Wikipedia

Talk:Ravens

Latest comment: 5 years ago by JHunterJ in topic Requested move 10 May 2019
Learn more about this page

Requested move 10 May 2019

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago49 comments22 people in discussion
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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ravens → Ravens (disambiguation) – The Raven article gets over 155x the views of the other 2 topics by this name [[1]]. However a Google image search does return results for some sports but I'm skeptical that people would search for them with just "Ravens" while searching for the bird in the plural is obvious. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

WP:PLURALPT opposes the proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per above. Simple plural of a common primary topic. -- Netoholic @ 00:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per the above. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. I see no point to this move. Why redirect the basename to a disambiguated dab page when we can leave the dab page at the basename? —В²C ☎ 07:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    @Born2cycle: the proposal is to move the DAB to Ravens (disambiguation) and then redirect "Ravens" to Raven, I though that was clear by my statement The Raven article gets over 155x the views of the other 2 topics by this name. As far as I can see the bird is primary by both criteria. You're correct that we don't redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation)" per WP:MDP though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    That wasn’t clear to me nor was it obvious that Ravens is already a dab page, or that you’re (presumably) also proposing dumping its contents into the Raven dab page. I think the current configuration makes sense. People who include the s in their search are likely looking for something with the plural form of the name. —В²C ☎ 14:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Baltimore Ravens gets more pageviews than Raven, and "Ravens" is a normal search term for the sports team. Ravens could arguably be a primaryredirect to the American football team, but a separate dab page is needed at a minimum per WP:PLURALPT. Dohn joe (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Yup, Pageviews last 12 months suggests Baltimore Ravens gets the most traffic. Leviv ich 20:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per Dohn joe above: Keep the DISAMBIGUATION PAGE at the BASENAME - no clear primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • @Born2cycle and Dohn joe: there is no proposal to merge the "Ravens" DAB page to Raven (disambiguation), they should be kept separate regardless of this RM. I would also question if people are likely to search for Baltimore Ravens with just "Ravens", yes readers may be used to seeing articles at the singular but would someone search for a sports team with a "shortened" name of a generic name. So the hits of "Raven" and "Baltimore Ravens" don't show how many people would search for the team under that name (recall this post) and the arguments at Talk:Hearts). I doubt it, compare Lions (and similarly Beds) for example. Also note that the word "Ravens" appears to refer to the bird, given that the logo has a picture of a bird. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support, a clear case of WP:PLURALPT. Pageviews for titles that would normally be qualified in formal or professional writing are irrelevant. Picture a newspaper article that says that a man was attacked by several ravens. If the attack was by anything other than the birds, it would be qualified as such, for example "several members of the Baltimore Ravens", even with capitalization. bd2412 T 19:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • How does this detail about newspaper usage relate to whether users searching with the term “ravens” are more likely looking for Raven or Baltimore Ravens, which is what matters for primary topic determination for “ravens”? —В²C ☎ 13:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • BD2412, here is what PLURALPT says: Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form, the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form. That supports leaving the current arrangement as is. I don’t see anything at PLURALPT and don’t know of any other policy or guideline that means “pageviews for titles that would normally be qualified in formal or professional writing are irrelevant”. —-В²C ☎ 13:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • If "New Mexico" had more page views then "Mexico", or "Rhode Island" had more page views than "Island", would we consider redirecting "Mexico" to "New Mexico" and "Island" to "Rhode Island"? I would think not. "Baltimore Ravens" is not a title match to "Ravens" so its page views are as irrelevant as those choices, and would be so even if some group nicknames "Rhode Island" just "Island". bd2412 T 14:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • Now you’re talking about partial titles matches, not PLURALPT. It all comes down to how likely are people searching with “ravens” looking for one of the plural forms (including Baltimore Ravens) rather than the bird. I don’t see any reason to dismiss what I quoted from PLURALPT. People adding the s to the end of the search term are very likely looking for something at this page, not Raven. —В²C ☎ 14:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
          • The fact that a proffered alternative is a PTM is relevant to the question of whether a particular topic is primary among the set of topics with which it is to be compared. "Raven" is the clear primary topic of "Ravens" against the set of things called "Ravens" without qualification. A contextual requirement such as "on the sports pages" is still a qualification. Therefore, "Baltimore Ravens" is as irrelevant to this inquiry as it would be to the question of whether the city is the primary topic of the name, "Baltimore", even though some people will refer to the football team as just "Baltimore", in certain contexts. I would add, however, that even if the name of the team was just "Ravens" with no city component, it would still be a recent popular culture topic named for the bird, and would therefore still be secondary to the bird due to the longstanding historical significance of the word "Ravens" referring to the bird. bd2412 T 15:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
            • This is somewhat misleading and mistaken. It is quite common to refer to the Baltimore team as the Ravens (without qualification) and there is no reason so presuppose that people searching for the term "Ravens" (specifically the plural) are not looking for the Baltimore team (or any of the other lesser known sports teams). Now a better tack might be to argue that no one would be WP:SURPRISEd when searching for the term "Ravens" to end up at the bird article. older ≠ wiser 16:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
            • Per that reasoning, BD2412, Seahawks should not be the primary redirect to Seattle Seahawks, but it is, despite the existence of Seahawk. To Bkonrad's point, while users searching with "seahawks" (plural) would not be surprised to land on Seahawk, they are more likely looking for Seattle Seahawks, so that's where Seahawks takes them. The same reasoning applies here, except that there are so many other uses of "ravens" (plural) besides the Baltimore ones, that the Seattle team is not considered the PT for "ravens", so we take them to a dab page for ravens. It's all very logical, tidy and consistent with conventions and policy, including PLURALPT and PTM (as bkonrad notes, Ravens is a legitimate name commonly used, without qualification, to refer to the team in and of itself - this is not a PTM matter). I still see no good reason to change this. See WP:TITLECHANGES. --В²C ☎
              • Seahawk is not at all comparable historically. There is no single bird called a "seahawk". Legitimate comparisons would be Eagles, Sparrows, Falcons, Swallows, Vultures, Ducks, Bluejays, Pigeons, Parrots, Starlings, Owls, Finches, Doves, Crows, Turkeys, Buzzards, Peacocks, Ostriches, Geese - are you seeing the pattern here? bd2412 T 16:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
                • User:BD2412, while I agree with the end result in this case (that Ravens should redirect to Raven), your argument to regarding the set of things called "Ravens" without qualification is mistaken. Simply because based on Wikipedia naming conventions a topic may be at a fully qualified title does not mean it should be dismissed from consideration when determining whether there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 17:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
                  • Yes I agree that Baltimore Ravens is a consideration here (and not irrelevant) but its at that location because that's the full name of the entity, while the bird isn't at Ravens because of WP:PLURAL, a big difference. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
                    • @Bkonrad:, perhaps we need more explicit guidance on how these things should be weighed, but here we have a pop culture topic that is not a title match. I hesitate to give it any weight at all because then the focus will shift excessively to pageviews, without consideration of the necessary context or qualification of the title of the pop culture topic, or the historical significance of the primary singular topic. bd2412 T 17:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
                • What I'm seeing is you keep changing your argument.. from PLURALPT, to PTM to historical significance. The first two have been refuted. Now for "historical significance". I disagree that historical significance of "raven" applies to the plural "ravens", per the quote from PLURALPT I provided above. People bother to add the s when searching are almost certainly searching for the team or one of the plural uses. By the same token, Falcons (disambiguation) should probably be moved to Falcons. Ah, and I see you were the nom for that move in 2014 at Talk:Falcons_(disambiguation). This is a great example of how the "historical significance" consideration of primary topic greatly muddies the title determination waters, and why I opposed adding it to PT in the first place. Without it we'd have many fewer debates about titles like this, and users would be served better. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
                  • There is one argument, and all of these points are aspects relevant to it. The fact that a subject is only a partial match detracts from the possibility of it ever challenging the primary topic. In this case, as I have noted, the pageviews for "Baltimore Ravens" are no more relevant for the "Ravens" part of the name than they are for the "Baltimore" part of the name. bd2412 T 20:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per bd2412. Nice explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per the nominator and BD2412: it seems reasonable in this case for the plural to point to the singular. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per WP:PLURALPT. BD2412 sums it up nicely. Calidum 04:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment I don't see how TITLECHANGES is that relevant, the reason there is a DAB is because there are several targets, if there were just 2 then we would probably just have a redirect and this discussion would be at RFD. The move of the DAB is simply because that's where they go if there is a PT. The same lodgic could apply to redirects, that changing a redirect to a different target should be avoided for the same reason as this. Similarly you could debate that a similar lodgic applies over debates over which article content belongs. But anyway WP:TITLECHANGES recommends that controversial moves should go through RM (which is what we're doing here). Also while we do have both a full match and partial matches I find BD2412's argument that the sports team (and also the film) invoke the bird. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per WP:PLURALPT. In addition, the idea to have the plural term "ravens" be so closely associated with the Baltimore Ravens reminds me of the RfD discussion for the term "pacers" redirecting to the Indiana Pacers ... which resulted in redirecting to the disambiguation page since Pacer is a disambiguation page. In this case, the term "raven" has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so WP:PLURALPT applies. Steel1943 (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - as already noted, saying "Ravens" would very often refer to the NFL team from Baltimore, who enjoy roughly even page views with the "Raven" article. There doesn't seem a good reason to move this, a dab page covers all bases better than redirecting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per WP:PLURALPT, and the examples given there, which seem right on point. This is a case where a plural form will establish a separate primary topic. If a reader wants to read about ravens, they will type in "raven", not "ravens". If they add the "s", they're likely looking for something other than the bird, something called "ravens", and that something is probably the Baltimore Ravens. If a reader wants to learn about windows, they'll type in Window, whereas Windows points to Microsoft Windows. Walls is a dab page instead of a redirect to Wall. Another aspect I think is being missed is that, unlike teams like Liverpool F.C., American sports teams change cities. The Los Angeles Dodgers were the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Los Angeles Rams were the St. Louis Rams, before that they were the also LA Rams, and before that they were the Cleveland Rams. The team is thought of as "The Rams", just as much if not more so than "LA's football team". Similarly, I think people think of "The Ravens" more than they think of "Baltimore's football team", particularly since before the Ravens, Baltimore's football team was the Baltimore Colts (who later moved and became the Indianapolis Colts). There was a Cleveland Browns relocation controversy when the Browns almost moved to Baltimore (before the creation of the Ravens). So, I think people will be searching for "Ravens", "Rams", "Colts", "Browns", etc., looking for the football team. Rams, Colts, and Browns all go to a dab page; Ravens should stay the same. Eagles, Falcons, Ducks, etc., should probably become dab pages following this model as well. Leviv ich 03:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think browns is comparable, similar to the Oranges example at WP:PLURALPT since the colour its self isn't usually pluralized (even though one might talk about the shades of orange in the plural). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Rams and Colts don't seem like a good comparison, because Ram and Colt also go to DAB pages. (And I agree with Crouch, Swale about Browns not being a good comparison) Colin M (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. No evidence provided that people are sre looking the animal through the plural form. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 18:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose totally wrong. People quote mega-exceptions like Windows because they are mega-exceptions. Ravens isn't, see GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd point out that Arsenal F.C. gets over 36x the views of Arsenal [[2]] and even though the football club's name appears to derive from the place, its not a DABCONCEPT situation like Liverpool. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose, I think it is plausible someone would put this in expecting Baltimore. --Quiz shows 21:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Since no-one has done it yet, I semi-thoroughly reviewed other NFL team names to see which way they went. Analogous examples like Dolphins, Titans, Broncos, Lions, Saints, and Vikings all redirect to the PTOPIC article for the singular form. AFAICT, Ravens is the outlier, being the only name whose singular form has a PTOPIC which is not a redirect target for the plural. Interestingly, the situation is quite different for NBA teams. Grizzlies, Kings, Pistons, Suns, and Spurs all go to DAB pages (compare the PTOPIC pages at Grizzly, King, Piston, Sun, Spur). And Clippers actually goes straight to Los Angeles Clippers, even though it's a plural of the PTOPIC of Clipper. Colin M (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I'd at least be inclined to make Clippers at least redirect to the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    That is an odd set. Grizzly is not an article itself, but a redirect to Grizzly bear. Kings is also a book of the Bible, and we do the same with Judges, but not with Numbers or Proverbs. Pistons seems misplaced. Suns is an odd case, as it is unusual to refer to plural suns, since others are usually just called stars (and Stars redirects to Star despite multiple sports teams named "Stars"). Spurs can also refer to Bone spurs, and other topics in botany, in zoology, and in topography. There are actually very few popular culture topics on the Spurs disambiguation page. Of course, for other unambiguous primary topic bird names for which other sports teams are named, Eagles, Hawks, Bluejays, Penguins, Falcons, Pelicans, Crows, Owls, etc., the plural redirects to the singular primary topic. bd2412 T 17:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. I see the logic but the bird does not seem a clear primary topic for "Ravens", especially as we can't distinguish whether it has an initial capital. Similar discussions are in progress for Ospreys and Freaks. Even editors get confused: I've just cleared several rugby pitches of hazards such as wasps and hurricanes, which would have been flagged automatically had those pages been dabs, and I spotted this discussion whilst starting a similar exercise for the NFL. If in doubt, so are the readers; disambiguate. Certes (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ravens&oldid=1248831042"