Talk:Cotton Belt
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move 15 August 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved per nom. No such user (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
– Clearly the primary topic and therefore what most users are looking for, all other entries at the disambiguation are named after the region. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – This assertion "Clearly the primary topic" is not adequate evidence or justification for a primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The only other uses for the term "Cotton Belt" are a small community in Arkansas and for two railroads, all of which were presumably named for the wider region in which they are located. Given the historical importance of cotton to the U.S. I would imagine the Cotton Belt region has been the subject of more coverage than the railroads. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support per the nominator's rationale and page view statistics [1] that clearly show the region to be the primary topic. Calidum ¤ 01:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's the kind of stats I would expect a nom to provide, rather than just a claim of "clearly". Unfortunately, those stats contradict his case, since there are quite a few days when the article doesn't even have a plurality win on views. A disambig page is better for such situations. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Except we don't look at individual days -- we look at the sample as a whole. Given the statistics, and the long term significance of the region, it should be clear what the primary topic is here. Calidum ¤ 15:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's the kind of stats I would expect a nom to provide, rather than just a claim of "clearly". Unfortunately, those stats contradict his case, since there are quite a few days when the article doesn't even have a plurality win on views. A disambig page is better for such situations. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nomination and Calidum. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. Given that the only articles on the disambiguation page are an unincorporated community in Arkansas and two railway lines that presumably derive their names from that of the region, it seems pretty obvious to me. Graham (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Readers typing in "cotton belt" are unlikely to expect a local commuter line in Dallas to pop up. The commuter line is the Cotton Belt Rail Line, so its name is not the same as the region's. That leaves us with 63 views a day for region compared to one for the town in Arkansas. Pandas and people (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.