Talk:Greylock

Greylock

You don't need consensus to make an initial edit with a valid rationale. The assertion that because the redirect points to 'Greylock Partners' at present, it is the primary topic, as asserted in the rvt summary by Bkonrad, is severely flawed and circular reasoning, especially when the redirect page itself was reverted because this page had it as the primary topic. It does not constitute an argument for it being the primary target in the first place. A noteworthy historical figure whose name is Greylock, outweighs an American venture capital firm who has that as a component of its name, as would a mountain which is significant for being the tallest in the state of Massachusetts. His name is the base name of the redirect, as per WP:MALPLACED the redirect should point the article about him. There are in fact a number of businesses and organisations that have Greylock in their name, Greylock Federal Credit Union, Greylock Insurance, Greylock Investment Group, Greylock Marketing Group, Greylock School, for instance, there have also been ships named Greylock, and the SS Mount Greylock. The fact of Greylock Partners being on facebook doesn't make it more primary. If none of these were considered more primary, which an argument might be made for, with them being quite different in nature, then as per WP:MALPLACED, the disambig page should be moved to the the current redirect page.Number36 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears there's no dissenting or counter arguments after all. I'll give it a bit more time.Number36 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need, there is no primary topic, it merely requires moving the dab to the base name as per WP:MALPLACED, currently a redirect. The position that there's a primary topic because the base name redirects to an article, and that the redirect should point to that particular article because it's listed as the primary topic here, is circular as above. There's no reason to presuppose a venture capital firm is more significant than the other subjects here. No counter-argument has been presented for nearly two years since the subject was raised.Number36 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]