Talk:Lincoln

Section headings

In this article especially, we need to be sensitive to varieties of English. In the UK certainly, and I think more generally outside the US, "school" refers only to pre-university insitutions - see School#Regional terms, so that "educational institution" is a more neutral term. Transit station is a US rather than British term, but does not seem to include mainline stations, whereas train station (perhaps better than "railway station"), can refer to either a mainline or a transit rail station.--Mhockey (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see something less long, clunky and burdensome than "educational institutions" but I'm not inclined to argue about it. I think "Rail stations" best encompasses the different types of stations in that section and I hope that you'll find that acceptable. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just using the same terms as used in the titles of the WP articles Educational institution and Train station. I have no strong preference between "train stations" and "rail stations", but if you do, you may want to propose a move of Train station.

I have fixed (again!) the redirect at Lincoln (Amtrak station) to reflect the changed section title.--Mhockey (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm deferring to your preference on the school heading, but I'll point out that contrary to your assertion, we don't have an article called Educational institution. We do have an article called School, which clearly uses the word to encompass all the types listed here. Also, at least in my part of the US, I believe "train station" tends to connote something different than the MBTA and RTD stations that are listed on this page (which are defined in their articles as a "rail station" and a "light rail station", respectively), while "rail station" can be more easily understood to apply to all six entries.

There may be inconsistencies with article titling and topic definitions in Wikipedia's coverage of both these subjects, which I'm not particularly bothered about, because my concern is not that this page's headings should align with the title schemes of some other articles that may be about some other topics. My concern is that someone looking for one of the entries on this page should be able to look at the table of contents and figure out, as quickly as possible, where the topic they're seeking is located. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I share your last concern. My original point was that someone (from outside the US) looking for "Lincoln" in the sense of Lincoln College, Oxford would not expect to find it under "Schools". Having lived in both the UK and US, I thought I knew about most of the linguistic differences, but I had not realised that the things that stop at "light rail stations" are not "trains" in the US! --Mhockey (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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. 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: too many other uses. DrKiernan (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Lincoln → Lincoln (disambiguation) – The idea is to make "Lincoln" a redirect to "Abraham Lincoln". I realize that there are many things named Lincoln but with over one million views is there doubt that Honest Abe is the primary topic?Hoops gza (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:CSB. See also previous RM in Archive: The result of the move request was: not moved. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Everyone in Europe would probably expect the town should be natural WP:PRIMARY in an encyclopedia, certainly not an American politician. Britannica treats as disambiguator, see http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Lincoln In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So? Most people clicking on this page aren't from Europe pbp 06:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we have WP:CSB. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

CSB isn't a policy or guideline, bud. The policies and guidelines say you should consider basing it on quantifiable measures. If there's any bias on this page, it's a systemic bias towards Europe and away from the U.S. Countering systemic bias(even if it is policy, which it isn't here) doesn't mean "screw over the majority because the minority wants to and is vocal" pbp 01:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• 100% support: Maybe the small town gets more hits in Europe, but most people who type in "Lincoln" aren't in Europe. For the past few years, Abe Lincoln has been getting twice as many hits as all the other Lincoln-titled pages combined. Awhile back, a guy did a test to see how much of Abe's traffic came from this disam page; Lincoln got more hits from this page than the British town got period. He's pretty clearly the primary topic, and the fact that Lincoln doesn't redirect to him is very UK-centric pbp 06:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the car brand is fairly prominent. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - I seem to recall this was discussed before. Lincoln in Lincolnshire is hardly a 'small town', some of us over here would refer to Abraham Lincoln as a minor president. I regret having to have this page but it has worked for quite a few years. There is NO need to change the situation. Dsergeant (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Can you quantifiably prove that Abe Lincoln isn't the primary topic? (Remember, the guidelines on PT suggest determining it by quantifiable means pbp 14:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - We've been here a million times before, a disambiguation page here is most appropriate, there are a high number of popular uses of the word Lincoln, like the car and town. Jeni ^(talk) 09:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeni, looking at it quantifably, those things don't get nearly the traffic that a Vital article does. The consensus is just plain wrong, sorry...the "Lincoln is a primary topic" people have quantifable arguments. Your "argument" boils down to "Well, I think it isn't the primary topic", while the support argument boils down to "I can prove it's the primary topic with this link and this other link" pbp 14:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm sure this has been hashed out many times before, but I anyway don't think there's a primary topic here. Lincoln, England, Lincoln, Nebraska and Abraham of that name are all prominent topics with this title.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. No clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with the articles Lincoln, England, Lincoln, Nebraska and Lincoln (automobile) significant enough to justify a disambig page. Zarcadia (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Let's look at some stats. Lincoln, England viewed 49,491 times over 90 days. In the same time frame Abraham Lincoln has been viewed 2,154,241 times. Even this page, Lincoln, gets more views [1] than Lincoln, England. Can anyone look at those stats and objectively say Honest Abe isn't the prime topic? Hot Stop (Edits) 12:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they can't. Abe Lincoln is the primary topic when supported by quantifiable metrics. The "oppose" topic has no quantifiable basis and is ignoring the guidelines that suggest that quantifiable metrics be used pbp 14:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As the guy who set up the redirect Lincoln (president) for this purpose:

• 49,491 for Lincoln, England (could include paths other than the disambiguation)
• 27,422 for Lincoln (president) (unlikely to have significant non-dab paths)
• 81,635 for Lincoln, the disambiguation page

So, no, the traffic used to be closer to indicating primary-ness for the president, but does not currently. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: multiple important uses of the word, dab page is appropriate solution. PamD 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but one of those is a Vital article that gets an order of magnitude more hits than the others. Therefore, dab page is not the appropriate solution pbp 14:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: the current use allows to counter systemic bias Cambalachero (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

How so? The current use favors a small opinion (namely that of the U.K., 1% of the world's population) at the expense of other countries with much larger populations pbp 16:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely what Systemic bias is about. Wikipedia is not aimed to the majority of readers but to all readers. Cambalachero (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what systemic bias means. It means helping all members. A disambig page screws everybody, because nobody goes straight to the page they want. That's why we have primary topics, so that a large number of people won't get screwed. And Abraham Lincoln, a Vital article, is one of those topics pbp 22:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – a term this ambiguous should go to a disambig page. The claim "twice as many hits as all the other Lincoln-titled pages combined" might be true, but a more reasonable threshold for a popularity-based primary claim would be more like 10X in my opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Where you get those numbers? Saying it has to be 10x means you're say it's OK to inconvenience 60-70% of the people. That ain't right. If it were 9x more popular, then 90% of people would be looking for it, but by your criteria, it'd be OK to inconvience 90% of the people. That's nonsensical. It seems to me that you just picked numbers out of thin air. It's not ambiguous if 60-70&% of the people agree it's one thing pbp 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: to me in England "Lincoln" means the town in Lincolnshire in England. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's an invalid argument. You're saying, almost verbatim, "Well, I think Lincoln is the town in England", and you're ignoring the 'quantifiable evidence that most people don't think that pbp 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While there is abundant evidence that Abraham Lincoln is the primary topic for "Abraham Lincoln", there is no reason to conclude that it is therefore the primary topic for "Lincoln". In the last 90 days, there were 74292 hits for the disambiguation page. In the same period, there were 24474 hits for Lincoln (president), which is the special-purpose redirect used on the disambiguation page to help detect those arriving at the disambiguation page who are looking for the president. This suggests that roughly two-thirds of those arriving at the disambiguation page were looking for something else. older ≠ wiser 18:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Please consider that a lot of the hits right now for Lincoln are probably for the soon to be released film. Perhaps we should recheck the hits in a few months.Hoops gza (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: To me it does not matter what first comes to mind when you think of the word "Lincoln". Is that a conventional naming policy? Perhaps I don't know enough about this. But what I can't see is how anyone can argue with one million views/30 days.Hoops gza (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• The redirect of "Lincoln (president)" is hardly a source of logic for this debate. That search term does not even show up in the drop-down menu when you type in "Lincoln". Most of the people who type in "Lincoln" are probably looking for the pres.Hoops gza (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• The logic is that there is a number of counts for the disambiguation page. On the disambiguation page, there is an entry for the president. Presumably, people who have come to the disambiguation page looking for the president will use the link on the page. That link is to the redirect Lincoln (president). This gives a rough indication of the relative portion of the people coming to the disambiguation page who were looking for the president. If that number were close to the total number of hits for the dab page, that would be a strong indication that the president is the primary topic for the term "Lincoln". older ≠ wiser 23:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on CSB-related opposes: If anything, the current arrangement is more systemically biased than the proposed one. Oppose votes claim the proposed arrangement is too US-centric (5% of the population), but the current arrangement is very UK-centric (only 1%). And if somebody is going to claim, "well, the rest of the world agrees with the U.K.", I need quantifiable proof to believe it. Abraham Lincoln is very well known in Eastern Europe, Canada and Latin America. I think it's just as likely that those would break for the Vital Article with the big memorial, rather than the small town in England; also, it's more likely that they don't give a hoot about either, in which case they can't be put in either category pbp 01:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually if you try searching "Lincoln -Abraham Lincoln" on Google Books in Czech or Polish [select limit language] you will discover that "Lincoln", just the name on its own is very rarely used by Eastern European texts. For the same reason that Americans don't naturally say "Walesa" or "Havel" as a verbal redirect for (to Americans) unfamiliar president names.

Also that is now 12 purple squares saying you don't agree with WP:WORLDVIEW. I think we now all get the point, and it doesn't require any further repeating. Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I have to comment at least once more because you didn't get the jist of my last comment. The jist was that keeping it a disambiguation page doesn't make it more "world view", it shifts the bias from one country (the U.S.) to another, much smaller, country, the U.K. I don't see it as a violation of worldview/systemic bias; If anything, I see the current arrangement as a violation of worldview/systemic bias. And WP:WORLDVIEW isn't a policy or guideline, so it can be ignored pbp 22:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, you must know that arguing that American usage should have primacy over British usage because the USA has a bigger population doesn't hold much water on Wikipedia. There is no primacy of either country (despite your faintly ludicrous claims of UK-centrism) and any argument that there should be is bound to fail. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Bkonrad. Abraham Lincoln is the primary topic for "Abraham Lincoln" but not for just "Lincoln". —  AjaxSmack  02:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I suggest that whatever the outcome of this move is, also be applied to Churchill, which currently redirects to Winston Churchill instead of Churchill (disambiguation) being there... And if we want to counter systemic bias, why is it that systemically British villages of 10 people take the primary topic over North American cities of 50,000 people? "OH, because they're older". Warped view of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Completely different issues. The other uses of Lincoln (especially a very famous city in England) are far more notable than the other uses of Churchill (primarily, it seems, a fairly obscure town in Canada with a population of 813). And as for systemic bias, don't make me laugh! If there's any systemic bias on Wikipedia it's in favour of North America, not the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Bkonrad - the numbers suggest that Abraham Lincoln is not primarytopic for "Lincoln". bobrayner (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I feel that there is systematic bias at work here. Abe Lincoln is known throughout the United States as "Lincoln". For example, the expression goes "Lincoln freed the slaves". There is a major film coming out and it is called Lincoln not Abraham Lincoln. Isn't the United States the vast majority of English Wikipedia?Hoops gza (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I quite agree with that; in fact, I've said as much above. I also agree with what Floydian said above about Churchill (who in many ways is the British version of Lincoln; the idolized figure who led his people through a great war). The tenor of the oppose comments seem to indicate that systemic bias in favor of the U.K. is perfectly fine, but it's a problem when you have systemic bias in favor of the U.S. pbp 05:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the US is not the vast majority of English Wikipedia. The systematic bias comes in when people think it is. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, Dick, where are you getting your numbers? First the "it has to be 10x more popular to be a primary topic" and now this? The problem is that no matter how many or how few % of total readership or total population the U.S. is, it will always be considerably more than the U.K. And the current way is unduly biased in favor of the U.K. pbp 05:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing to the UK; English WP has a huge worldwide readership and contributor base. And I don't see any relevant bias toward the UK here; they are not particularly relevant to how we treat Lincoln, I think. Or Churchill for that matter. As for the 10X, don't misquote me; I was presenting my opinion, not numbers I got from somewhere. I don't see linking disambiguous terms to a disambig page as inconveniencing anyone, which is why I prefer such numbers. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A disambiguation page inconveniences everyone who doesn't get to straight to the page they were looking for. If you type Lincoln looking for the president, the movie, the capital of Nebraska, or the small town in England, you have to go through a disambiguation page before you get what you want. Whereas, with the primary topic, only people who don't get to what they're looking for are inconvenienced. That's why there is primary topic pbp 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would be skeptical about such claims of systematic bias in favour of "British villages of 10 people" - look at what happened to Crouch, Swale's requested moves (ie. Boston). Sometimes we do have a hint of a bias towards the "original" settlement, where a larger one elsewhere in the world inherited its name (ie. certain Dutch and South African towns) but it's rarely so lopsided. If there are any which you think need to be fixed, RM them! bobrayner (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we have. Plymouth (England) for example, gets ~30% of the views of things named Plymouth (car, town in Mass., colony around that town, other towns). Certainly not enough for primary topic, that's ≤55-60%. It wasn't moved. Why? Because British editors GOTVed and dominated the discussion. And honestly, the fact that Boston was even considered is systemic bias in favor of the U.K. pbp 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I must say, it's quite funny seeing American editors getting miffed about something we in the rest of the world have been combatting in reverse since Wikipedia was started. Pots, kettles and hypocrisy anyone? And of course Boston, Massachusetts should be the primary topic. So should Plymouth, England. Just common sense, which some (on both sides of the pond) seem to have a bit of trouble with. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as someone from "the rest of the world", I see a lot of UK and US bias on Wikipedia, since Australia, NZ, Canada, all just rolled over, even the language of their articles are sometimes written in British instead of the normal dialect. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The cathedral city in England has just as much claim to be primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a policy-based argument as to why the podunk English town has any claim at all? The only thing that is specifically delineated is article or Google hits, which favor Abe exponentially pbp 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the word "podunk", but I suspect it was intended as a childishly snide jab at an ancient city after which a county (of which it is the capital) and most of the other Lincolns here are named and which is home to one of the world's great medieval cathedrals which was for a long time the tallest man-made structure on earth. You're comparing that with a chap who, however famous, was around for only 56 years and particularly notable for only four of them. You want a policy? How about WP:BURO. We're not about slavishly applying non-existent rules here. We're about WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: what PamD said: "multiple important uses of the word, dab page is appropriate solution." --doncram 16:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This month, there were 6,596 views of Lincoln and 2,447 of Lincoln (president), vs 233,728 for Abraham Lincoln and 4,115 for Lincoln, Nebraska, and 3,834 for Lincoln (automobile). And the town in England? 2,853 views. Abraham Lincoln is more than clearly the primary topic. Apteva (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

All those numbers show is that a few people looking for Abraham Lincoln typed just 'Lincoln'. The vast majority clearly typed the full name, just as I would have done. Around a third of those who typed Lincoln were looking for the English city.Dsergeant (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. Apteva that is a baffling conclusion to draw from those numbers. 63% of the traffic to the dab page were looking for something other than the president. Certainly that suggests the disambiguation page is correctly placed. older ≠ wiser 12:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CSB This is the English language WP, not the British WP, not the US WP. The multiple uses across the English language demonstrate why this is a dab page.--Mhockey (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per traffic stats for the dab page and for the redirect from the dab page to the president article (included in the discussion above); the president article gets less than half the traffic to the dab page, so it's not primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, JHunterJ, for showing us the Lincoln (president) redirect hack as a way to get better data for such discussions. This example shows that the typical primaryname claim argument that we encounter in so many such move discussions is highly suspect, and probably often quite bogus. Article access count is an argument that has been used too much to remove precision from titles and keep readers from getting straight to the disambiguation info that they need when searching on ambiguous terms. Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  You're welcome. OTOH, this example does not show that the typical primary-ness claim is highly suspect, nor does it show that it is probably often quite bogus, but it does show that it can be easily measured in some cases. Readership usage is an argument that has consensus for giving articles adequate precision without making them clumsy through over-precision. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2012 (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.