Talk:Palin/Archive 1

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

those Alaskan Palins

"Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska Todd Palin, Sarah's husband"

guess it's time to update to

"Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and 2008 presumptive candidate for Vice President of the United States"

and

either 1. remove Mr. Palin from list (he has no article of his own; link leads to Gov. Palin's article) or 2. at least make it read "Todd Palin (without link), husband of Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and 2008 presumptive candidate for Vice President of the United States" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin fails WP:N. Therefore he should not be listed on this disambig page, just as other non-notable members of any notable Palin's family should not be listed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change this to simply a disambiguation page, and make Sarah Palin the primary redirect for Palin; as the nominee for vice-president of a major American political party, I think she wins out on notability over the others listed here by a wide margin. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Palin perhaps failed WP:N as of 2+/- hours ago. However, I'm sure he will be analyzed by the media ad nauseam in the coming days as the husband of a VP candidate.68.173.2.68 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For what is Todd Palin notable on his own, independent of his wife's honors or achievements? Is he well-known outside the context of his wife? - Brian Kendig (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You raise an interesting question. Is a man notable if he never accomplished anything in his life that is noteworthy, had nothing inherent to distinguish himself from the rest of humanity, and yet somehow received inexhaustive fame, media coverage, and possibly even scholarly study? By WP:N, I believe he would be as ridiculous as it seems. He doesn't have to be noteworthy for anything in particular if he himself is the subject of numerous reliable sources. The coverage itself would make him noteworthy. -- Atamachat 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Sarah Palin?

Obama, McCain, and Biden all redirect to the 2008 candidates. Should we perhaps move the Palin disambiguation page to Palin (disambiguation), and have Palin redirect to Sarah Palin? Meaning no offense to Michael Palin, I think Ms. P is (at least for the forseeable future) the Palin wikisearchers are far most interested in. Of course, I'd put a {for} note at the top of her page pointing people to the DAB page, too. -- Narsil (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I'm going ahead and doing it. Cover me! -- Narsil (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not think you can simply change the page like that. There must at least be some sort of debate. Many would point out Michael Palin is a very well known individual and has been for quite sometime. Sarah Palin is a much more recent person of note and has not moved nearly into the public eye as Obama, McCain and Biden. In all, I must state Michael Palin is more well known. Perhaps in the future the page can be moved, but even then, only to a disambiguation page at best. 86.139.173.255 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I support redirecting "Palin" to "Sarah Palin", at least for the time being. There is now a notice at the top of Sarah Palin pointing to the dismbig page.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems a bit U.S.-centric to me. I don't think that Sarah Palin is so much more notable than Michael Palin that we should redirect this to Sarah Palin. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree and think the move should be reverted. I also think the that in the absence of consensus, the move should be reverted since it was done without discussion. The argument for Obama, McCain and Biden doesn't hold water since it depends on the enteries in the disambig page. That's why Bush doesn't redirect to George W. Bush despite him being surely significantly more noteable than any of Obama, McCain, Biden or Palin. Incidentally Obama was a controversial move and McCain probably would have been if Lowellian hadn't snuck it under the radar a few months ago. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I support redirecting Palin to Sarah Palin for the time being. The number of hits on Sarah Palin will dwarf the number of hits on Michael Palin, at least for the foreseeable future and this is an encyclopedic no-brainer. (Tongue in cheek remark: we can undo the move in November!) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 02:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
We get "shrub has been viewed 36446 times in 200805" and "George_W._Bush has been viewed 550096 times in 200805". Does that mean you also support moving Bush to Bush (disambiguation) and redirecting Bush to George W. Bush? Also saying we should do it now, and then revert if she loses smacks of WP:Recentism to me. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(I guess a tongue in cheek disclaimer doesn't do the trick :-)). My point is that neither US centrism nor recentism are good arguments in this case. Whether one likes it or not, following the US election is a global phenomenon and US centrism is not even a valid argument. The notability of the US presidential election also means that the notability of Sarah Palin is now many orders of magnitude greater than that of Michael Palin and until the McCain/Palin ticket is defeated and Sarah Palin once again relegated to the bins of obscurity, wikipedia should appropriately acknowledge this higher level of notability by having Palin redirect to Sarah Palin (along with the disambig disclaimer on top). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 05:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that Palin should come to this dab page, not to Sarah Palin, as both Sarah Palin and Michael Palin are notable people. Which is more notable depends on your geographic location and your interests. - Brian Kendig (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All people listed on a disambig page are notable, or they wouldn't have Wikiepdia articles. For now at least, Sarah Palin is by far the most notable. Do you also support changing the redirects for Obama, McCain, and Biden?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
With Biden, there's no contest, indeed it's been like that from the start of the page I think. The other guy is his son, and doesn't even come close, it doesn't matter where you live. With Obama, it's a bit more iffy, there was some people who felt that ignoring a Japanese city was a clear cut case of WP:Systemic bias but to be fair, it only has 32k people and I suspect even most Japanese wouldn't be aware of Obama were it not for the Presidential candidate. McCain is even more tricky given that we are talking about a a CAD$5.8 billion company here supposedly the "largest producer of french fries and other oven-ready frozen food products in the world" (albeit unsourced) and the "second largest private company in Canada". I suspect many people hear just as much about McCain the company (and their products) as they do the Presidential candidate outside the US. I personally feel the move, done without discussion was a mistake (and note I'm not the first person to express the view) and will likely be proposing a move. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
When the McCain redirect was discussed in April, the John McCain article was viewed 311,507 times during that month, and McCain Foods Limited was viewed 1,929 times during that month.[1] Is that relevant in your analysis?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the redirect of Palin to Palin (disambiguation). Tvoz/talk 05:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I support redirect of Palin to Sarah Palin since (for now) most typing in Palin will want her page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I support redirecting Palin to Sarah Palin, since this is what most people will be trying to find, and since the other three people in the '08 election have their last names redirect to them. Bias is bad. Wkerney (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of the question, of course. Michael Palin has been notable world-wide for several decades, she for several days and primarily in the U.S. Anyone talking about bias regarding the redirects at Obama, Biden and McCain should consider that the only bias at play is their own. user:Everyme 14:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As the person who recently created the redirect for Biden to Joseph Biden, I'll state for the record that I did so because the Biden disambiguation page referred only to Joseph Biden and his son, who was also linked to from the Joseph Biden page. I checked the Palin disambiguation page for any similarity and found that there were several Palins who are completely disparate. Because of this, I explicitly chose to not alter the redirection of Palin. I would vote against doing so, just as I would for redirecting Joseph to Joseph Biden.  X  S  G  23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

  • Support for reasons outlined above Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. (ec)Since Palin does redirect to sarah palin, is your support for a move back to Palin ==> Michael Palin? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 02:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    No my support is for what I think was the situation before the undiscussed move, Palin is the disambiguation page Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The Biden, McCain and Obama redirects are acceptable because Joe Biden, John McCain and Barack Obama are the most famous people with those names. Michael Palin is still the most famous Palin, and unless that changes, Palin should either be a disambiguation page or redirect to his article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. I don't think your statement is based on neutral facts. Sarah Palin currently gets 11,802 hits at Google news.[2] Michael Palin gets 284.[3] Even if we consider the Google News Archive, Michael Palin's lifetime hits total only 6980.[4] I think everyone knows that Sarah Palin is currently the Palin people are looking for. In the future, this situation may change, but for now it is pretty straightforward.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    Michael Palin's fame predates the internet. On the other hand, recentism is mainly a problem within articles, it seems reasonable for navigation to favour whatever more people are looking for. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    Edit conflict. Withdrawn, see below. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that this discussion seems very messed up. The real issue is whether Palin should redirect to Palin (disambiguation), or whether it should instead redirect to Sarah Palin (which has a note at the top pointing to Palin (disambiguation)). That's the real issue. Instead, this discussion has been incorrectly framed as a vote about whether a "move" should have occurred. I would suggest that we stop discussing the latter issue, and start discussing the former.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unless she's actually elected to be VP, this smacks of US-centrism. Being second fiddle on the ticket is not the same as being candidate for President. 70.55.85.143 (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support redirect of Palin to Palin (disambiguation) Tvoz/talk 05:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Since what one is supporting or opposing is rather unclear here, this Obama voter and supporter (and long time Michael Palin fan) says: support redirecting Palin to Sarah Palin. US Centrism is not a valid argument since everyone and their aunt follows the US elections. Michael Palin is well known amongst a select group of python fans and watchers of his travel shows but is hardly a household figure and what other Palins come close? (Michael, I hope you're watching wikipedia and having a good laugh!)--Regents Park (count the magpies) 05:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Even allowing that Michael Palin's fame predates the internet, he has 1,490,000 google hits to Sarah Palin's 385,000. Frankly, even this (The Palin page being a list of Plains instead of a redirect to Michael) is a little charitable to a candidate for a job "worth a pitcher of warm piss." But I think it's justified for now (pre election) on balance. MikeHobday (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: FYI, the page has been restored to Palin. The initial move, from Palin to Palin (disambiguation), was out of order and should not have occurred without discussion. This does not in any way mean the page cannot be moved; only that it should remain at Palin until such a discussion is complete. I would invite the page regulars to reformat the above discussion and move proposal to reflect this; please let me know if you require assistance in doing so. --Ckatzchatspy 07:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, why was it "out of order" when I moved the page? This discussion had not begun. I thought (okay, mistakenly) that it would be an uncontroversial action--I've done that kind of DAB page cleanup any number of times before--so I thought I'd just go ahead and be WP:BOLD. I'm not objecting to the move being undone and the discussion starting--I just don't see why my first move would be considered "out of order", even if it's been reversed. -- Narsil (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, if you didn't realise this would be controversial, you didn't look into the matter enough. Remember discussion costs nothing. Carrying out a controversial action without discussion however causes a lot of problems Nil Einne (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose redirecting to Sarah Palin "Sarah Palin is now the more notable person in the USA" does not equal "Sarah Palin is now the most notable". If McCain wins the election we can re-visit this, but at the moment the majority of the planet has no major interest in Sarah Palin. Black Kite 09:18, 30 August 2008 (
  • Absolutely oppose. Even if Sarah Palin was the most famous of all the Palins in all the world - which I sincerely doubt - Michael Palin has worldwide name recognition from three separate sources: Monty Python, numerous series of worldwide syndicated TV travelogues, and an award-winning film career which includes household name films such as A Fish Called Wanda. These two are unlikely to be the last Palins ever to make the project and to redirect to Sarah Palin would be as egregious an example of parochial recentism as her selection is an example of tokenism. Finally, an unscientific Google fight shows that Michael Palin gets over 1.6 million hits to Sarah Palin's under 400,000, so if anything it would seem that in terms of worldwide name recognition the better move might be the opposite of that suggested (which, incidentally, I would also oppose, and not only because my ister had nightmares for months after seeing roast guinea pig on Michael Palin's Great Railway Journeys). Guy (Help!) 14:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Your Google stats are out of date. She gets 17.7M results, he gets 1.7M, a full order of magnitude less. Also, as I mention below, since her announcement her WP page has gotten 143 times more traffic than his. Oren0 (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose redirecting to Sarah Palin as pure recentism and also POV. user:Everyme 15:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I WONDER IF MICHAEL PALIN EVER GOT 2.5 MILLION WIKIPEDIA HITS IN ONE SINGLE DAY.71.88.58.198 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If you read the actual guidelines, it only recommends that hits be utilized for organizing disparate objects and concepts, not people with the same surname.  X  S  G  04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You are incorrect XSG. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.71.88.58.198 (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Self-removed contrib restored and struck thru. (Please don't remove once saved; you have no idea how many people will be later confused bcz they remember reading it in that 3 minute window.--Jerzyt 09:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A self-removed contrib made at 05:21, 5 September 2008 at this point can be seen in its original form and context on the edit's diffs page, by those who may have seen it in its original three-minute existence or those pursuing a search-hit based on this talk page having been crawled in that period, and in its restored form and context on a three-edits-in-7-minutes diffs page, by those in a similar relation to a subsequent three-hour period.
Off-topic material, including the author/remover's criticism of the restoration, has been moved to Talk:Palin/Re talk-maintenance actions. --Jerzyt 07:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm swayed.  X  S  G  16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support redirect. Sarah Palin has gotten millions of views per day and is now consistently getting several hundred thousand views. No disrespect to Michael Palin, but he can't be getting anywhere near that many views. But the two people's relative notability isn't the only concern here. Someone looking for Michael is much more likely to type his full name IMO. People will see McCain-Palin bumperstickers, commercials, signs, etc and are therefore more likely to type just "Palin" because they might not know her full name. Furthermore, the charges of recentism are silly; regardless of whether her ticket wins or loses, she is still a national figure now and will be very notable for a long time. Oren0 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If she loses, her visibility and notability in the public sphere will drop quickly, considerably and at all probability permanently. Let's revisit this after the election is over. user:Everyme 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that you link WP:CRYSTAL when that's exactly what you're doing. (remainder copied from my own comment on my talk page) Sarah Palin has been viewed an average of 844,000 times per day since she was announced as the nominee. His average is 5,750 (and that has spiked since her nomination also, he was getting <1000 hits per day before that). So, among those two, 99.3% of users are viewing her page. Put another way, 147 users are viewing her page for every one that views his. Not only that, but I'd posit that someone who types just the last name is more likely looking for her than for him. So why wouldn't we redirect to the page that people are 99%+ likely to want? Traffic stats. Oren0 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support redirect. Numbers make it a clear choice (as Oren0 says). If/when those numbers change (and they likely will if she loses the election), we can change back. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose No good reason to. There are plenty of other Palins, some of them more notable than the Governor. To do so would be another example of Americocentricity. It would also serve to promote a certain candidate's political aspirations-- ala WP:SOAP. There were plenty of Palins in the 'pedia before she came along. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename this page?

The question right now is whether this disambiguation page ought to be renamed from "Palin" to "Palin (disambiguation)". Doing that would allow us to make "Palin" into a redirect, either to Sarah Palin or to Michael Palin or to Palin (disambiguation). We don't have to decide right now where "Palin" would redirect to. All we need to decide now is whether to rename the disambiguation page "Palin (disambiguation)" instead of the current title "Palin".

  • Support. Renaming this disambiguation page "Palin (disambiguation)" would give us more flexibility, so that we could turn "Palin" into a redirect.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose With one Palin (Michael) very prominent and one potentially very prominent, the current version works just fine. Even after November 4, there will be no need to change. MikeHobday (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for simplicity: see Bush. However, if the page is renamed Palin (disambiguation), I oppose redirecting Palin to Sarah Palin, as it leaves Michael - a very well-known Palin - out in the cold, and vice versa. Again, see Bush. Tvoz/talk 08:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Bush is not a good example of simplicity, as both Bush and Bush (disambiguation) exist with Bush (disambiguation) redirected back to the actual disambiguation page Bush. Celestra (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Right - except no one comes here and types Bush (disambiguation) - they type Bush and get directly to the dab page. It doesn't matter at all: I actually don't care if Palin (disambiguation) redirects to Palin with the dab list or vice versa - the root of my opposition is to having Palin redirect directly to either Michael Palin or Sarah Palin. It needs to be to a disambiguation page. Tvoz/talk 21:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What the reader types has only an indirect relationship to the name of the page the reader's browser eventually presents. I agree that no one types Bush (disambiguation), but one does select it from the pages suggested in the search box and if we want to present a choice of Bush (disambiguation) in that list, why would we not want that page to be the DAB? I'm asking that sincerely, as WP:DAB seems to agree with you. Celestra (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose redirecting to "Sarah Palin" - this would be strongly US-centric. Michael Palin is, IMO, actually rather more notable from a British perspective. I oppose a redirect even if she and McCain win - there are two people, prominent in their own right, with the name "Palin" and that's surely what disambiguation is for. Pfainuk talk 10:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. Palin is a surname, there are at least two Palins with wide name recognition, favouring one over the other is favouritism of an unacceptable kind. I suggest we close this, it is an ex discussion, it has ceased to be. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Palin is at least as ambiguous as Biden and that is a dismabiguation page, as should this page also. olderwiser 14:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The dab belongs at Palin, there's just no two ways about this with two or more roughly equally notable people. user:Everyme 16:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Sarah Palin is clearly the more notable at this time. A week ago, it would have been Michael Palin. Not anymore. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That's why we call it Recentism. The perfect reason not to redirect to Sarah Palin at this moment. As someone said above, we can revisit this iff McCain/Palin win the election. user:Everyme 16:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That was me. And even if McCain does win the election, Michael Palin has been notable for 40 years. This is fairly clear-cut at the moment - Palin should redirect to the dab. Black Kite 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right. *slaps self* Black Kite 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • :D Please don't. user:Everyme 19:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This isn't about whether to redirect, it is about naming the page in a way that allows us to redirect if we choose. And the redirect itself shouldn't be a popularity contest or a political battleground, it should be an objective decision about how to best serve the reader. Celestra (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly, and how better could we serve the reader for this case where there are two very notable people with that name than by having a disambiguation page at Palin? user:Everyme 19:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Michael Palin was far more notable than her until a few days ago, if anything it should redirect to him Thisglad (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Well, I started this mess, so I suppose I ought to say that I support it. My reasons are straightforward--the major-party nominee for vice president of a major world power is Notable in a special way, and is guaranteed to be of lasting interest in the encyclopedia. But could I offer a compromise solution? To wit: [ -- Narsil (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC) ]
    • Compromise: Move Palin to Palin (disambiguation). Have that be where the DAB page lives. But have Palin redirect to Palin (disambiguation), instead of the other way around. The DAB page would stay at Palin (disambiguation) forever, regardless--but in a few months, we could revisit the question of whether Palin ought to redirect to the DAB page, or to the page on Sarah Palin, or even on Michael Palin (with, naturally, a link on that page pointing people back to the DAB page, if that's what they want to find). In the meantime, any existing links to Palin would be changed to point to the DAB page, so those links would remain good no matter where Palin ends up pointing. How does that sound? -- Narsil (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like it doesn't solve our problems. I stand by my Strong Support of the original motion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Um did either of you actually read the motion? The motion which we are discussing is precisely what Narsil has suggested... Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies! Yes, I'll leave my comment as an uncomplicated support. -- Narsil (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose To be frank, we aren't even discussing the proper thing. There is absolutely no reason to rename this page to disambiguation if we are going to redirect Palin to the disambiguation page. Our guideline on this matter is extremely clear. We only call a page disambiguation if the main article is or redirects to something else. I suggest anyone not aware of this check out WP:DAB. Not only that I can see absolutely no reason to call this disambiguation if we are going to redirect Palin to here. (Which is precisely why our DAB policy opposes what has been proposed). We should be deciding what we want to do now. If things, change, we can revisit the situation in the future and admins can make any change that achieves consensus. The only 'advantage' to calling this page disambiguation while redirecting Palin to here is that it makes it easier for editors on either side to POV push and go against whatever consensus decision is reached without proper discussion which is hardly a real advantage. Now when it comes to main issue, I oppose Palin redirect to Sarah Palin, it should be this disambig page for the reasons I've outlined a while back Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional comment How many people actually read what they are supporting/opposing here? It seems most people are discussing whether to redirect Palin to Sarah Palin or keep it the disambiguation page which is what we should be discussing but the motion Ferrylodge proposed is simply whether to call this disambiguation without deciding on what to redirect where. Sadly this whole thing is an extreme mess and amply illustrates why people should always discuss moves that may be controversial, as outlined in WP:RM rather then just going ahead and being reckless Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've mentioned this issue at Talk:Michael Palin as it's the primary other page this affects. It's already been mentioned at Sarah Palin by me and possibly others Nil Einne (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, fine as it is at the moment, and allows both major possibilities, plus the others as equal an amount of mouse-clickage as they would have individually anyway. Bob talk 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support, per the cases with Obama, McCain, and Biden. The overwhelmingly most common usage of "Palin" is "Sarah Palin". —Lowellian (reply) 01:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support Definitely should be a disambig.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose women for whatever theories I have no name for, are seldom referred to by their surnames as men are, thus I can't imagine "Palin" having precedence over "Sarah Palin" in the same fashion as Obama, Clinton etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave it alone This should be re catted as a human name disambiguation and left alone. Other human name disambiguation pages are just like this one-- a list of people with the name in question.. It is not a surname page, as it has no info on the etymology of the name. Moving it to Palin (disambiguation) will just make it harder for people to find the Palin they are looking for. Having Palin redirect to Sarah Palin serves no purpose but to confuse readers and amke it hreder for people interested in the others. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Choice of first entry

I notice from the history that i am not the first to suggest raising whatever-her-name-is to the top slot on the Dab page. On the other hand, a colleague reverted the edit that effected that change, and i agree that it would require discussion. My proposal is that this "promotion" be for the few months that will correspond to her meteoric prominence.
I'm not sure i've ever paid any attention before to WP:Recentism (cited repeatedly in the preceding move discussions). In any case:

  1. I note that (at least) the first 'graph on that term defines it with the scope of articles, and Dabs are not articles but navigational devices, organized to reduce the effort of getting users to the respective articles they have in mind, where those users can't reason out what our title must be -- or can do so only in more time than it takes to type the un-Dab'd title and fetch the Dab page. The article/Dab distinction is important, bcz the logic of condemning Recentism presumably rests on the goal of building articles of lasting significance, and that goal & logic do not apply to Dabs, which change as articles are created and deleted or change their names, or (as i am arguing) change their significance.
  2. Even if the scope of that WPnamespace provision does extend to Dabs (contrary to the pop-up's suggestion): I think it takes long enuf to polish prose, in collaborative editing, that i could support some imaginable versions of Anti-recentism that assume adjusting prose to suit the next two months is Recentism; still i think being Anti-recentist about the order of Dab lists, when the time scale is more than a couple of days, is almost certainly silly. So i argue that the "recent" in Recentism is closer to a matter of hours or a handful of days than to the weeks or month or two that i would assume it means in the context of articles.

(I think there's some reason in this to presume that COIs are likely to hamper this discussion, so it may be sensible to state that i generally travel out of state to work in Dem Party presidential primaries, did so on behalf of Obama, and intend to do so in the Nov. general election. So if my PoV is intruding, it is my PoV about the (short-term) significance of electoral politics, not abt the odds of either McCain or Palin exceeding Alf Landon or Alben Barkley in long term significance.)
So i'm proposing, for the convenience of users, let's put

''whatever'' Palin (born 1964), American politician -- Republican VP nominee
Michael Palin (born 1943), British actor, comedian and writer

in that order as the first Dab entries, and if the discussion justifies formally seeking consensus, let's plan that once the last hurrah has echoed, she goes back into the routine lineup.
If there turns out to be little controversy (and no active investigation of her state-cops scandal is launched in time), she should just be demoted when the election news dies out; if that evokes a substantial outcry (compared to opinions favoring this plan now), there should be another a discussion of how far she has to fall before demotion.
--Jerzyt 06:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it because I find the logic most compelling that because Michael Palin and Sarah Palin are by far the two most notable in the list, they should be on top. In the next step, I'd sort both "brackets" of the list alphabetically again. Otherwise, there'd be a clear implication that Sarah Palin is more notable and it would achieve little beyond introducing that POV. People can read, and if someone is pissed off that the Republican VP candidate (pick) is "only in line two behind some clown from the UK", I'd argue it's their own problem.
About recentism being defined for articles not for dabs, I wouldn't interpret that too mechanically and narrowly. It's recentism all the same and we should avoid giving in to it wherever possible. Wikipedia is not a news outlet, imho we should strive to sort and weight things according to their long-term relevance. "Granting" Sarah Palin a spot in the "top bracket" next to Michael Palin is already recentist, but it's a compromise I can live with for now. Let's just not overdo it, into which category anything beyond that would fall (e.g. giving her the temporary top spot in the dab, let alone redirecting to the article about her). I'm also sure that this will have to be revisited anyway come the general election. user:Everyme 08:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This should be more-or-less done in the order of access rate so that the most people will find the person they are looking for at the top of the list. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • This "conversation" was not enough to justify re-ordering the list. See further up the talkpage for why. Black Kite 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I was being WP:BOLD quite on purpose. The relevant quote [5] is "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below.". I can't get the statistics for the last few weeks, but Sarah has to be at the top of this and can reasonably be assumed to be so for at least the next 2 months. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
      • And I can't tell, are you opposed to this change, or just feel it hasn't been agreed to yet? Hobit (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Both. Such changes are recentism. Michael Palin has been globally notable for 40 years, Sarah Palin for a week. Black Kite 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I'd argue that #1 the Manual of Style (guideline) trumps the recentism essay and #2 in any case the goal should be to make it easiest to find the thing that people (right now) are most likely to want to find. This isn't a popularity contest to see who gets to go first, it's an issue of placing them in the order of usage for usability purposes. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Also, Looking at http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Sarah_Palin, it seems to me she's been getting 100 times the number of page access as Micheal well before she got the VP nod. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Please check your facts. It is patently false to say Sarah Palin has been getting 100 times the number of page views as Michael. For one thing, complete data at stats.grok.se is only available through 2008-06 (June) and partial month for 2008-07 (July). Sarah Palin page views for 2008-06 tended from around 1k to about 2.9k with a few spikes while those Michael Palin in the same period ranged from 849 to 1.2k. That is hardly 100 times. And for earlier periods, views for Michael Palin have been consistently in the same range, while those of Sarah Palin have ranged widely, with many one day spikes, but overall much lower numbers. But in any case, those numbers are for Sarah Palin and Michael Palin and it is unclear what inference can be made to Palin. olderwiser 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
              • You are correct, I mis-spelled Micheal and was getting 10/day. Hobit (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I think your misunderstanding the MOS. The key points is, it says most used 'meanings'. It's clearly not thinking of a pure sort by frequency but a partial sort by frequency. In other words, if two items have comparable frequency then they should be together even if one is potentially more popular in the other. It makes no sense to put one item at the top above all others since in that case we might as well redirect to that one item (which there is clearly no consensus for). I would say put Michael Palin and Sarah Palin at top, the rest below. Again, I bring the Bush example to play. There is no doubt that people are much more interested in George W. Bush then shrubs let alone George H. W. Bush but guess which items are at the top? Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
            • This I'll disagree with. I think different names are different meanings in the sense described here. The Bush example is a reasonable one, but I'd honestly guess that "shrub" is still the most common use of the word bush. Here I think the word "Palin" likely means Sarah in general conversation at this point. Hobit (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Depends to an extent on where you are. However while Michael has enough notability to keep the page from going to a redirect I think Sarah should probably have the top spot for the next few years.Geni 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
              • That doesn't explain why H.W. is higher then W. And we seem to be arguing different points here. I thought people were saying Sarah Palin should be at the top because she has the most traffic? Now you're saying shrub should be at top because when people say bush they mean shrubs not GWB? Even if this is true (most of the time when I say Bush I mean GWB, when I'm talking about bushes I say bushes not bush and I'm not even American) there's no evidence it holds for Sarah Palin. I suspect if I were to go up to a person in the street and ask them about Palin they'd wonder who the fuck I was talking about. Probably about an equal number each way would think I was talking about Sarah or Michael and a I suspect a resonable number would ask me if I was talking about Michael or Sarah. I suspect this would hold for much of the English-native Commonwealth (not 100% sure about India and non native English speaking countries, I suspect by and large they would have no idea who I'm talking about). I've never used Palin in general conversation to mean either people but suspect many people who do, may very well mean Michael with perhaps a small majority meaning Sarah at the current time. Definitely I'm sure things are different in the US, but it's well established that we don't prioritise the US. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Alphabetizing is, as I read it, not suggested per the MOS. Seems strange here. Hobit (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree and have reverted, pending discussion here. If I've missed any significant subsequent changes, that wa snot intentional, so add them back in. MikeHobday (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Put Sarah Palin first?

  • I've posted links to this talk page at the two main Palin pages (there was already one at Micheal, but I updated it. Hobit (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Per the disambiguation manual of style "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below". Previous to even previous to being selected as VP her page was more accessed than any other Palin (http://stats.grok.se/en/). I can't find stats for after the VP selection, but I'd have to imagine it is a highly accessed article. Charges of recentism seem largely irrelevant as that essay holds little weight and doesn't even clearly apply to disambiguation page. Even after the election is over, and even if she loses, former VP candidates still have fairly high profiles, as do state governors.Hobit (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Her's the #6 most accessed page right now as 120K/day. [6]
  • The debate is long over. The result was: no. user:Everyme 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Long over? It was started yesterday and continues today. There certainly isn't consensus as we've had at least 3 camps (~3 for Sarah first, 1 for alphabetization, and ~4 for Micheal first if I'm counting correctly). The change to alphabetization was today that lasted for a good long while. Further, we now (today) have evidence that Sarah's page is much much more viewed than Micheal's (factor of >100 I believe). Hobit (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The debate is long over. The result was: no. user:Everyme 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense the second time. I've posted links to this talk page at the two main Palin pages (there was already one at Micheal, but I updated it.) Hobit (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Without addressing the actual discussion, if you're referring to the discussion which started yesterday, Everyme, you are much more than mistaken to believe it is "long over" or that any result has come from it. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The "result that has come from it" is that POV pushers continue pushing their POV. And they're not going to stop with any compromise. Now she's on top of the dab, next thing may be to bold only her name, and then they will argue to redirect it to the SP article again. It's recentism, it's transparent POV, it's out of the question. That was the result of yesterday's discussion. user:Everyme 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What "POV" are you claiming is being pushed? Hobit (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
alphabetizing is the best policy, IMO. Never mind, if MoS says order by use, then Sarah obviously should be first for the time being. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It is important that the editors who are bemoaning POV edits don't wind up being just as POV in the other direction, and in some cases we may have already crossed that line. My solution to this is to look at how other editors have handled the listing of other surnames because, trust me on this one, we are not the first people to try to solve this issue. We have, for example:
  • Clemens - sorted alphabetically
  • Collins - sorted alphabetically
  • Johnson - sorted alphabetically
  • King - sorted alphabetically
  • Madison - most common result prioritized, the rest sorted alphabetically
  • Monroe - sorted alphabetically
  • Watson - sorted alphabetically
It is apparent that alphabetization is strongly preferred. The reason for this is that there can be no argument and no slippery slope, and the ordering is obvious.
The MoS is also being applied incorrectly in previous arguments. For example, the "order of entries" section is clearly discussing the order amongst completely disparate concepts, not amongst people with the same surname. The MoS has no clear suggestion on how to sort lists of names. Sadly, the guidelines can't help us, so we're forced to look closer at how other editors have solved this dilemma. The answer, therefore, appears overwhelmingly to be: alphabetize.  X  S  G  03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As someone whose first and last name both start with A, I endorse alphabetical order, not only for this page, but for every kind of preferment. A.J.A. (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, as someone who has a bunch of those pesky end-of-alphabet letters in her name I will rise above it and say this should be alphabetical. Tvoz/talk 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think to determine "common practice" from names with dozens of entries is unfair. Of course those will be alphabetical. See, for example, Bush or Cheney (surname). Oren0 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I would point out there have been lots of revisions and very little on the talk page. If people have opinions they should really come here before making changes. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Which primarily applies to those who are for redirecting as I personally still believe that a reidrect is out of the question and I predict that a redirect will certainly be undone quickly. user:Everyme 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above list which concludes that "alphabetization is preferred" is deceptive because it picked really common surnames where there wasn't obviously one or two most notable people. Have a look, for example, at the last several presidents/vice presidents:

To me, the common decision is that for relatively uncommon last names where one or two people are obviously most notable (I believe that this page qualifies) the choice is prioritization. Oren0 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oren0, your input is appreciated, however it is quite clear that there is an ongoing discussion on this matter. It is improper for you to simply override previous discussion and modify the article according to your views at this point. Before making changes, please show respect to the ongoing discussion and not enact changes that haven't yet received consensus.  X  S  G  02:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If we begin to draw a line between prominent and other people named Palin, we open up a slippery slope. It begs the question: how do we quantify where the line between prominent and other is? What do we do when one Palin clearly pulls ahead of all of the others, as is (at least temporarily) the present case? If we want to quantify this then I'd have no issue with moving forward with a separate list, however prioritizing some Palins and avoiding the quantification issue introduces a slippery slope. With the surname Palin, that might not be so bad, but if the Palin discussion is used as a precedent for other surnames, it begins to tarnish Wikipedia.  X  S  G  03:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference would be just to put Sarah to the top, or have Palin go to Sarah. Her page was, last I checked, one of the top 10 pages on the site. If there is ever a case for having the default page not be the DAG, this is it. But if we aren't going to do that, we should be making it as easy as possible for people to find the stuff they are likely coming here for. I'd be happy with alphabetizing and bolding her name. But as shown above, this isn't the start of some slippery slope. Other DAG pages do the same thing and in any case, it's similar to any other editorial decision we make. Hobit (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that with the Bush example Oren mentioned, even though it is prioritised, as I've mentioned before, we have shrub on top, with the names following in alphabetical order (i.e. George H. W. Bush first) even though George W. Bush is clearly the most visited at the moment. As I've mentioned before, that suggests we could put Michael and Sarah at the top in alphabetical order but not Sarah Palin at the top. Of course this whole thing would have been avoided if Sarah's parents had just thought a bit before naming her and called her Aaleyah :-P Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)