Talk:Kilburn, London

Disambiguation

The vast majority of the 160 links to the Kilburn disambiguation page are meant for this article. MRSC • Talk 11:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2016

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: No Consensus to Move - note to nominator - although PRIMARY topic was the implied rationale for the move, the argument provided Other place names with that name are minor and nowhere near as notable is invalid from a policy/guideline standpoint--WP does not weigh relative topic WP:Notability in any policy/guideline based decision. Once deemed notable, a topic remains notable, no more, no less than any other comparable notable topic. Mike Cline (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

---

• Kilburn, London → Kilburn
• Kilburn → Kilburn (disambiguation)

– The London district is the one main thing associated with 'Kilburn'. Other place names with that name are minor and nowhere near as notable. The current Kilburn page would be moved to a new disambiguation page. --TransportJone (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – What motivates such absurd primary topic grabs? Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose' - same as Talk:Blackheath, London, no benefit and no evidence. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views and search results. SSTflyer 08:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Ambiguous name unlikely to be known outside S.E England/Ireland, fails to identify the topic adequately. And I'm an NW6-er! Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• 2 in support (myself included), 3 against. Since it is very tight (and not as many replies as I thought), I will keep this on hold for further replies before deciding. Also, please see a similar move proposal on Talk:Blackheath, London. --TransportJone (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. No popular usage outside of the British Isles. Filpro (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Again, as at Blackheath, SST Flyer's page view statistics make compelling reading, and show the London suburb to be vastly more read than any of the others put together. Plus the second place on the page view list is Kilburn White Horse, which isn't properly a contender for the plain Kilburn name anyway. The first two oppose votes above don't seem to give us any reason as to why this is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, other than an implied general opposition to the whole concept of PRIMARYTOPICs, which should be summarily dismissed as a valid reason.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kilburn, London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602000714/http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070321221332/http://hampstead.rootschat.net/kilburn.htm to http://hampstead.rootschat.net/kilburn.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209001443/http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=531178 to http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=531178
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219020157/http://www.anthropologymatters.com/journal/2003-2/ryan2003_greenfieldskilburn.pdf to http://www.anthropologymatters.com/journal/2003-2/ryan2003_greenfieldskilburn.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kilburn, London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024065058/http://opal.ukc.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/ccc.py?mode=single&start=0&search=kilburn%20march to http://opal.ukc.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/ccc.py?mode=single&start=0&search=kilburn%20march

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kilburn, London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.london24.com/news/old-london/eight_old_pictures_of_kilburn_1_3690378
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208225235/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2007/09/27/story43673.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2007/09/27/story43673.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711164649/http://www.jackdromey.org/about-jack to http://www.jackdromey.org/about-jack

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2021

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 to move, i.e. dab page at the base title is generally considered as an optimal solution. No such user (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• Kilburn, London → Kilburn
• Kilburn → Kilburn (disambiguation)

– I believe Kilburn, London is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Kilburn. As stated on that page I have used the pageview analysis tool to compare all the listed articles on that disambiguation page solely named "Kilburn". The analysis proves that Kilburn, London is dominant out of all these links and therefore qualifies as a primary topic. Permalink of the analysis: .

The Kilburn disambiguation page shows that there are five articles solely bearing the name "Kilburn" apart from Kilburn, London: Kilburn, Derbyshire, Kilburn, North Yorkshire, Kilburn, South Australia, and Kilburn (surname). Here is the pageview analysis again of 5 years' data:

• Kilburn, London has had 13x more views (357k) compared to second placed Kilburn, North Yorkshire (27k) and represents 86% of views for all these five pages.
• The monthly average views is also 86% of all these pages.
• With 146 edits it has more than the rest combined; and with 97 editors it has more editors than the rest combined as well.
• It also has more content in bytes than the other four combined.

Because Kilburn, London, has multiple times the view numbers, edits, editors, plus size and content of the other Kilburn pages (i.e. proving popularity and long-term notability), there is no doubt in my mind that Kilburn, London is a primary topic and should be moved to Kilburn.

References

– Jf81 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 19:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Kilburn titles a dab page with significant content and so is ineligible as a new page title unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• No thanks, no benefit to anyone from ambiguating this. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• comment, leaning oppose. For me, with London-biased search results, the district is the closest thing to a primary topic but as most of the search results are for services (bars, restaurants, churches, etc) in Kilburn rather than about the place it seems this is very likely to be an artefact of my geography rather than global relevance. I'd like to see input from those firmly outside the London bubble before firming up my opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf:: I dunno if this helps, from a computer in Liverpool (still Britain, though). Xyl 54 (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Of the things called "Kilburn", this article gets 84 percent of pageviews. That's plenty for a primarytopic by usage, and I don't see any counterarguments from a significance perspective. It's helpful to readers and editors alike when a primarytopic is treated as such. Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. There were 131 views of the dab page in November [1], and 57 of these, or about 44%, resulted in clicks through to Kilburn, London (according to the clickstream dataset). While this makes the place the most prominent one with the name, it's below the threshold for a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Uanfala: how does the clickstream dataset work? I couldn't figure it out. It seems like 44% is a large percentage to click onto one topic, and that there might be a significant percentage who do not go on to click a different "Kilburn" topic, making this one the primarytopic after all. Anyhow, I'd appreciate the technical help/tutorial. Dohn joe (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It's a bit clunky. You'd need to get the 380 MB file https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/clickstream/2020-11/clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv.gz, extract it to a 1.4 GB text file, and then search inside for the entry with Kilburn in the first column and Kilburn,_London in the second. The dataset doesn't include source-destination pairs with fewer than 10 hits a month, and it has no other entries for traffic from Kilburn, from which you can conclude that the place in London is at least 6x more visited than the next most popular entry on the dab page. Yes, we don't know how many people don't continue their navigation after the dab page, although I don't expect that to be a significant number (unless there's some famous topic with the name that's not yet covered here on Wikipedia?). A handy extract of the clickstream dataset for the most visited dab pages is available at User:Certes/Dabclick. – Uanfala (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Disappointing to find it so clunky, I'd like to use it for this kind of thing. Dohn joe (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I suppose someone might look at a dab like John Quested, see at a glance that neither entry is the non-notable chap of that name they know personally, and move on. That probably counts as a successful use of the dab. Certes (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I have often used disambiguation pages as a means to get a list of things called X. There was also an occasion recently where I knew there were three large cities called Tripoli, I could remember two were in Libya and Lebanon but couldn't remember where the third was but Tripoli (disambiguation) told me it was in Greece so I didn't need to look further. How common these uses of dab pages are I have no idea. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• There is old discussion on this at User talk:Rich nffc#Reverts and it was moved due to apparently it being not as significant as the Derbyshire one apparently due to this one not being a separate settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose since disambiguation is generally more effective than a primary-topic claim, and appears to be the case here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Uanfala's analysis. (t · c) buidhe 01:03, 15 January 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.