Talk:Lingdian

Requested 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. 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: Undoing own WP:BRD - WP:SNOW. non-admin closure. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Lingdian (band) → Lingdian – The proposed title already redirects here, the only article by this name. Generally this move would be a simple case of removing unnecessary disambiguation, but it has proven controversial. See, for example, this AfD. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Seems evident and shouldn't be controversial. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Support the move. Thanks for notifying me of the proposed move. With changes in the original AfD article and new information coming to light, my old opinion is out of date. This move is reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support the move. Certainly no reason to disambiguate now. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Since DRV is open, it would be good to wait first until it gets closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I did not suggest to close this discussion, only to properly time the closure with the closure of the DRV.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support the move, which the closer of the AfD said that they would do as part of that closure - why wasn't it done? PamD 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It was, but that was reverted per WP:BRD. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Procedural close. User:BDD, User:Uncle Milty, User:Taylor Trescott, User:PamD, User:Mark viking, please see the comment of AfD closing admin Ymblanter "Since Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 25 is open, it would be good to wait first until it gets closed." (talk) 21:06, 26 November

The whole point of reverting the move, after consultation with the closing admin Ymblanter and per admin Ymblanter's statement that could be done in close was to discuss whether a AfD where !votes against WP:DAB were prevalent at a Deletion Review, not so to immediately have a new RM when the Deletion Review has barely started where more !votes apparently against WP:DAB first paragraph guidance could be expressed.

In that respect I'll note again that the RM argument "the only article by this name" is against the guideline in WP:DAB first paragraph which makes "the only article by this name" irrelevant; if some Users disagree with WP:DAB then it would be better that an RFC be raised to change WP:DAB rather than at RM of a very minor article.

Can this pleased be closed for procedural reasons. It's not as if there is any life-threatening urgency over this article. For the record I couldn't care less about the title of this article but WP:DAB needs either to be honoured or changed. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there some other Wikipedia article with a similar title that would bring WP:DAB into play? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Uncle Milty, that is the point of the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 25. WP:DAB first paragraph says that we do not count whether there some other Wikipedia article with a similar title but article content. In the article not the title of article.

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.) For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to an element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things. There are three important aspects to disambiguation:

Then the third of those aspects is:

Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. For example, the page Mercury is a disambiguation page—a non-article page which lists the various meanings of "Mercury" and links to the articles which cover them. (As discussed below, however, ambiguous terms do not always require a disambiguation page.

The key text relating to this title vs topic issue is A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so where is the Wikipedia article that "covers" anything related to anything called "Lingdian"? I find only one article (created by you, oddly enough) that merely mentions a "Lingdian", but no actual coverage anywhere. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Uncle Milty, it is linked in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 25 linked above.

PS:

I'm not sure what you mean by "(created by you, oddly enough)" ...which other WikiProject China contributor do you think should have created both articles? When in May 2013 I came across the WP China tagged stub Lingdian (genre), which someone had created misunderstanding that Lingdian was a genre not a band, neither the band nor the opinion polling company (in Market research and opinion polling in China) were covered by Wikipedia. I created the article at Lingdian (band) because at the time the Lingdian (genre) stub hadn't been deleted yet, but also knowing that the company was far more notable in English Google Books. Then afterwards at response of comment of User:PamD I created Market research and opinion polling in China covering also the company since I considered the subject of Market research and opinion polling in China, more important than just one company that happens to have been seized upon by western print sources for its largely imagined "democracy" implications. Was I somehow undermining the fabric of the encyclopedia in May 2013 by creating an article in response to a faulty stub? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done going around in circles. So here are the facts in a straight line:

1. There is no article about a company known in China as "Lingdian".
2. The article Market research and opinion polling in China does not cover a company known in China as "Lingdian", it merely mentions its existence.
3. The references supporting the mentions of a company known in China as "Lingdian" in Market research and opinion polling in China merely mention the company, and do not seem to cover the company in any detail.
4. "Lingdian" wouldn't be a reasonable search term on the English Wikipedia for a company known everywhere but China as "Horizon Research Consultancy Group".
5. "Lingdian" is a sensible title for an article about a musical group known internationally as "Lingdian".
6. If in the future the "Horizon Research Consultancy Group" becomes notable enough for an English Wikipedia article of its own, then a "Lingdian" disambiguation page may become necessary (if another entirely unforeseen use of the word "Lingdian" hasn't already created the demand for a disambiguation page, of course).
7. Any editor could have created the articles. I'm just bewildered by the lengthy efforts to maintain and strengthen Horizon Research Consultancy Group's presence on the English Wikipedia.

Did I miss anything? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that you have misinterpreted the use of Lingdian in English reliable sources; and that the band fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

However I'm not going to comment further since the closing admin has already advised "Since Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 25 is open, it would be good to wait first until it gets closed.", In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per AFD comments, WP:G6 applies as the only opposer is, as always, IIO and his "rules". © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:58, 27 November 2013 (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 one external link on Lingdian. 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/20130525054939/http://news.xinhuanet.com/ent/2008-02/27/content_7675434.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/ent/2008-02/27/content_7675434.htm

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) 19:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)