Talk:Freston, Suffolk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move per discussion  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Freston, SuffolkFreston — The other entries on this disambiguation page just have the word Freston in them, not as the main title. Homan's Copse talk to me My contribs 16:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. 2 of the entries are people with surname Freston, and people are often referred to by only the surname. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Anthony. I'm beginning to think we need to make clear at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that just because another topic's complete name or title is not the term in question (as in a surname, or part of a company name, etc.), does not mean that topic is not likely to be searched for with that term, which is the what determines primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The two surname holders are not often referred to by only the surname. At least, the articles give no indication that this is the case for these two individuals. Are there reliable sources that talk about either of those two without ever using the given name? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • There is no way to prove that either way. The point is that it's common to remember someone's surname but not their first name, or just to save typing, and so search for a person by only surname. We have to take that for granted, especially when the surname is relatively rare ("Freston" is no "Smith" or "Johnson"). Now, if the place with that name had significantly more page views than any of the persons with that surname, then surname search would be moot in that case. But that's not the situation here. In this case the place gets from a handful to less than 300 views per month, while Kathy Freston gets, for example 499 monthly views, and Tom Freston over 1,000.

      While we can never find out how often readers searching for either of these two people use only "Freston" in the Search box, I suggest it's safe to assume that it's sufficiently likely to make the place (since it has so few page views itself) not be the primary topic. Certainly there has been no evidence presented that it is the primary topic, and the page view statistics sure indicate that it's not primary. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

      Proving one way: find a reliable source that refers to one of them by the surname while never mentioning the given name. Yes, it would be hard to find such a reliable source. We do not take it for granted. The point is that name-holders are partial title matches as far as disambiguation goes, not actually-ambiguous entries, unless they are commonly known by the single name (Elvis, Madonna, Patton, Lincoln). The page counts are not much help here -- the disambiguation page only got 110 hits for the same period, so clearly readers are reaching those articles primarily by some other mechanism (and there's some evidence that people are not searching for them by the surname, or at least 1390 of the 1500 get there without it). -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it's fair to say that out of the 110 hits the disambiguation page gets, probably about 100 of the readers will be looking for the village. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 12:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
      Whether there are any reliable sources that refer to these people by surname only is not very relevant to the process of determining how likely readers are to search for these people using surname only. We might not know what it is, but there probably is a fairly constant number relative to the page views a person article gets that represents how often people search for that person by surname only, and here I'm referring only to people who are not particularly known to be called by surname only. This is because in any context in which a person is often referred (and there must be such a context for any person who is sufficiently notable to have an article), surname is often a common way to refer to that person. For public figures like particularly well-known politicians, actors and sports figures that context is the public at large, but practically every notable person has a niche in which he or she is well-known and often referred to by surname only. Not only that, but because searching with surname only is less typing and often first names can be forgotten, searching by surname only has to occur fairly often for just about anyone.

      Anyway, you can find plenty of news article titles about Tom Freston that refer to him by surname only, like this one from reliable source CNN. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

      Nope. "... and CEO Tom Freston has resigned ..." -- they still introduce him as "Tom Freston", which is necessary since he isn't commonly known by his surname only. Readers are still welcome to search by surname, and the navigational aids will direct them to the surname-holder list, and the list should include the sought person, if he or she is notable enough. But not the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      Nope? The subtitle of that article is, "Media giant taps board member to succeed MTV pioneer Freston as president and CEO." Yes, in the text they mention his first name once, but in the headline they refer to him by surname only.

      Of course readers are welcome to search by surname, but the issue for primary topic is how many will search for him by surname, compared to how many will search for the relatively obscure place. Search likelihood alone is supposed to determine primary topic. Whether the term is just part of the title, or "just" the surname of the subject, is irrelevant, except indirectly in how that might affect search likelihood. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

      Right, nope. Whether the term is ambiguous with the topic (or if instead the topic is just a partial title match) is relevant. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      Please explain in terms of what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      Sure. "Although a term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics..." -- These topics being the ones that the term may refer to. Not partial title matches. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      That's nonsensical Are you conflating topic with title? The topic of Tom Freston is not "Tom Freston" the title but the person known as Tom Freston. That is, the topic of the article at Tom Freston is one of the topics that might be sought by readers entering the term "Freston" in the search box, and all that matters is how likely that is. I still don't see how primary topic relates to title at all, much less whether it's a partial title match or not. Primary topic determination would not be affected even if all titles were random strings. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      No, no conflation. Searching is one thing, ambiguous with the title is another. This is just my report of the current consensus of name-holders and disambiguation. You may be conflating "primary topic" (primary ambiguous topic) and a new idea of "primary search". But there's no indication of primary search here either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't know what you mean by "primary search", but Primary topic is defined in terms of how likely a given topic is to be searched for by a certain term relative to how likely all other topics are to be searched for by the same term. If that's what you mean by "primary search", well, that's how we're supposed to determine primary topic.

      In this case we're talking about whether the village is the primary topic for "Freston", which means comparing how likely it is to be searched for by the term "Freston" relative to how likely other topics, including the topic at Tom Freston, are to be searched for by the term "Freston". I'm asking you to show me something under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which indicates otherwise, and, in particular, indicates some allowance should be given for partial titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

      How like a given ambiguous topic is to be searched, yes. I'm giving a name to your alternate idea, that the primary topic is the topic meant by any search term, whether it's ambiguous or not. For instance, if most people who enter "U.S. president" are looking for the article on Barack Obama, we should redirect U.S. President to Barack Obama instead of President of the United States, even though the Obama article is not ambiguous with that title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      "Ambiguous topic" is nonsensical. Again, I think you're conflating topic with title and mean "ambiguous title". The ambiguous title in question here is "Freston".

      Even if you had a point not based on conflating topic with title, your example would only be apt if there was a dab page for Barack Obama (presumably at Barack Obama (disambiguation)) with an entry for U.S. president on it as the dab page for Freston has an entry for Tom Freston. You're essentially arguing that even when an article for a topic is listed on the disambiguation page for the term in question, the likelihood of that topic being sought by entering that term in the search box is not to be considered in determining what topic is primary for that term. That's absurd, because the whole point of listing an article on a dab page for a given term is precisely because it is likely for readers to be searching for that article's topic with that term. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

      I'm not confusing the two, but I have run out of examples and explanations of the differences. The example is apt regardless of the existence of the dab pages, since you're claiming that actual ambiguity is not required as long as the term is used to search for a topic, but the guidelines are for determining which of the ambiguous topics is primary for a title, and surname-holders are not ambiguous, but rather partial title matches. If you would like, the other solution here is to create Freston (surname) as an ambiguous article and leave the base name a dab, or (if the consensus is that the surname is primary) move the dab to Freston (disambiguation) and create a surname article at the base name. But in the absence of a surname article, the town is the only article for the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      Okay, I found a single use of "ambiguous topic" at WP:D, which is under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In that context, "...one of the ambiguous topics...", it's clear that it means any one of several topics which might be sought by entering the term in question in the search box. In that sense, clearly Tom Freston is an "ambiguous topic" of "Freston" as it is listed on the dab page for "Freston", not to mention because it is a topic likely to be searched for when someone enters "Freston" in the search box.

      Because you think partial titles are relevant, I think you mean something else by "ambiguous topic", something like, "any topic which would use the term in question as its title if there were no other uses for that term". Since Tom Freston would never be at Freston and would always be at Tom Freston, you're saying it's not an "ambiguous topic", and therefore should not be considered in primary topic determination for "Freston" (please correct me if I'm wrong). Again, I suggest that there is no support for that narrow of a definition of "ambiguous topic" anywhere in WP:D, and ask you again to show us where it is in case I'm missing something.

      If we did define "ambiguous topic" in terms of title, then it would be something like, "any topic which would use the term in question as its title or as a redirect to it if there were no other notable uses for it." Clearly, if there were no other uses, Freston would be a redirect to Tom Freston, as countless single-use surnames redirect to articles about people, like, for example, McNealy is a redirect to Scott McNealy, and Palmisano is a redirect to Samuel J. Palmisano. If there were small Scottish and Italian villages named "McNealy" and "Palmisano" respectively (or any other notable uses of these terms for that matter), then these would both be "ambiguous topics" for those two names, just as the topic of "Tom Freston" is an ambiguous topic of "Freston", and we would consider their relative likelihoods of being sought when readers enter those surnames in the search box (we wouldn't discount them simply because they are surnames or "partial titles"). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support A couple of low-importance partial title matches should not usurp primary topic status from a full title match. A hatnote will help the surname-seekers find their way. --JaGatalk 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If there was no place called Freston then Freston would be a redirect to Tom Freston (more than twice as many views as Kathy Freston). That is, that article would be the primary topic for Freston. Even with the existence of the place Tom Freston gets more than 10 times as many hits per month than does the place named Freston. And you want to completely ignore the likelihood of readers looking for this article when searching with "Freston"?

      --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  • 10x more hits than Freston, Suffolk is an exaggeration. But even if it weren't, how many people got to Tom Freston by typing in "Freston" and how many got there by typing "Tom Freston"? If Freston got lots of hits (which he doesn't) and was regularly referred to as "Freston" (which he isn't), he could make a claim to be the primary. But it isn't reasonable to expect a surname search to give you a specific person; there must be a strong justification to award a redirect to one person's article over another's. So he wouldn't be the primary even without the geo article. But it is reasonable to expect a search for Freston to give you Freston, Suffolk if there are no other places named Freston. The best user experience is the most intuitive. And to let a couple of low-notability partial match articles usurp this title defies reasonable expectations, and therefore detracts from the best user experience. --JaGatalk 19:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support-Per article traffic stats, probably most of the people searching for Freston are looking for the village, as 1390 get to the articles on the people without it, which probably means the people are not commonly known by their 2nd names as there was only 110 hits for Freston Crouch, Swale Talk to me My Contributions My article 08:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    Note that the article traffic stats do not give any indication one way or the other how many of the readers reaching Freston are seeking the village. Of the 110 views to the dab page, we only know that fewer that 177 went to the village, fewer than 499 went to Kathy, and fewer than over 1000 went to Tom. Within those ranges, you can come up with scenarios that go any way you want. The main point isn't hit counts, but actual ambiguity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Checking the all-knowing oracle, the village proper doesn't even appear on the first two pages of results for "Freston". The term is ambiguous and there is a reasonable probability that people entering Freston in the search box will be looking for either Kathy or Tom. olderwiser 16:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    That appears to be the same "primary search" vs. "primary ambiguous topic" difference discussed above. Are any of the hits on the first two pages of results for topics that are ambiguous with the title? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    This appears to be a recently invented distinction and I'm not sure it is that helpful for readers. It seems more a wikignomish split hair than something that provides tangible benefit. olderwiser 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    I agree that the idea of using the search hits to determine primary-ness regardless of actual ambiguity is a recently invented distinction, and I don't think we should adopt it. If you're referring to the treatment of surname-holders from actual ambiguity, that's recently invented; see Wikipedia:Anthroponymy#Background reading. Excepting the exceptional (Einstein, Lincoln, Shakespeare), name-holders have been just a class of partial title match for a while now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think I agree. The ambiguity of partial title matches with a term is a matter of degree and context. If there were no ambiguity, then there would be no reason to include them on any disambiguation page. But some partial title matches are included because there is ambiguity. Surnames are a prime example. I can't speak for the Anthroponymy project, but it had been relatively routine matter for bio pages to have a redirect from the surname if there were no other uses, and if there were to create a disambiguation page. I don't agree that surname holders are arbitrarily NOT ambiguous with the surname term merely due to being a partial title match. In my opinion, surname holders are accepted on disambiguation pages because there is some ambiguity due to the nature of English language usage -- people are sometimes referenced by surname only and it is a common convention to search for people by surname. olderwiser 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    This cannot be over-emphasized, even by me: "It is a common convention to search for people by surname". Indeed, and I would add, even if the person being sought is not routinely referenced by surname only. Obviously, you're not going to search for a Smith or a Johnson by surname only, but for someone with an obviously rare if not unique name like "Freston", why even go to the bother of entering the first name? It's perfectly natural and conventional to search for such a person by surname only, and since how likely readers are seeking a given topic by searching with that name is how we determine primary topic, this is quite salient to this discussion. Central, I would say. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    Users are welcome to search on whatever springs to mind, and the disambiguation pages and search results and other Wikipedia tools will be available to help them reach their intended destination. That is not incompatible with leaving primary topics to the ambiguous topics, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, if there are no other uses, it's fine to shanghai a surname to redirect to one of the name holders -- there's no appropriate "ambiguous" topic at all, let alone a primary one. The consensus is that surname holders are accepted on disambiguation pages because that's a convenience over creating the more appropriate anthroponymy list article. The earlier discussions are linked from anthroponymy; they're linked there in order to avoid having to repeat those discussions, although we are rehashing some of it here. I'd rather not continue to rehash it -- if you do disagree with it, the anthroponymy project and/or the disambiguation project would be better places to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    I don't see that the background reading provides any clear indication of consensus -- only of long-standing confusion and disagreements. I don't see any basis for a blanket prohibition on considering surname-holders in determining whether there is a primary topic. olderwiser 02:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    The outcome of those disagreements was the current consensus: MOS:DABNAME. It's not that surname-holders are not excluded from primary topics -- they're excluded from the list of ambiguous entries entirely. In the absence of an anthroponymy list article, short lists of non-ambiguous name holders are cordoned off in dab pages after the list of ambiguous entries, there to await eventual removal to a list article. Primary topics, OTOH, are selected from among the ambiguous topics, not from the larger set of all topics that might be show up in a search on the term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    I think you may be reading more into DABNAME than is there. It does not say surname holders are not ambiguous with the term and do not belong on disambiguation pages. It only indicates they shouldn't be mixed in with other entries (which is, btw, often ignored for short dab pages) and that if the list grows long, it can be split to a separate page. olderwiser 15:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    Not reading into it, just remembering where it came from. this edit came off of this discussion, back when the non-ambiguous name holders were excised from the Disambiguation project into the new Anthroponymy project, for exactly the same reasons I've been consistently applying in disambiguation page cleanups since then. It's obscure and esoteric and apparently still not written clearly enough, but I don't think the extra meaning I'm seeing in it is just my reading of it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't see how the edit you link to has any special relevance nor that the old discussion shows any strong consensus with regards to treatment of surname holders. olderwiser 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I too don't see how these references are relevant to this discussion.

      With that in mind, Bkonrad, would you please take another look at the Talk:Cliburn#Requested move? I've compiled a list of references there (at the bottom) showing how often the pianist is referred to as just Cliburn - certainly often enough to make it likely that some significant percentage of searches for him are just Cliburn. That, combined with the relative obscurity of the other uses, makes him the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"Primary topics, OTOH, are selected from among the ambiguous topics, not from the larger set of all topics that might be show up in a search on the term.". What is the basis of such assertions that are in blatant contradiction to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? MOS:DABNAME is about the content, format and style of dab pages, in particular how names and surnames are treated on dab pages. It says nothing about how primary topics are selected. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why is there even a discussion? There is no primary use. The dab page is where it belongs. Place names do not have a god given right to always be at the main name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    There is a discussion because there's only one topic actually ambiguous with the title. No one has claimed the places have a God-given right to be at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Please clarify what you mean by "ambiguous topic" and "one topic actually ambiguous" in our discussion above. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    I've already made these clarifications. I understand you don't agree with me, but my story is consistent. Ambiguous topic = not a partial title match. Surname-holder = partial title match. The disambiguation page "Freston" has only one non-partial-title match, so no ambiguity. If the town is not moved there, the base name should become the surname anthroponymy article instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    "Ambiguous topic = not a partial title match" is not English. I don't understand what this means. Is "not a partial title match" a topic? How so? A topic is the subject of an article and has nothing do do with the title.

    Can you please indicate whether I understood your definition of "ambiguous topic" correctly, above? If not, how not, and if so, please explain why you believe your definition is correct, rather than how I defined it in terms of title, based on how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is worded? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

    To restate what I've been saying: surname holders (excepting those who are commonly referred to by the surname alone) are partial title matches per consensus at the disambiguation and anthroponymy projects. Partial title matches cannot be the primary topic for the partial elements of their titles (if they are actually ambiguous with the partial elements, they are not partial title matches, but again, this is not the case for surname holders in general). Instead, the anthroponymy article or list article (if one exists) might be primary, one of the ambiguous entries might be primary, or there might be no primary. If there is only one article that is not a partial title match, there is no ambiguity. A surname that does not also have ambiguous topics and no anthroponymy article or list article might redirect to the only notable holder as an {{R from surname}}, but if there are multiple notable holders, an anthroponymy list article (at least) would be needed. If instead there are topics that could have the name, the title should lead (directly or redirectly) to one of them (if there's only one, that one; if there's more than one, the primary one) or lead to a disambiguation page if there a ambiguous topics (possibly including an anthroponymy list article) and none are primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Your personal opinion is fascinating, but positions in these discussions about titles are supposed to be based in policy and guidelines (not unreferenced supposed discussions at projects), or at least conventions. For determining primary topic, of course what is stated at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is particularly relevant. Your position references none of that.

    Let's forget surnames for a moment. I think this assertion is fascinating: "Partial title matches cannot be the primary topic for the partial elements of their titles". It's fascinating for four reasons. First, your entire position rests on it. Second, it seems not to be based in guidelines or policy at all. Third, though it's about primary topic, there is certainly nothing about this at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and fourth, I've actually been trying to introduce wording to say the opposite of this, and you seemed to oppose that effort on grounds that it's redundant. What if readers enter the partial element in the search box when looking for the article with the partial title match? What if they regularly do it? What if they do it so often that the "ambiguous topic" is not primary, by definition? What if they do it so often that the topic of the article with the partial title match is the primary topic? In determining primary topic for the term which is the matching partial element of the article title with the partial title match, why does anything other than the relative likelihoods of these topics being the ones being sought relevant? According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, unless one of the articles involved is "vital", only the search likelihoods matter.

    Now, surnames are just a particular kind of partial title match. So all of my points and questions in the previous paragraph apply to determining primary topics for terms which are surnames. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

    I stopped reading after "to you at least". You are becoming more shrill and less civil and assuming less good faith as this conversation continues. I am happy to see what others contribute. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Yes it was a tad uncivil and so I apologize and I've deleted it, but I assure you I've assumed nothing but good faith on your part, and I agree it would be helpful to have others chime in, though I still wish you would answer the questions I asked in our original discussion way above, as well as the ones I just asked in the comment above this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    I have answered all the questions at least once, and am trying to avoid repetition fatigue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry, these unanswered questions were implied, but I can ask them explicitly if you prefer.
    1. By "ambiguous topic", do you mean, "any topic which would use the term in question as its title if there were no other uses for that term"? If not, what exactly do you mean by "ambiguous topic"?
    2. Do you agree or disagree that the following definition of "ambiguous topic" is more consistent with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? "Any topic which would use the term in question as its title or as a redirect if there were no other uses for that term". If you disagree, why? Please refer to what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually says in your answer.
    3. Do you agree or disagree that surnames are regularly used as redirects to articles about persons with those surnames, not just for people like Einstein who are widely known by surname only, but also for surnames of people not nearly as famous, as in McNealy and Palmisano?
    4. Since the article about Tom Freston would never be at Freston, are you saying it's not an "ambiguous topic" (per #1 above) for "Freston", and therefore should not be considered in primary topic determination for "Freston"? If so, how do you reconcile that position with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which states, "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term being considered" and "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary."? While the article would never be at Freston, do you agree that Freston would likely be a redirect to Tom Freston (like McNealy redirects to Scott McNealy) if "Freston" had no other uses?
    Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What about Cliburn, an article I created at the end of last year, again a village, which I created as Cliburn, not Cliburn, Cumbria, but there are more people called Cliburn than Freston (search for Cliburn) Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 10:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    That's normal and proper. There is no other article "Cliburn". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    But Wikipedia would be a more reader-friendly place if there was some way for the reader who searches on Cliburn and reaches Cliburn to be given a link to Stu, Stan and Van of that surname. Unfortunately there isn't, until someone creates a name or dab page which can be linked in a hatnote. If only there was an equivalent to Category:Living people to cover the dead as well, so that a link to the relevant bit of the alphabet there would offer an automatic alternative! PamD (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Absolutely, an interested editor might create Cliburn (surname), which may or may not be the primary topic for "Cliburn". As to the other suggestion, I too mourned the passing of List of people by name (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name); back when it existed, I linked to the relevant bit from appropriate dabs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)No. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, whether it's normal and proper should depend entirely on how likely someone entering the term "Cliburn" in the search box is looking for the village as opposed to any other topic, period. If the village is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box", then it's the primary topic and should be at Cliburn. If it does not meet that criteria, then it's not the primary topic, by definition, and so should not be at Cliburn.

    When it comes to surnames and other partial title matches, it can be difficult to estimate how often readers use just the partial element of those titles to find those articles, but that's no reason to pretend it never happens. We're supposed to do our best. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

    Any other ambiguous Wikipedia topic, yes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    That's not what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (or any other guideline or policy AFAIK ) states, or even implies. In fact, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC goes on to state, "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary.". --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Accordingly, I've proposed moving Cliburn. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, take a few days off and then read the discussion that followed my opinion. Still there is nothing that says we have a primary topic and nothing that shows the dab page should be moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have proposed Bungay, Suffolk, as the google search clearly shows Bungay, Suffolk is the prime topic, even if Freston, Suffolk isn't in this move Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Since when did Google become the source for establishing primary topics on Wikipedia? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Also note that Freston Tower gets almost as many hits as the locality so another proof that there is no primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
      But note that "Freston Tower" is a partial title match (which is why it's in the "See also" section), so not a proof that there is not primary topic for the title "Freston". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Except the point is, I think, that the village is otherwise entirely unnotable except for the tower. The article has virtually nothing to say about the place other than that it exists and is the location of the tower. olderwiser 23:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment what about Pengelly. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 20:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have added a hatnote for Tom Freston, is that not a fair compromise to move this article to Freston. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 17:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The hatnote only makes sense if this article is at Freston. Let's wait until the proposal is closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.