From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Requested move 4 May 2015[edit]

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. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

– The small town in Essex does not meet either criteria to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It does not get more page views than all the others Eppings combined, despite the advantage of being located at the primary topic location. Simply looking at the other towns, they have received 10,870 page views over the last 90 days to Essex's 7621. All other Eppings have received 15.737 page views over that time frame. There is also nothing to suggest that the town in Essex has the necessary long-term significance to be the primary topic under that criteria. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

With so many alternatives random article picks etc come into play. All the other Anglosphere ones are named after Epping, Essex & I'd still support primacy. The Australian one has questionably added a total of 6 articles, which the Essex town could easily exceed if it took that approach. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Those "6 articles" in the "Australian one" include two different unrelated towns in two different states, and an again unrelated national park in a completely different state. I see no basis for the Essex town being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC whatsoever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Support the latter, not the former. I agree with the view that the article Epping, Essex is not the primary topic of the name, as there are so many other locations that have the name; therefore, the latter should be moved. As the former is a disambiguation page, it should still be stated to be such in the article title.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
To clarify here - are you proposing that Epping redirect to Epping (disambiguation)? I've never seen that done before. Frickeg (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom  ; move the disambiguaiton page to the base name -- (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; there is no clear primary topic here. Frickeg (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; off the top of my head, Epping could be the forest, the tube stop, the common, the town or the beautiful village in southern New Hampshire. Further, just googling (FROM ENGLAND) I get, Epping NSW, Epping Victoria, Epping Essex, Epping NH in that order. I would say, clearly no primary topic. Sorry, For this Epping, the only way is Essex. ~ipuser (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; with the proposal to redirect Epping to a disambiguation page as, as others have pointed out, there are many other "Eppings" out there that are also widely read. Not least of which, to me as a South African, is the Cape Town suburb of Epping.--Discott (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support there is no clear primary topic so the disambiguation list should be at the base name. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2015 (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.