Talk:John Leland

History

Due to page moves and necessary redirects, this disambiguation page was created from the text of what had been John Leland (disambiguation) which now redirects to John Leland. The history of the disambiguiation page prior to the page moves can been seen at the history page of "John Leland (disambiguation)". Novaseminary (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. As Pmanderson notes, a number of arguments against this move were quite groundless. However, what we should consider is whether the antiquarian is the most likely topic people want when searching for "John Leland", and that has not been established—as seen in Novaseminary's set of statistics and acknowledged by Cavila, the antiquarian doesn't receive overwhelmingly more pageviews than the other articles. Ucucha 16:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

---

John Leland → John Leland (disambiguation) —

• see below Cavila (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • And after that, John Leland (antiquary) → John Leland
• No doubt the best known John Leland is the antiquarian of this name, as witnessed, for instance, by the number of internal links intended for this person Cavila (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:PRIME, to consider John Leland (antiquary) the primary article (thus justifying this move) it should be "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" to be what is sought "when a reader clicks the 'Go' button for that term." By my addition of last month's page views, John Leland (antiquary) received 1611 views while the other linked articles received 1711 views, this despite the huge disparity in internal wikilinking. It does seem that the antiquarian is the most viewed by quite a bit, but the others together weigh against this move. And one of the other articles is only a stub but covers an active journalist with a major newspaper who also writes books and who is likely to become more notable and receive more hits and links as the years pass (I suspect the antiquary has peaked!). I don't think there is any way to know whether a particular view came from a wikilink or via a search box hit, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of the antiquary’s views come from wikilinks and most of the others come from Go searches that led to this disamb page (which received 724 hits). Novaseminary (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny, the Grok stats tell me a different story: 1611 views (for the antiquarian) against 1121 views (for the other three Lelands together). Add to that Wikipedia's internal links as well as Google Books (also per WP:Prime) and the picture looks clear to me. People click on links for a reason, so to suggest that readers accidentally hit upon a page, or worse, that such avenues don't count, really makes no sense to me. Cavila (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment The three articles covering individuals had 1121, to which I added the 590 hits for John Leland Center for Theological Studies (the other linked to page on the disamb page) to arrive at 1711. I did not mean to suggest that people accidentally click on links. I only meant to suggest that only a fraction of the hits on John Leland (antiquary) were from the Go search box (which is part of the criteria). People arriving via a wikilink aren't having disamb problems anyway. That point aside, the other links on the page combine to total more his than John Leland (antiquary). And that is without an article for the Member of Parliament (which I will create a stub for in a bit). Undoubtedly Google Book hits favor John Leland (antiquary), but Google news hits favor John Leland (journalist). Novaseminary (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have now created John Leland (MP), though I doubt it will garner a huge number of views anytime soon! Novaseminary (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support as long-established primary usage. Since the article on the Center will never be called simple John Leland, including it is bafflegab. On second thought, make that Strong support; argumentation like that below should not be tolerated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment One other reference point, a regular google web search for "John Leland" brings up John Leland (Baptist) first, follwoed by links to pages about the Baptist and the journalist and photos of both of them. Novaseminary (talk)
• Comment I have now added John Leland Atwood and John Leland Champe to the see also section. If anything, I think these further support keeping the disamb as John Leland. Novaseminary (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This is special pleading to the point of absurdity; even the egregious nonsense lower down is not as bad. We do not regard Thomas Jefferson as ambiguous because of the large number of people with T.J. for initials. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry to add so many short comments, but another thought ocurred to me. Per John Leland (antiquary), the antiquary's name is also recorded as John Leyland (and John Leyland already redirects to John Leland (antiquary)). The fact that this person's name is not even always recorded as John Leland also further supports keeping the article names as they are and not moving his article to John Leland. Novaseminary (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. All seventeenth century names have spelling variations in contemporary usage; William Shakespeare never spelled his name the same way twice. Nevertheless, there is a conventional modern spelling for Leland, and Shakespeare, and Pepys, and all the others; and Shakespeare duly redirects there and not to the disambiguation page, despite the American football player.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize that seventeenth century names have spelling variations. I merely suggested, as one of several points, the fact that the inconsistent spelling might lend support, however little, to not moving the primary page to the inconsistently spelled person. Novaseminary (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• • It would be more honest, and on the whole more convincing, to plead "it's my school/my denomination and I want this obscure person, world famous in my parish, to have equal billing with the well-known John Leland"; it might not work, but it would at least be in good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your personal attack was entirely unsupported and inappropriate. I have no affiliation with the school linked on the disamb page (I started an article for it and several other schools/academic institutions). I have made more edits to other church's articles than I have to the denomination of either of the religious linkees (the Baptist (#1 on Google Web) or Presbyterian)-- see United Church of Canada for instance). I have no affiliation with the journalist (#1 of the five on Google News), though I created the article covering him and have edited articles of other NY Times people. I would also note, that in the last day or two I have added over 20 wikilinks to the journalist without adding a single word of text -- his work is already widely cited on WP.

I do wonder what problem is solved by moving John Leland (antiquary) to John Leland. I also wonder what I said in arguing WP guidelines that justified Pmanderson implying I was less than honest. It was my second-level, minor arguments that turned Pmanderson into a "Strong Support." That is odd, because the only facts that changed since he initially weighed-in on the wrong page (probably because this multi-step move proposal did not follow the right procedure) is the creation of a former redlink that the nominator deleted before proposing the change (John Leland (MP)) and the linking of two additional "see alsos" with John Leland in theri name. I maintain that my initial opposition is sufficient to oppose the move, I was merely adding thoughts. My additional thoughts, rather than the facts, seem to have caused Pmanderson to strengthen his vote.

Rather than arguing here, perhaps we should be inproving the John Leland (antiquary) article, it is in terrible shape. I realize that WP often devolves into childish mudslinging, but perhaps we could strive to keep this discussion a bit more civil.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee, you really are desperate! I also wonder about some things, but that doesn't mean I'll go and fling around a couple of irrelevant comments as you did. What have (1) the "John Leland Center for Theological Studies" and "John Leland Champe", (2) the existence of contemporary spelling variations or (3) the quality of the article got to do with anything? I agree that your “additional thoughts” didn't do you much credit, so what ‘facts’ do you imagine are supporting your case then? Also, maybe you could familiarise yourself with WP:Article name and WP:RS. All the best, Cavila (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for flinging around what one could perceive as irrelevant comments. I still wonder why we need to make this personal and whether my invocation of what you perceive to be irrelevant facts justifies personal attacks. Regardless, the facts are these:

• 1. The hits last month of articles on the disamb page to articles other than John Leland (antiquarian) (the "others") together add up to more than the hits to the antiquary article. If you do not include hits to John Leland Center for Theological Studies (though WP:PRIME is silent on this), the combined hits of the "others" do not exceed the antiquary hits. I do not think we can be sure that "the article on the Center will never be called simple John Leland" by a person searching for it as suggested above, but I cannot think of a way to prove it either way.

• 2. If you go back to February, the article hits are as follows - 762, antiquary (with 23 of those coming from the Leyland redirect); 177, journalist; 507, Baptist; 80, Presbyterian; 4, the MP (and the article was not created yet); 268, the Center. Even if one does not subtract the 23 hits that came from the Leyland redirect (which we know did not come from somebody typing John Leland) and one does not count any hits to the Center, the "others" hits are still greater (if barely) than the antiquary hits. Assuming one does not count hits to the Center (for the sake of argument, because if one does, the hits in favor of the "others" are greatly increased), by my addition, the "others" received more hits in January than the antiquary, while the antiquary received more hits in March.

• 3. The antiquary receives the most hits in a Google books search, I think and will take Cavila's word for it--although the first hit listed is to the Baptist and the second hit is to the journalist.

• 4. The journalist receives the most hits in a Google news search.

• 5. The Baptist appears most often and higher-up in a Google web search on the first page, though in one recent search, a NY Times page pointing to the journalist was the first hit.

• 6. Since last month, Cavila deleted the redlink for John Leland (MP) despite several articles having redlinks to the same. I've since created that article and returned its link to the disamb page. I noted that I do not anticipate that this article would receive a huge number of hits, but it will be more than zero (as it has been the past few months, at least), thus increasing the disparity between the total hits to "others" articles and the hits to the antiquary article in some months, or closing the gap between the "others" and the antiquary in other months (if one chooses not to count hits to the Center or the other "see alsos" which would place the "others" on top every month).

• 7. In the last few days, I expanded the journalist article just a bit, added many proper wikilinks pointing to the article, and added some categories. I would expect this stub to get more hits in the future as a result. The journalist/author is quite notable, and increasingly so. As I mentioned, I would expect the trend to be for more hits proportionally to this article as time passes.

• 8. I also added listings for two other individuals for whom John Leland makes up their first and middle names; I would not weigh that heavily in the analysis.

Placing most weight on Nos. 1-5 above as seems proper to me per WP:PRIME and under the assumption that hits should not be discounted based on link disparity, I think the facts together weigh in favor of keeping John Leland as the disambiguation page rather than the anitquary page. In fact, I think Nos. 1 and 2 pretty much do it, with 3, 4, and 5 being frosting on the proverbial cake. I do not think John Leland (antiquary) is "more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the 'Go' button" after typing John Leland, especially going forward. I, therefore, continue to oppose the series of moves. Novaseminary (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your new reasons are as fraudulent as your old ones. Why do people view the related articles? Did they come here first, or second, or what? Are they the same people? How can we tell?

Google has several systematic errors, and should not be trusted. See WP:Search engines. Even if it were a fair sample of the web, the web is incurably present-minded, and overwhelmingly American; the hits for any American will be higher (and in the case of one with a loyal student body looking him up, far higher) than his proportion of English-speaking discourse as a whole. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I urge the closing admin to note that all the opposition here is from one editor; that he has provided no reasons that are in accord with policy or practice, or indeed any that make sense to anybody else. If I knew the drive behind this disruptive nonsense, I would see if I could find a compromise; as it is, I can only recommend that this be closed by force of argument, not by his often repeated voice. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

John Leland the antiquary is better known than all the other John Lelands put together; the Center (an article which needs to have the puffery taken out of it) and the people with Leland as a middle name are irrelevant. That's primary usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder how Pmanderson refutes Facts 1 & 2 above? Or why Pmanderson thinks they are irrelevant? As noted above, even if one disregards hits to every article except those of individuals with the full name of John Leland, it is still not apparent that somebody typing in John Leland is more likely looking for John Leland the antiquary rather than looking for one of the four other John Lelands listed on the disambiguation page. That is what WP:PRIME requires. Whether John Leland the antiquary is better known among all of the people of the world than all the other John Lelands put together is not the question we need to answer per WP:PRIME, and Pmanderson cites nothing for this fact in any event. Pmanderson seems to want to disregard WP:PRIME and go with his intuition. I don't doubt that the web is "incurably present minded." Seeing as Wikipedia is on the Web, though, why should we discount the fact that people using the Web might be searching for more modern topics? And if Google searches are so terrible, why are they listed on the policy as possibly helpful? And why not call out Cavila for first bringing Google (book) searches into this discussion (quite rightly, in my opinion, and that of the consensus represented by WP:PRIME)? If Pmanderson has a problem with WP:PRIME, this is not the place to argue it. And I wish he would stop the personal attacks. Attack my reasoning, presentation of the facts, what have you, but let's keep it focused on the arguments. Novaseminary (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the interest of providing more statistics rather than gut feelings, I went back and looked at the December & November 2009 article hit statistics. In December, John Leland (antiquary) received 586 views, John Leland (Baptist) received 491, the John Leland (Presbyterian) received 143, John Leland (journalist) received 117, and John Leland (MP) received 2. That totals 753 views for the John Leland articles other than the antiquary (not adding any of the see alsos that so bother Pmanderson). So far this month, the others also have significantly more views combined than the antiquary (though hits brought on by this proposal might be skewing things) in December. In November, John Leland (antiquary) received 606 views, John Leland (Baptist) received 520, the John Leland (Presbyterian) received 125, John Leland (journalist) received 136, and John Leland (MP) received 2. That totals 783 views for the John Leland articles other than the antiquary in November.

That means the "others" had more hits (again, without including any hits for the Center or anyone or anything other than the listed John Leland articles) in the months of November, December, February, March, and so far in May. The antiquary had more in January and April. It appears that for at least the last six months, one cannot say that John Leland (antiquary) is "more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the 'Go' button" after typing John Leland.

Novaseminary (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's actually the first sensible thing you said so far! OK, so April just happened to be a peak month for the antiquary, compared to previous months, and it's too early to tell what the future may bring, especially now that you've created two new stubs for two modestly notable namesakes (if I may include John E. Leland), which slightly changes things. Even if Grok stats are still far from water-proof, as both you and Pmanderson have pointed out, though for different reasons, I can accept the conclusion that we don't have overwhelming evidence for primary usage as far as those stats are concerned. Incoming wiki-links, the other yardstick listed at WP:Prime for determining primary usage, are less ambiguous, but then again, I would hate to see you cry. Cavila (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The only change needed is to move John Leland to John Leyland. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? The discussion may have confused you (and understandably so), but not one of those listed there is better known as "John Leyland". Cavila (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The only change needed is to move John Leland (antiquary) to John Leyland since he is know by the second name and that is a preferred form for disambiguation. 06:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he's hardly ever referred to by that name in reliable secondary sources. That was just another of Nova's blunt tactics. Cavila (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.