Talk:Gang of Four (disambiguation)

Untitled

The original Gang of Four should be at the beginning. The term was coined for them. The entries for "gang of four" in dictionaries[1] are about them. --82.91.32.67 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian NPOV

I intend to remove the members of the Rudd cabinet from this disambiguation page as I think that it's POV and not a common usage. In fact, outside of that Australian article I have never heard the term used in relation to those four. If you have a problem, reply to this comment. BullNiro (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

---

• Gang of Four (disambiguation) → Gang of Four
• Gang of Four → Gang of Four (Chinese political group)

– There is absolutely no indication that this historical political faction in the People's Republic of China is the primary topic. Thus, I propose to move the dab page Gang of Four (disambiguation), leaving a redirect, to Gang of Four. In turn, the current Gang of Four would be moved to Gang of Four (Chinese political group), or another proposed name decided by consensus in the discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 03:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per every indication in GBooks and Pageviews. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support with amendment. If moved, the name for the Chinese political faction should be Gang of Four (China) which (a) is a simpler title and (b) already exists.

To the best of my knowledge, the term originated with the Chinese faction. Because of its political significance, it has a claim to WP:PTOPIC status under criterion #2.

Most of the entries on the DAB page can be disregarded as relatively minor. One, however, cannot: Gang of Four (band). During 2019, the band averaged 434 views/day and the Chinese faction 760. I do not consider a ratio of 1.75 "much more likely than any other single topic" (criterion #1). IMO, there is no PTOPIC.

I looked at the links-in to Gang of Four. I fixed 58 obvious bad links, all but 3 to the band; somewhere around 10%. That error rate is simply unacceptable. Such links are unhelpful to readers and are bad for the encyclopaedia. If the move is made, WP:FIXDABLINKS will be needed on the rest.

(I thought that Gang of Four (SDP) might be a competitor to the other two, but it evidently isn't: 39 views/day is appreciable, but nowhere near the front-runners. As a footnote to history, the SDP, who at one time rode high in the opinion polls, packed it in when they finished 7th in a by-election, behind the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.) Narky Blert (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Although I'm rather fond of the band, the term primarily originates from and primarily refers to the group of four political leaders. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  BarrelProof, There's no indication that the historical usage in China. I wasn't even thinking of the band, which I'd not heard of, as having even close to potential for primary topic. Looking at the dab page, there are just too many current and historical topics for, in a global encyclopedia, there to be a clear and convincing primary topic here. I have no objections to the amendment proposed to the second target by Narky Blert above. Doug Mehus T·C 13:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  BarrelProof, Also note Narky Blert's compelling analysis on fixing the in-links to the current Gang of Four. 55 out of 58 corrections the editor made were to Gang of Four (band), not the political group, which is an astonishingly high error rate. In my view, that, combined with Narky's pageview analysis, add strong support to the idea there is no clear primary topic. Making the dab page Gang of Four would at least mean that those incorrectly linking to Gang of Four would get botslapped by the DAB solving bot, so they would be able correct the link. A slightly weaker case could be made for moving to Gang of Four (band) to Gang of Four, with hatnotes to the dab page and Gang of Four (China), given the common and expected usage; however, given the historical context for the Chinese political group, I'm not proposing to do that. I strongly feel as though we need to move the dab page—the inlink error rate provided by Narky, arguably, provides the strongest evidence. Doug Mehus T·C 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Narky Blert's rationale uses circular Wikipedia logic to "prove" that something is or isn't the primary topic. A large number of incorrect dab links is evidence that Wikipedia editors are careless; it says nothing about the usage of "Gang of Four" in real life. The phrase is well known among academics, historians, and political commentators and all of the other Gangs of Four in politics are references to the Chinese group. Shifting the primary topic away from the actual source of the phrase smacks of Wikipedia's English speaking bias. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the original Gang of Four is still primary and always will be._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Axem Titanium. Internal links are not relevant. Srnec (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I'd probably think first of the founders of the SDP, I don't think there's any disputing that the Chinese group is the most significant by far in world history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose China's Gang of Four wielded immense power and caused incalculable damage; it took a world-shaking coup to dislodge them from power, paving the way for the rise of Deng Xiaoping and leading to the current political order in China and by extension, the world. All other Gangs of Four combined pale in comparison in terms of long-term significance. -Zanhe (talk) 21:28, 29 January 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.