.MfortyoneA (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

      • It's a different way of seeing the world, I guess. To me, electrical cabinets, loudspeakers, animal pens, a catch-all term for archaeological sites – they are not of importance in the same way as a movement which was one of the shapers of the modern world, even if most people haven't heard of it. But as there does seem to be a lot of support for a move, I'd go with Enclosure of common land over Enclosure (legal).
  • No I agree with Robina Fox. This is a major topic in British history and is far more than a legality--the large scholarly literature is mostly economic history, with lots of local and social history too. Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

** could you propose a better clarification - if it's about far more, could you convey precisely what in a more specific title.. enclosure (history)? MfortyoneA. Tangentially, perhaps you can improve the article itself: the first line currently says "is the legal process of..", would you advocate "is the historical process of .." (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

** I was trying to get the attention of people other than history buffs to provide input here MfortyoneA (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well you picked a really stupid and counter-productive way of doing it. Properly listed move requests have their own audience. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Reading some of the older stuff on this talk page, I understand the article used to be called Enclosure (Agricultural Revolution). (Though I can't track this in the history - but it was certainly discussed.) This seems to me to be the perfect title. Why was it rejected? (Am I missing the point?)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
i only know what i've discovered in the past few days, I think there's range of connotations (with overlap obviously): a broad historical event ('enclosure movement'), a specific legal act ('inclosure act'/'enclosure act'), something that goes back much further (doomsday book).. the article used to say 18th century. Sometimes it says 'someone grew their estate through enclosure', other times it talks about partitioning. this is why I dislike vague titles .. MfortyoneA (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

::: i can see the exact choice is difficult. can you comment on the impression given by the first line: from the first 2 lines the first says legal (but farm consilidation), the second ('common -> private') ; I also saw 'enclosure (privatisation)' presented in the visible text. Even if some of the changes weren't done by parliament, does 'legal' encompass the idea it's a change of ownership status. maybe we need a venn diagram here.. MfortyoneA (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

::I'm not so sure. The arch of rememberance (and other cases) describes a area 'enclosed' physically (by a fence or wall), but this article describes the act of legally changing common land into private land. MfortyoneA (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That's why it was so silly to link them. I would agree Enclosure of common land is probably the best new title. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

:::: the article said in it's first line "the legal process of.."; as such replacing enclosure with enclsoure(legal) doesn't damage anything. It instantly distinguished it from physical enclosure (and i link to disambig where it isn't clear). It's a new redirect, not used for anything other than replacements - so it should be easy to change again if there's a better name. There were a few contexts where the wording of the surrounding text did make enclosure of common land more natural, so I used that aswell (e.g. 'common lands were enclosed' etc etc. I'll put a note in those redirects and gather them here. People should stop freaking out about this. MfortyoneA (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's a support, with a different name. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Enclosure of common land Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

::I don't mind what the name is, so long as it is something more specific than enclosure. '..of common land' is fine by me MfortyoneA (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that 'enclosure (legal)' is not helpful--it is not a term in common use and doesn't provide a clue to the meaning; 'Enclosure of common land' works fine. Rjensen (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

::::: I really need a venn diagram to illustrate here - but what enclosure (legal) achieves is: it rules out the other meanings I found. it *is* surely better than just enclosure. obviously, another better name might be possible, but now you only need to search for enclosure (legal) instead of enclosure to find where to apply it. using curly brackets to illustrate: enclosure={ fences,ditches,containers,animal-penns,castle enclosures , church enclosures, temple galleries, enclosure (legal)={ enclosure acts, enclosure of common land, enclosure movement ...} } ... "it is not a term in common use", right so if we need to search replace later, it wont clash. MfortyoneA (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

is there etiquette for surveying the alternate names, could the above be 'should it be renamed', and can we collect votes for the specific alternate names , i'm seeing that sort of thing on other RfMs MfortyoneA (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@MfortyoneA: Please stop creating links to enclosure (disambiguation). If you do not know which entry on the dab page to link to, then add {{dn}} after the link. This marks the link as requiring disambiguation. By changing the links to enclosure (disambiguation), you are effectively declaring that these are intentional links to a disambiguation page that do not require any further disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 14:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We can safely assume that almost anyone who searches for "enclosure" in an encyclopaedia is looking for the article about enclosure of common land, which is why this content has had this title undisturbed for the last 12 years. Other, less encyclopaedic uses belong on a separate disambiguation page.—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

** I strongly dispute that: I never heard of that use until a few days ago. (you're also making this assumption I run into with other editors, 'the reader knows...' the magic of wikipedia surely is the ability via links to show you something you *didn't* know, and might not even have known you were looking for. Just following the word 'enclosure' (starting at housing (engineering), I discovered something new to me). Also people had linked to it from unrelated articles (animal)enclosures, (plastic)enclosures, enclosure(aircraft components) ,(castle)enclosure (archaeological)enclosure .. the latter was the most common because it's a slightly more connected field.. history/archaeology, both land-relatedMfortyoneA (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

****i absolutely get it's an important topic, but still dispute there's any clear primary meaning. one dictionary says: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enclosure .. gives broad meanings, including religious, and 'enclosed document'. i'll look of other encyclopaedias, but I thought most others just recycle content from wikipedia. MfortyoneA (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

****** 'Britannica' I'd guess that name means american ownership of a British product. that's going to have a british context, historical bias surely .. surely wikipedia's context would be broader and more global.. serving a purpose that the encyclopedia britannica doesn't, by virtue of it's medium and era of founding MfortyoneA (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

******** some companies predate 1901, i would have guessed britanica goes back to the C19th at least; but checking: wikipedia confirms 18th century, "The Britannica is the oldest English-language encyclopaedia still in production. It was first published between 1768 and 1771", so i presume this british brand was bought up or something, just like we have German owned Mini, Japanese owned ARM chips and so on. MfortyoneA (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

                  • If you want to criticize an earlier edition for having a British bias, there might be some basis. But after more than 100 years and five print editions (each representing major revisions), there's little basis for such criticism now. There may be other good reasons to criticize EB, but British bias isn't one. older ≠ wiser 18:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support * → enclosure of common land and maybe Merge with Common land

1. Enclosure regards Common land is the primary topic covered in the article itself. Though Enclosure regarding Common Land is historically and economically the primary meaning of the word, modern usage of the word Enclosure has become perhaps more varied. Enclosure of common land is perhaps more descriptive. 2. Common land is unassessed but good looking article, that covers this same eco-historical subject, with lots of extra information which i tentatively suggest could be at least partly merged with this article by a good editor or maybe its good to have two articles covering the subject from different angles. 3. Separately, I respectfully request MfortyoneA to please do not in future change links on other pages to this or any other topic until a consensus decision has been agreed.-- BOD -- 17:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment User:MfortyoneA is a blocked sock, comments can be struck, mass undo is being considered, details at WP:ANI. Widefox; talk 20:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose this is dictdef vs topic. WP is not Wikt, just because we have a strong encyclopaedic topic and a common dict def doesn't mean we should put a dab there. Looking at the dab, there's no strong rival so status quo ante. Widefox; talk 20:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this is the only kind of enclosure that has (and deserves) an extended encyclopaedic article. "Of common land" is misleading because most of the land subjected to Enclosure Acts wasn't owned in common [the Lord of the Manor owned it], it was just farmed in common (for example by ridge and furrow). An article about sheep enclosures, for example, is not going to be more that a few lines. Engineering enclosures ditto, Is there really any other serious contender bidding to be the primary topic? Or is this just a manufactured debate? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
you clearly haven't followed many of the links from Enclosure (disambiguation); there are several long articles with enclosure in the title. Nor does your reasoning reflect what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Factual clarification - Not all the land enclosed in the way discussed was the result of an Enclosure Act - a good proportion was done by mutual agreement between those with commoner rights. Not all land enclosed was common land - some of it was "waste" (i.e. not in agricultural use). This is why I advocate Enclosure (Agricultural Revolution), which has been considered in the past for this article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Whilst I agree with your analysis, I don't understand your conclusion from it. You haven't explained why you believe that the name of this article needs to change. There is no reason in principle for articles to have a disambiguated title - that is only required when disambiguation is needed. See for example M1 motorway: there are a number of M1 Motorways but the one in England is the dominant topic and it is not disambiguated despite much argument. Conversely, this is the only significant encyclopaedia topic on enclosures: others, such as speaker enclosures, are just dictionary topics. IMO anyway. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Enclosure also involved land owned by landlords but had community grazing rights when the land was in fallow. Enclosure also included the consolidation of strips consisting of a few or more rows so that an individual owner might own several strips in a vicinity. Consolidation involved buyouts and swaps. Perhaps a better article title would be Enclosure movement.Phmoreno (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Considering User:John Maynard Friedman's comments, and other discussion, would a better suggestion be to leave the title unchanged, get the article substantially improved and then revisit the subject on the basis of a better article and some better informed editors (and I hope that I would fall into that class)? If it were a good idea to change the name (and emphasis on 'if'), there is no point in doing so unless there is a clear alternative - and I think this discussion demonstrates that there isn't.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I was going to stay uninvolved and make comment afterward, but ThoughtIdRetired has nailed it. After spending the last year studying historical land law, I am surprised by how wildly inaccurate certain statements in this article are, chiefly the obviously overlooked fact that land was owned by feudal tenure and the enclosure of land was mostly based on changes in land ownership, from the feudal system of a lord owning the whole county and renting it to feudal tenants, which changed to a system closer to what we have today. The land was common, as it was rented to a whole group of people who divided it into strips, and was then enclosed, and the whole field would be owned Copyhold be a Burgess (or similar person) and people employed to work it.
For what its worth only Enclosure (agricultural revolution) even vaguely comes close to a description of the subject, as it is not only concerned with common land, as the vast majority of the land enclosed was not common land, and the common land that was enclosed was not common land in the modern definition of common land, as it was infact a distinct type of feudal tenure no longer in existence, so Enclosure of common land does not fit the subject very well. Enclosure (legal) is likely to confuse matters as the current legal definition of enclosure, is to enclose a document in a letter or case-pack, which would cause it to be a confusing title. Despite the poorly written article, this subject is not chiefly concerned with either common land, nor the legal status of the feudal system changing to a more modern system. But it is about the agricultural revolution. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 11:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment to closer Nom argument is simply asking if it should move, and answering their own question with a !vote. Where's the argument per Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC? If there's no guideline based reason, there's no case that needs discussing. Widefox; talk 11:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - although people say "enclosure" to mean a lot of things, and as a dictionary word it is quite often used, that is not relevant here - WP:NOTDICT. Of the encyclopedic topics which might be called "Enclosure", none of the others come anywhere near close to the long term significance of this one. Enclosure was a really important step in the agricultural revolution, and is arguably of wider significance than just the UK, as it took place before the settlement of the New World, and may have been a necessary precursor for places like the United States to even exist. FWIW it also massively dominates the page views. As Widefox points out, nobody supporting this has presented any solid evidence that the longstanding primary topic is no longer primary.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh Pleaase! Of course it dominates the page views - anybody looking for ANY type of enclosure gets shunted here!!!! I notice your comparison omits Loudspeaker enclosure which gets an average 227 views a day. Try moving to one of the alternatives and see how many views the disamed title is getting after a week. Which part of WP:NOTDICT do you see as having any relevance here? Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Your support vote is the very essence of WP:NOTDICT - "Far too general a word", you say, implying that because "enclosure" is a common English word, we should not have a primary topic for it. As far as encyclopedic topics go, though, this one is a slam dunk long-term significance topic. It is one of the most important developments in modern history.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The nom does not address any of the standard arguments for determining a primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Pageview stats being one. Johnbod the burden is on the nom, but in the absence of that, it surfaces that this is primary per view stats. Seriously. Widefox; talk 21:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at pageviews without context is faulty though. If Enclosure itself was a disambiguation page, then the number of pageviews would be a good indicator of which article is popular among readers. That isn't the case here. Anyone who types the word enclosure in Google will see this article at the first result and will click on it even if it was not where they were intending to go. There will even be some bias in a dab page towards the articles linked at the top compared to those at the bottom as many readers will not read the entire list before clicking but the bias won't be as strong as it is here. Gizza (t)(c) 23:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm not saying we should not have a primary topic because it is "too general", I'm saying that as a matter of fact, in this case we do not have one. Ask 100 people on the street what "enclosure" means (not restricting the numbers of choices) and precious few will answer with this, which tends to be used in the plural anyway. The historic significance part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC covers situations like Madonna, where the alternative meanings are both or all very well known. I can't see it applies here, any more than WP:NOTDICT - I notice you have not attempted to answer my question on that. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
My point is that this nom doesn't make a case "Move? Y." so any counter trumps it (pageviews or otherwise). At least a partial picture of views starts to create an argument in the vacuum. The guideline is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Historical tends to trump views ie Apple vs Apple Inc. Anything trumps nothing. Widefox; talk 07:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
And just to counter the argument that the pageviews are irrelevant, it is my experience that by and large the page view stats are reasonably accurate, even when there is a primary topic already in place. People coming to pages via the WP search bar are a minority compared to those who come through Google, and Google doesn't take much notice of our determination of primary topic. Search for apple, for example, and Google rejects our determination that the primary apple is the fruit, instead focusing on results for the tech company. And it's Apple Inc. that is featured in those search results, not Apple. Similarly, for york, you see the city page and the state page linked, but the dab page New York doesn't appear on Google at all. Thus only a minority of readers will ever get to New York. See [1] for the pattern of views in the New York case, compared with [2], the same period last year, when "New York" was primary. There has been somewhat of a drop off of visits to the state page, but not a huge number - down from 6418 average daily to 5158. A similar 20% drop in views for the Enclosure article still leaves it massively ahead of any of the other entries. As Widefox says, please present actual primary topic arguments to convince us there isn't one, rather than just arguing that "enclosure" is a common word, without putting that into an encyclopedic context.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and just to follow up on another point you raise - "ask 100 people in the street" is not a valid argument in a primary topic discussion. See WP:NWFCTM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It was asked that a more substantive case be made for why this is not the primary topic of the term. I did a google search for "enclosure", and categorized the type of results returned. I looked at every site in the first 2 pages of results, excluding wikipedia, dictionaries, and thesauruses. I found 3 results broadly using enclosure in the sense that this article uses, and 9 using it in the sense of "a protective housing for an internal mechanism, usually electronics". This suggests to me that the primary topic for the term is the latter topic, and not the subject of this article. I encourage others to repeat my experiment with different search engines, larger sample sizes, etc, but this result should at least get us talking numbers/statistics/objective facts. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
That type of search conflates encyclopedia topics with dictionary definitions. It is obvious that the topic of this article is the only one that is an encyclopedia topic.Phmoreno (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
That is not at all "obvious" if one has bothered to look at Enclosure (disambiguation)! Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
...and not forgetting that the primary driving force behind Google is commercial. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I invite you to repeat my experiment with Google Scholar, or some other more appropriate search engine if you think normal googling is insufficient. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I get: scientific 10, political/historical 8 in the first two pages. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the discussion, none of the move proposals are better than the status quo. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to closer I'd propose what I think is an innovative approach. In the light of arguments above, you could close with a move to a disamed title here for say 2 months. At the end of that period we could see how the "primary" argument, based on pageviews, actually looks, and if necessary revisit. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Changing the solution doesn't address that no problem has been identified (per guideline). If a pageview argument is to be made in future, we may as well close this SNOW now. (BTW, there is a way such experiments have been done, which AFAIK isn't that way). In any case, as I said, historical tends to trump views per Apple vs Apple Inc. Widefox; talk 22:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
      • it's rather hard to follow what you're saying. Others commenting here don't seem to have any difficulty understanding what the problem is, even if they don't agree with the solution proposed. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2017 (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.

Land consolidation

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking for a general, world-focused article about land consolidation, I realized that we actually don't have one. Actually, there is a bare substub land consolidation, although it does include links to some decent sources, such as FAO. Further, we have a Germany-focused Flurbereinigung, which created a mess with Wikilinks on Wikidata, which I plan to untangle eventually. I introduced a couple of wikilinks and see alsos, but any expansion of land consolidation and possible rearrangement of material would be welcome (I think half of this article's see also's belong there). Just FYI. No such user (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Stay on topic

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Much of recent content added to article - and now deleted - had nothing to do with land enclosure in England, and for some of it, nothing to do with land. Suggesting create other articles. David notMD (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Rather than an edit war, let's discuss here. My hope is that other editors of this article will participate, and a consensus can be reached. Again, my opinion is that this article needs to be limited to the topic of land enclosure in England, with perhaps a small section on other countries, and nothing at all on e-commons topics. David notMD (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
In general I agree. The material deleted was too close to WP:soapbox. Material noting a modern re-use of the word (to apply to the digital landscape) belongs in a dictionary rather than in an encyclopedia – though I can see a case for an entirely separate article on that topic, with a hat note on this one to say that it is about the Inclosure Acts. On the other hand, there is a strong case to include contemporaneous appropriations in other countries, provided that it can be shown that they were operated in substantially the same way. So that would exclude modern eminent domain (compulsory purchase), --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I wish to add my agreement to deletion of this material to keep the article "on topic". I see this article as being about an activity in history, with some limited relevance (through a "see also" link?) to dispossession of people in modern times which I feel would be better dealt with in a separate article. Any attempt to deal at any length with similar modern events in this article could easily drift into a confusing and expanding mess.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The article will be vulnerable to this as long as the title is so broad. But this was excessive in several ways. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the title is a technical term. I don't think we can do a great deal about that (unless you have any suggestions).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It can and should still be disambiguated. See the massive failed proposal just above, which only failed because there were too many options, and people couldn't settle on one. In fact I see you participated in it! Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am very aware of the discussion on the article title - my own personal conclusion of that discussion is that there is no obvious answer - hence my recent "unless you have any suggestions". The only thought I can add is to revert to "Inclosure", which is the spelling used by most contemporary sources - but this does not seem popular.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Poor English?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The paragraph that includes "from Dorchester" is difficult to read. Has it perhaps been copied too literally from the letter? The use of 'lives' (generations?) and the strange character after 15,20, 30, and 100 (pounds?) are odd, and the grammar seems a mix of modern and archaic. Could someone who knows about this subject perhaps tidy it up to make it more readable please? G.turner (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of George Orwell quotation

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I question the relevance of the George Orwell quotation in the article. This is an academic and historical subject - surely WP:HISTRS comes into play here. Can anyone suggest why Orwell's contribution might have any value to the article? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it's used as a reliable source for facts, but is an attributed quote, so the essay (not policy) that you link to is not relevant. The question is whether he is noteworthy for his viewpoint on this subject. As one of the most prominent cultural critics in modern British history, widely read on many aspects of British politics and history, it's fair to include his observation. Cambial foliage❧ 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I can understand what underlies ThoughtIdRetired's challenge because the Orwell quote just seems misplaced in the body where it is, but like CY, I consider it relevant and deserves to be in the article. So I have made a bold edit to put it in a side box like an illustration: it adds 'colour' and doesn't break up the flow of the body (which is a wall of text, btw, if anyone can see a nice way to give it subsection headings). It may be that putting it next to the Marxist analysis is a bit pointed, better location welcome. Or of course revert if strongly disliked. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion
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: Not moved, early close per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


Enclosure → Enclosure of land – A simple search engine query shows that there is no primary topic for this title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Why? You haven't given any reason for why you think this is necessary. Enclosure is the standard term in the literature, and undoubtedly what most people are looking for (the only paranthetically disambiguated titles are a very obscure film and a little-used archaeological term). Your proposal also fails to follow WP:UCRN. The current term is the most appropriate title. Cambial foliage❧ 21:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

- did you see the last debate above? Enclosure of common land seems best for what the article is about. I don't like "enclosure movement" either. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • As explained in the previous discussion, Enclosure of common land is an incorrect title choice. If the article were better written, that might be clearer to editors not very familiar with the subject. One part of the problem is that "common land" has a different meaning in ordinary usage today from the technical historical term that described this sort of land tenure. Another is that it was not just commons that were enclosed, and some commons were left unenclosed when the arable land was. (see The Transformation of Rural England, Tom Williamson, pg 7) Most of the land was in the form of open fields and some was waste (in the technical sense that it was not used for agriculture). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I suggest that discussion of how best to rename this article can and should be left until after there is [or is not] a consensus to principle that the current article should give way to the disambiguation article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Looking back at the outcome of the 2017 discussion, one of conclusions was that there should also be a consensus alternative name. So can we at least split the discussion clearly into two subsections: (1) the principle: should [[Enclosure]] be a disambiguation article or an English history/geography article and [separately] (2) if the former, how should the latter be renamed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (1) "A simple search engine query...". Not adequate evidence of a problem as (a) search engines usually tailor their output to match the user's searches (b) there is more to this than what is found on the internet. (2) Ground hog day (see above). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, reluctantly. Looking at the question from a purely English POV, of course I want to oppose but in all honesty it is not a sustainable argument. Certainly the current article is the primary topic when writing about the history and geography of England, but en.wiki is worldwide and we must accept that a usage specific to England cannot claim to be a worldwide primary topic. Almost all the articles listed in the current disambiguation article each has equal claim to primacy in its own domain. The serious problem with the current arrangement is that when someone writes [[enclosure]] in an article that has nothing to do with England, no error will be apparent and no bot will come along to tell them that they have used an ambiguous term. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The reasons given at end of the previous discussion still apply:
no other primary encyclopedic topic named 'Enclosure' is present which would necessitate a disambiguation moving this page
No clear need to change the title has been proposed, nor has any such need been identified during the discussion.
any future proposed move should identify...why the existing title is unsuitable (with reference to PRIMARYTOPIC)
Neither proposer nor those offering support to the principle have even attempted to do this with reference to PRIMARYTOPIC. The subject area is Western European history, but that is not a reason to pretend that the other pages with parenthetically disambiguated titles are equally likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for the term. The notion that each has equal claim to primacy in its own domain is inaccurate, but more importantly is not a criterion for determining the primary topic. If the primary topic were ambiguous, we would see fairly large numbers of views of the disambiguation page compared to those of Enclosure. The evidence speaks for itself: over the last three years, the disambiguation page has fewer than 1.5% number of pageviews of the present article. In other words, more than 59 out of every 60 page visitors landing here did not seek the disambiguation page. Comparison across the parenthesised articles gives similar results. The John Frusciante record is the only one which is even perceptible in the data (~6.5% of views). Fan as I am of some of his work, it is clearly no contender for primary topic. This doesn't even touch upon long-term significance and educational value, for which there is no comparison: with some effort I was able to locate eight extant books and one in press whose subject is the archaeological term (all highly specialist academic literature); there are of course none for the film or record. This figure runs to multiple hundreds for the present article subject, including both popular, academic, and specialist books. Cambial foliage❧ 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I didn't look at the figures which would seem to speak for themselves. I withdraw my support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • the disambiguation page has fewer than 1.5% number of pageviews of the present article. In other words, more than 59 out of every 60 page visitors landing here did not seek the disambiguation page This is misleading. In general, the vast majority of views of any given Wikipedia article are the result of someone clicking a link, not searching. Colin M (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
      • You haven’t given any evidence for this claim. If we were to suppose it to be true, it wouldn’t make any difference to the point made, and wouldn’t render anything in that post misleading. Cambial foliage❧ 07:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Of course it would make a difference. If someone follows a wikilink to get to the article, they're probably not going to then go to the disambiguation page because they meant to read about a different sense of enclosure (unless the original wikilink was mistargeted). The failure mode where someone goes from here to the dab only comes up with search. 1.5% is a lower bound on the rate of primary topic misfires, but the actual number will be significantly higher, and will be a function of the ratio of pageviews that come from search vs. links. Colin M (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
          • If someone follows a wikilink to get to the article, they're probably not going to then go to the disambiguation page because they meant to read about a different sense of enclosure (unless the original wikilink was mistargeted). If they followed a wikilink here, and the link was not mistargeted, then this is the article they were looking for. This has nothing to do with determining the primary topic. Neither I nor anyone has suggested that 1.5% is the level of "primary topic misfires"; I said that (at least) the other 98.5% of "visitors landing here did not seek the disambiguation page", which remains true, and given other routes to that page is an upper bound on the 1.5% figure. We have (and I cite above) figures across all the relevant articles, including three redirects. The sum total of all the other articles' pageviews is roughly one seventh that of this article. So your supposition that the actual number will be significantly higher, based on a hypothetical claim for which you provide no evidence, can easily be shown in fact not to be the case. Cambial foliage❧ 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cambial's comment above. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 21:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments at the last RM, and also Cambial's analysis above.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enclosure/Archive_2&oldid=1143877392"