Talk:Memphis

Untitled

I can't figure out why I can't get the Roland Robinson entry to stop showing up in the "What links here" section of this site. I thought I had already changed the link in that article to Memphis to be to Memphis, Tennessee. User:Bebop 21:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page move

This page should not redirect to Memphis, Tennessee, but rather to Memphis (disambiguation). The ancient Egyptian city Memphis (Egypt) is at least as famous, if not moreso, than the American city.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveOinSF (talk • contribs) 00:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 124 articles that link to Memphis. At at a quick glance, I'd say all but a dozen of them mean Memphis, Tennessee. This page should redirect to Memphis, Tennessee, with a redirect warning on that page back to Memphis (disambiguation). Colonies Chris 14:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, too. I am in the process of disambiguating the links to Memphis, once I am done with that, I am going to move that page to Memphis (disambiguation). Memphis gets a redirect to Memphis, Tennessee after that is done. doxTxob \ ^talk 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Completed. I have disambiguated all but a dozen of links to Memphis and moved the page to Memphis (disambiguation). The remaining links to Memphis are logs and archives. Memphis now redirects to Memphis, Tennessee, that page has a link to the disambiguation page place at the top. doxTxob \ ^talk 03:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Memphis (disambiguation) → Memphis — Currently two main subjects using the name "Memphis":

1. Memphis, Egypt, an ancient Egyptian capital; an UNESCO World Heritage Site.
2. Memphis, Tennessee, a city in the United States.

Memphis currently redirects to the second. Previous discussions on the Memphis talk page have concluded that there is no single primary topic. Multiple moves either way have recurred in the past, as can be seen in the move log and revision histories. Night w (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Traffic Stats:

  January (during this time, Memphis → Memphis, Tennessee)

  • Memphis, Tennessee 54,458 hits [1]
    • Memphis redirect 10,332 [2]
  • Memphis, Egypt 12,375 [3]
    • Memphis egypt redirect 161 [4]
    • Memphis (Egypt) redirect 58 [5]
    • Men-nefer redirect 38 [6]
    • Egypt Memphis 24 [7]
    • Necropolis of Memphis redirect 21 [8]
    • Ineb Hedj redirect 21 [9]
    • Ankh Tawy redirect 18 [10]
    • Menfe redirect 17 [11]
    • Memphis necropolis redirect 15 [12]
    • Ineb-Hedj redirect 10 [13]
  • Memphis (disambiguation) 1044 [14]

• Oppose Tennessee city appears to be the primary topic, by traffic stats and by incoming links when this was first discussed. The arguments there for determining primary topic by age, historical significance, and cultural significance are erroneous -- WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is determined by readership usage, not by age of the topic (and Memphis, Tennessee also has current cultural significance). It is possible that extended hatnote on Memphis, Tennessee, since it links directly to Memphis, Egypt as well as to the disambiguation page, is skewing the stats. It seems unlikely, given the proportions of reader of the Tennessee article using the redirect, but it's possible. If we'd like to determine, then the hatnote could either be rewritten to use a redirect like Memphis (Egypt) or a new redirect, or to link only to the disambiguation page (which would inconvenience readers in the meantime). After a period of several months, we could check the stats on that set up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary topic is determined by consensus, not statistics. Arguments about age, historical significance, and cultural significance are completely valid considerations. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I know they're determined by consensus, and informed by statistics, which is why I listed them here so editors could be easily informed. Usage is the completely valid consideration according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; the others are not, unless that guidelines needs to be changed. I don't think the guideline needs to be changed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the guideline that precludes consideration of factors other than statistics. To introduce such a prohibition would be a significant change to the guideline and one that I would vehemently oppose. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic....". Much more likely, not much older or much more historical or much more culturally relevant instead. Yes, you can use other factors besides those listed to determine likelihood, but you shouldn't confuse what the readers are looking for with what the editors think the readers should be looking for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget: There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic. The guideline does not indicate a preference for page view statistics or a deprecation of other considerations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not only a website, and disambiguation is not merely a matter of page view optimization. Of course where other considerations are not supported by objective measures (such as search results) and there is a clear difference in traffic statistics, that would also need to be taken into consideration. older ≠ wiser 14:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not forgotten. The guideline does indeed indicate a preference for three aspects of determining likelihood, although other methods for determining likelihood could be used. However, other methods for determining likelihood have not been brought up here, and methods for determining which topic is older are unrelated to likelihood. Trying to read guidelines that talk about likelihood and usage as actually meaning age and historical significance shouldn't need to be explicitly deprecated -- the language is clear enough, and this isn't a legal forum where we have to list every inclusion and exclusion explicitly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't read the guideline as implying any such preference for determining likelihood in the same way as you seem to. The crystal clear part of the guideline is that determining a primary topic requires consensus -- and the basis for such consensus is not constrained to page view statistics and is in fact not really under any constraint at all. older ≠ wiser 23:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consensus as to what the most likely or most used topic is, not consensus on what the oldest topic is. "Determined by consensus" is not an escape clause for blockading guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is required to establish a primary topic and objections can take many forms. Just because you don't happen to agree with them doesn't mean they are blockading guidelines. older ≠ wiser 03:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If the objections take forms other than "the proposed primary topic isn't much more used/likely than another", then it's not just I who "happens" to disagree with them -- the guidelines disagree with them as well. This includes objections of "there's another topic that's older than the proposed primary topic". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it. However, guidelines are not binding laws and if editors have well-reasoned objections in a specific case, those objections carry more weight than wikilawyering over interpretations of guideline language. older ≠ wiser 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting the guidelines be followed is not wikilawyering. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Interpreting the guidelines such that other valid considerations can be disregarded is. older ≠ wiser 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Invalid considerations, such as age, should be disregarded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Was I talking about age? Age of what? Age of the article or the topic? If by age you mean historical significance or relative longevity of the topic it might be worth considering. I would not categorically rule it out. older ≠ wiser 23:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of the topic, at the top of this thread.[15]. And yes, it might be worth considering in as much as it impacts use or likelihood, not on its own. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I carelessly copied and pasted what you had written. I would not have mentioned age alone as being of any great significance. older ≠ wiser 01:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple moves of the current dab page have already been conducted in the past, with a number of editors proposing a redirect to either of the two pages, clearly showing that a dispute exists as to which is the primary topic. The Egyptian city is hugely famous all over the world—I don't see how that can't be taken into account. On the other hand, the U.S. city is a medium-sized city of very little note outside its country's borders. Traffic stats can easily be put down to the fact that the majority of Wikipedia users are in the United States. Night w (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dab pages are primarily intended to help with navigation, not to indicate world-wide fame, impressiveness, etc. As an aid to navigation, it should reflect the uses that the readers put it to. If a substantial number of people entering Memphis are looking for Tennessee, no matter where they are from, it should be the primary topic. The statistics seem to support that the Tennessee city is significantly more often the article being searched for, but that is open to some interpretation. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not only a website. Disambiguation is not only about optimizing traffic. In this particular case, I'm inclined to agree, though I'm not completely persuaded, that the Tennessee city is the primary topic. But the point remains that page view traffic is only one aspect to consider. older ≠ wiser 23:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And if there were some other evidence or rationale or aspect presented that indicated another topic was more used or more likely, we'd consider that too. So far, none has been presented. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The consideration is not whether anything else is more likely -- but whether the Tennessee city is so overwhelmingly more likely that it is worth inconveniencing anyone looking for one of the other meanings. older ≠ wiser 03:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, both are considerations. One determines if there's a different primary topic. If none are much more used than any other, then there's no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

O/w, could you summarize here the reasons for your position? So far, on this page, its only "don't use the statistics so much" and "its moved a lot" with only ancillary mention of other reasons. Perhaps there are many in the archives, but what are your current thoughts on this. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't taken any position on this specific case. My points relate to careless rhetoric that implies the only thing that matters in determining primary topic is page traffic statistics. Factors such as historical significance or cultural significance are appropriate to consider when discussing whether there is primary topic. older ≠ wiser 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But they are not appropriate when discussing what the reader is likely to be looking for (that is, the primary topic) unless some additional information about how the age or historicity is actually contributing to the likelihood in a particular case is supplied. Often, older topics are less likely to be the primary topic, since the searches are occurring in the present. And as I mentioned earlier, discussion about changes to the guidelines apart from this specific case should take place on the guideline's Talk page. Making your position about that here, it can seem like you're taking a position on this specific case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that unsupported claims are of little use. But the goal of writing an encyclopedia is not identical with the task of optimizing page traffic. The disambiguation guideline does not prioritize page view traffic over other consideration. older ≠ wiser 23:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But since o other consideration of usage or likelihood has been brought up here (unless you count Rennell435's anecdote that it's not what they expect, which is easily counterbalanced by my anecdote that it is what I'd expect), I am not sure what you are arguing against. Traffic stats are useful in that they are (a) easy to get, (b) objective, and (c) very good indications of usage and likelihood. That's why I post them first in these discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not like the topic hasn't come up before. Details such as one being a UNESCO world heritage site with a few millennia of history and the other a mid-sized regional city might be worth considering in terms of encyclopedic content. Because some statistic happens to be easy doesn't necessarily equate to a very good indications of usage and likelihood. older ≠ wiser 01:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily equate, right, which is why I listed it separately. It isn't related to its ease of acquisition; that it is a very good indicator is an additional benefit. No one is suggesting that encyclopedic content be reduced; the world heritage site and the few millenniums of history etc. should of course be captured in the encyclopedia. In an appropriately-named article. And the article names should facilitate the readers. By putting the primary topic (if any) for an ambiguous name at the base name. And the primary topic is determined by likelihood of reader use. You're conflating guidelines on content (articles) and guidelines on navigation (disambiguation), although I know you know the difference. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support as it makes sense, and usage stats only show a 3:1 usage preference when discounting the unqualified redirect. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think you're doing the math wrong. (54458-10332)/12375 is 3.57:1, or 4:1 if you want to round it, but the unqualified redirect absolutely should be counted -- those are the readers we're trying to figure out how best to serve. You've got 10332 readers hitting the name "Memphis". 1044 hit the dab page, presumably after first hitting the redirect, so again presumably they don't want either Tenn or Egypt. Like I said earlier, the extended hatnote on the Tenn article makes determining who meant the Egypt site after hitting "Memphis" harder to determine, and if we think that it's possible that, of the remaining 9288, the ones who meant Egypt make up a majority of the 12034 who reached Egypt without a different redirect, we can check that by leaving this as is and using another redirect to see how the readers are using it. I don't think it's needed, though -- the split is likely in the same ballpark as the page traffic split, 4.4:1, or 340% more traffic to Tenn than to Egypt. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think traffic numbers should be the sole decider of what is "primary". And 12,000+ is definitely no number to be ignored; that's a good stack of people having to load a sizeable page on some other topic before getting where they want. I've personally never heard of Memphis, Tennessee and if I typed "Memphis" into a search box, I'd expect to get to something on Egypt. But type in "Memphis" at Britannica or Encylopedia.com and you get multiple links to click on. That seems like it's the fair way to go for everyone, as dab pages are quicker to load. Rennell435 (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Nobody's ignoring 12K+; we're comparing it to the much more used numbers for Tenn to see that there is a primary topic for "Memphis". You can still get multiple links to click on on Wikipedia too, by searching Wikipedia search. Any time there's a primary topic for a title, there will be a stack of people who have to go through it to get to the page they want; that doesn't mean there should never be a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per JHunterJ and traffic stats indicating the Tennessee city is the primary topic. Propaniac (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose redirect should point to the most likely page that is being searched for. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Memphis, Tennessee is clearly the primary topic and the main object of most hits for "Memphis". The "Memphis" article should therefore redirect there, not be a disambig page itself. However, the disambig page should be the only one linked to by the hatnote in the Memphis, Tennessee article. The extended hatnote needs to go away. -- Otto (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  Also need to state that the obvious attempt here to paint Memphis, Tennessee as a mid-sized regional city of no importance is silly and shows obvious bias.

  Memphis, Tennessee is a hugely important and famous city. Firstly, it's not "mid-sized", it's the 20th largest city in the country, with a population of 1.2 million+ in the metro area. As for fame, it's the birthplace of Rock and Roll. Elvis. Sun Studio. Beale Street. The list of famous people from Memphis has 186 people on it.

  Memphis, Egypt, on the other hand, has been dead and empty for over 1300 years and is of little interest to anybody other than historians. It's so little known about that tourists to Memphis, Tennessee often ask why we built our arena in the shape of a pyramid.

  Search-wise, even Google knows better. Search for "memphis". Ignoring the wikipedia entries, only one of the results on the first page is talking about anything in Egypt. Page after page of results refers to Memphis, Tennessee in some form or fashion. All the news articles are referring to Memphis, TN. All the blogs linked to are Memphis, TN blogs.

  Memphis, Tennessee is clearly the primary topic and city of more importance in today's world. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia first and foremost, but that doesn't mean that it must be out of touch with current events as well. -- Otto (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Memphis, Tennessee - according to the statistics - is the primary topic. The way it is as of now is the way I support. That is not because I set up the redirect two years ago, it is because it made and still makes the most sense to me. I do not at all want to undermine the historical nor cultural importance of Memphis, Egypt. Because of its importance Memphis, TN was named after that Egyptian metropolis. What I consider important in Wikipedia is user-friendliness. If the vast majority of users are looking for Memphis, TN when they type in "Memphis", then the users have made the decision. The way the redirect is set up is also more practical for the user, considering the statistics. What does the user do? They type in "Memphis" and hit [Enter] and the majority is at the page they want to see already. If the redirects are changed, the user types "Memphis", finds the redirect page and has to click on the desired topic to get to the page they want to see. So changing the redirect means one click more for most users. Leaving the redirects as they are does not eliminate the secondary topic Memphis, Egypt. At the very top of the Memphis, TN page there is the direct link to our Memphis, Egypt article and the link to the disambiguation page for those who still not have found the Memphis they were looking for. No information is lost and all Memphis related topics are still in very easy reach and very accessible for our users. doxTxob \ ^talk 01:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

what do you think?

I think it would be better if the first thing named Memphis should be at the top of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr big tut (talk • contribs) 02:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That can't be changed as long as consensus exists that Memphis, Tennessee is the primary topic for Memphis, as seen in the closed discussion above. Please don't change it, or change the redirect target at Memphis either. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2018

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: moved. Both sides had valid arguments regarding the primary topic, but the overall picture I got from this debate was that the historic significance point was stronger (and better supported) than that based on pageviews. Number 57 21:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Memphis (disambiguation) → Memphis – Among the city in Tennessee, the one in Egypt and the other entries there is no clear primary topic [[16]]. There has been some debate above and at Talk:Memphis about which city should be primary. It has been pointed out in other discussions that US cities are usually have the state as part of the name. The city in Egypt is hugely significant as it was once the largest city in the world and the city in Tennessee was named after it. This comment that "Myriads of 10 year old kids..." probably applies here as the subject clearly has enduring notability. However it has been pointed out that readers will still have 1 click such as Worcester/Worcester, Massachusetts but many of the arguments such as being the original and the US city naming would apply to Egypt. I as a resident of neither the US nor Egypt have heard of both outside WP, TN from music that mentions it and Egypt from museums. The city in Egypt is a level 4 vital article while the TN one is level 5, of which was formally one of the ways to establish PT outside searches, before the long-term significance was included. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support no PT. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• There is also a discussion at Talk:Memphis, Tennessee#Primary topic where even a Californian and someone near Tennessee agrees there is no/probably no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support with also removing the lead sentence from the disambiguation page, as there is no primary. --Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comments in 2010 discussion. Between the Tennessee city and the UNESCO World Heritage Site there is no obvious primary topic. older ≠ wiser 14:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - no primary. Nb Memphis currently redirects to Memphis, Tennessee, after discussions 10 years ago. Either way this should change. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  The redirect is due to WP:USPLACE but indeed from the discussions and history it appears there is no clear consensus about TN being primary with some even arguing that Egypt should be primary. Nashville is clearly primary but the article is at Nashville, Tennessee. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  WP:USPLACE has absolutely no bearing on the issue here, being only concerned with intra-US priorities. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The nom's own stats show that the city in Tennessee gets 2/3rds of pageviews, which means it is primary by usage ("more likely than the other topics combined"). Both principal topics have long-term significance, so that's no help. Given our duty to help our readers get where they want to go, I don't see enough evidence to undo the current, long-term setup. Dohn joe (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If you're counting relative visits for usage, it would only be fair to count relative years for long-term significance, and there the Egypt city gets a 5000/200 = 25 times more. ;-) Diego (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Age might not be the best criteria as the TN city is more likely today and presumably in the future but the views don't show a huge preference for TN in addition to it being named after Egypt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Dohn joe. I would only support undoing this longterm setup if it was proving to be a hindrance to readers, but it appears that the opposite is true. The Memphis redirect gets thousands more views than the Memphis DAB page, which tells me current setup is most optimal. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  Excluding yesterdays views [[17]] the DAB gets more than 10% of the views of the redirect. As pointed out below readers looking for the Egypt city will still have to load a large page that isn't relevant to them apart from being one of the places named after it (unlike Plymouth, Devon being relevant to Plymouth, MA). I don't want to deny that the TN city is also hugely important and is more popular, just that neither is clearly primary for "Memphis". Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. As the current primary topic, Memphis Tennessee gets all incoming links, so page views alone isn't necessarily a fair judgment. Also, Memphis, Egypt is mentioned in the hatnote, so the DAB page is bypassed, meaning the DAB page views are generally those who don't want the city in Egypt. Also, per WP:PTOPIC, usage, including page views, is only a part of what determines a primary topic. The other major component is "long-term significance", if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term, which no one has addressed to this point. That's a harder point to prove, and, if in doubt, goes a long way to proving there is no primary topic. The Tennessee city less than 200 years old, not a state capital, not the site of significant battles, not a major corporate center, FedEx notwithstanding, and certainly of less educational value than the city in Egypt, a capital of several major civilizations in history. While its music history is significant, it is watered down across several music genres, is not the leading center of one genre, and also spans less than 100 years or so. - BilCat (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, In ictu oculi, Gonnym, older ≠ wiser, Johnbod and BilCat.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Bilcat. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The Tennessee city is no more significant than the Egyptian one. No clear primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the exact same reasons at 8 years ago. Memphis, Tennessee is clearly the primary topic, and far more significant. -- Otto (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  Clearly over Egypt? The evidence presented indicate neither is primary as both are very significant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. They both have long-term significance. Page views indicate Memphis, Tennessee is more likely to be what readers want. I don't agree with User:BilCat above that "current primary topic ... gets all incoming links, so page views alone isn't necessarily a fair judgment": that's why the criterion is more likely than all the other topics combined, which Memphis, Tennessee is. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Shhhnotsoloud: @Dohn joe: The first part of WP:PTOPIC#1 specifies "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic" as the Egypt one gets more that 1/3 as many as TN (even before you take into account the City, State naming argument), that's surely not "much more likely than any other single topic". While I don't necessarily agree with how that works, since WP:2DABPRIMARY may often be more appropriate (if there are just 2 prominent meanings such as Apple/Apple Inc. and Inflation/Inflation (cosmology)), the evidence of which Memphis is primary may make it sensible to have no PT here like Georgia, Washington and Lincoln, see also Talk:Isle of Lewis#Requested move 18 July 2018 and my comments there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I don't understand you. The page views graph I link to in my !vote shows Memphis, Tennessee getting about 60,000 views per month, with Memphis, Egypt about 20,000, with every other article negligible on that scale. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say a ratio of 3:1 is not "much more", there is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#How many more page views constitute "more likely" and "much more likely"?. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the Tennessee topic were getting traffic intended for other topics by virtue of being the primary topic, then the disambiguation page would get more hits that it does. Current arrangement benefits the encyclopedia still. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support. The Tennessee city gets only about 61% of the views of the other top 9 topics.[18] It's presumably lower than that if all the ambiguous topics were included. While it has considerable long-term significance, so do other articles like Memphis, Egypt and Mamshit. There's enough ambiguity here to justify disambiguation, especially as this doesn't require a move of the city, which is already at Memphis, Tennessee.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No way the US city "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" or is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" per the page view stats. 144.48.36.86 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, it clearly does have it by the stats (see below), and historical significance is a wash. Obviously the Tennessee city has sufficient historical significance to be primary topic. --В²C ☎ 21:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm astounded at how many people seem to think one topic getting three times as many page views (per monthly averages over 3 years) as the other is not enough to qualify that topic to be "much more likely [than the other]... to be sought". Folks, "more likely" means it has more page views on average than the other. So like, 1.2 as many views as the other, for example. "Much more likely" means significantly more than "more likely", like twice as many. But three times as many? Come on. That's clearly much more likely! And getting 61% of the views of the other top 9 topics[19], as noted by Cuchullain above, clearly shows "more likely to be sought than all the others combined". Memphis (film) averages less than 400 per month. The others average even less - Memphis, Alabama for example averages 227 views per month. These views pale in comparison to the Tennessee city's 71,000 average views per month, and can't add up to lowering that 61% much. Of course the Tennessee city is the primary topic and so Memphis must remain a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to it. --В²C ☎ 20:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the 2nd through 9th most popular uses average 45,489 views per month[20], while the Tennessee city averages 71,711 views per month[21]. And even if the next 20 uses each average 200 views per months, that would only add 4000 views to the total views all of the uses get, bringing them up to about 50,000, still well below the 71,000. So the Tennessee city topic clearly meets the criteria: more likely to be sought than all the others combined. --В²C ☎ 21:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't consider "primary by usage" on visits alone anything that doesn't get at least 10x times the second more visited article, in special when there's some other with similar or higher historical significance. I've often stated this threshold in past move discussions, and it frequently coincided with the result. When there has been a primary topic by usage, it was not decided so merely by visits, but because a strong presence of the topic in reliable sources, using themselves the stand-alone term as primary without adding any clarification about the meaning intended. Diego (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, using page visit counts as a proxy for usage is a highly biased measurement. It only shows that it is a popular topic for people from one specific group (in this case people from the USA), but it doesn't show that it also would be a highly likely topic for people coming from other population group (say, historians from all over the world). For the second collective, Memphis, Tennessee having lots of visits from the US public doesn't make it any more likely to be the topic sought. Diego (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • • Probably a good example of where there probably is a PT is Gloucester/Gloucester, Massachusetts where the original city is at the base name and gets more than double views, where it would be expected for the MA city to include the state, @Born2cycle: do you agree that the original Gloucester is probably primary but Mansfield probably isn't over the others such as Mansfield, Ohio and the independently named Mansfield, Texas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
        • That makes sense. In Gloucester, the historic original city is aligned as the article with more page views, so there is no need to have as many visits as a differenciator, as both usage and long-term significance point in the same direction. Diego (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. This one is a close call, and is not important. All but Memphis, Egypt and Memphis, Tennessee are irrelevant. The American others pale in significance compared to the Tennessee city. The historical significance of the ancient city versus the worldwide fame of the American city is a quite complicated question. The ancient ruined city is properly titled with “, Egypt”, as every researcher would expect. USPLACE supports the convention of the status quo in not wanting “, State” for the Tennessee city. This discussions do more distracting than any good. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  Is TITLECHANGES particularly relevant when all that we're doing is moving over a redirect, none of the articles will be moved anywhere, just the DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • • Yes. Page moves on old important articles is always a big thing. Don’t do it lightly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      • There are good reasons to change it. And the only reason that TITLECHANGES gives for keeping a longstanding status quo is consensus. If consensus isn't a joke, the good reasons should be taken into account. —innotata 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        • TITLECHANGES is in support of stability, a demand for a very good reason to change things. I accept this change is not being done lightly, so I'll withdraw the "oppose". What I think is important is that Memphis, Tennessee stays at Memphis, Tennessee, and Memphis, Egypt stays at Memphis, Egypt. I think there is no harm in the status quo, but if I were doing this new, I would put the DAB page at Memphis, which is I guess all the proposal is seeking. Actually, my highest preference is for Memphis to redirect to Memphis (disambiguation), rejecting WP:MALPLACED becuase people landing on DAB pages should know they are headed to a DAB page. Most visitors are for Memphis, Tennessee, and this proposal with WP:MALPLACED will confuse some of them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
          • This move will probably actually increase stability as there won't be the argument about moving the TN city to just "Memphis" due to it not redirecting there anymore. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Cúchullain; there's enough ambiguity to prevent Memphis, Tennessee from being an unambiguous primary topic; and the volume of page views is not that high with respect to all the other articles (I see only 2x those of the second article in the past month) to make it the major decision point, given the overwhelming competing historical significance of the ancient city. Diego (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That's an impossible standard. Every primary topic is an "ambiguous primary topic" (a primary topic of an ambiguous term), by definition. Apple, Paris and Titanic, for example, are all ambiguous, and each has a primary topic. In fact, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only applies to names that are ambiguous. --В²C ☎ 16:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • If it's impossible, how is it that we have primary topics for Albert Einstein, Circle, or the pages you list, which happen to comply with the standard I've set? Oh, yes, because in those cases, historical significance does not compete with page views but they are aligned instead. Which is not the case for Memphis, Tennessee, and thus it's not a primary topic. Diego (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      • How is that Albert Einstein is an "unambiguous primary topic"? It's ambiguous! See Albert Einstein (disambiguation). Or do you mean it must be the primary topic per both PT criteria in order to be a PT? That's not what it says. --В²C ☎ 20:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        • It's not unambiguous, which shows that it's not impossible to have primary topics when there's ambiguity. What I mean is that it's easier to be a primary topic when both PT criteria are aligned. If the highest historical significance is at a different topic than the highest usage, it makes sense to require a much larger number of page views to regard page views as an indicator of significant usage, in special when it's the only indicator of usage provided. Diego (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I think the point is that an unambiguous PT is one that easily satisfies both criteria by a large amount such as Albert Einstein, not that a term its self is unambiguous (which would mean that it would be the only, rather than primary topic), meaning that no one disputes the PT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support The page view difference would not be enough to support the status quo, even if it wasn't for the fact that the city in Egypt is of greater historical significance. (No question there. One was a/the primary city of one of the earliest civilizations, over a period of over 2000 years; the other is a regional center that isn't the biggest or perhaps even most culturally important city in its state.) —innotata 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The historical importance of the Egyptian city cannot be discounted. bd2412 T 00:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• As the capital of ancient Egypt there is no doubt of its significance to human history being great. A thousand years of undisputed dominance, Memphis declined permanently in favor of Alexandria and coastal economies, became an abandoned ruins, and its stones later reused to build Cairo. I think this story of decline in transition to other cities discounts its rank slightly from arguably the most important to probably the second most. We have more knowledge of our cultural descent from Babylon. What about law? In terms of law and government, I think our records from Memphis must discount it favor of Rome. I'm leaning to calling it only our third most important historical city. Memphis, Tennessee? Wikipedia, a historiographical work, should resist recentism. The naming of one as derivative of the other also speaks strongly for the proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2018 (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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Memphis, Egypt which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplication

Why are Memphis, Egypt, and Memphis, Tennessee, both listed on this page twice? --Khajidha (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Because they were added twice. BilCat (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:DABORDER: "2. In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below. See Mojave or Mercury for examples of this." (Emphasis mine.) Neither example shows the top entries being listed twice, so I'll remove the duplicates. BilCat (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Memphis, Egypt which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)