Talk:Secretariat (administrative office)

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Requested move

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved with no prejudice against subsequent move of the article about the horse to the base name if it is the primary topic. (Primary topic is not necessarily the most basic meaning; it's the one most likely sought be encyclopedia readers, by virtue of its usage and long-term significance.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– I am not saying that the horse (at "Secretariat (horse)") should be considered the WP:PRIMARY topic. However, it seems pretty clear that the administrative office (currently at "Secretariat") is not. The current Secretariat article, created two months ago from left-over text after a dab page move (without prior discussion, I believe), is viewed far less frequently than the articles about the horse and the film (about the horse). The article about the horse has more than 20 times as many recent views as the one about the administrative agency. The fame of the horse is not just due to recent events, as the horse's famous wins were 40 years ago. Again, I'm not advocating that the horse should be considered primary. What I'm saying is that Secretariat should be the dab page. BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For that matter, given the page visit stats, I think a disambiguation might not be enough. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which says that "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term," it ought to be the horse. Is it highly likely that the horse is the number one subject sought by a search for "Secretariat?" The stats bear out the fact that it is. City Of Silver 19:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would not object to considering the horse the primary topic. I just checked Google and Bing, and their search results are heavily dominated by the horse (and the film about the horse). Question: Would it be considered WP:CANVASSING to put a (neutrally worded) notice about this move request at Talk:Secretariat (horse)? There would presumably be a substantial number of people that watch that page that may have an interest in this discussion. –BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking more about it, I think it may be required to put a notification at Talk:Secretariat (horse), since we are now talking about potentially moving that article. –BarrelProof (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's anything to worry about. I'm genuinely interested to read arguments against these moves, and I don't see any reason such a notice could be read as a bad-faith attempt to swing votes. Someone who is watching Talk:Secretariat (horse) isn't necessarily a fan of the horse or racing in general. I, personally, am a fan of neither and here I am, voting. I think if the notification is here, it ought to be at the horse's page and the dab page, and maybe even the movie's page. City Of Silver 19:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A bot has already put a notification at Talk:Secretariat (disambiguation). I just put one at Talk:Secretariat (horse), using very similar wording to that used by the bot. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of the disambiguation page being the primary topic. I wouldn't object to the horse becoming the WP:PRIMARY topic; the stats are convincing. If not, then the "Secretariat" page should link directly to the racehorse, so I have done that. p.s. I also have no concerns about canvassing; the more the merrier. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support; the office is certainly not the primary topic, regardless of whether the race horse is or not. Powers ^T 17:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either term as the dab per WP dab policy, or horse as primary, per WP:PRIMARY, though I will acknowledge that I think the horse was probably named after the office, so historically the other is an earlier concept. Not worth getting in a fight over, but one of the two is probably clearer when people are searching, it's usually for the horse. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Of course the office is the primary topic. It's the basic and commonest meaning of the term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a situation where the horse article is very heavily viewed (over a half million views in the last 90 days) and there has been so little interest in the administrative office that it didn't even have an article until a couple of months ago and is now a barely-adequate stub (after several improvements that I recently made myself). It is hard to see how this situation can be interepreted as indicating that the administrative office should be considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The horse has more than 20 times the number of page views, and also dominates web search results. If the horse isn't primary, at least the name should direct to the dab page rather than the administrative office. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support either the current proposal or the horse at the primary title because clearly the position is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Aspects (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article Evaluation

The article contains a definition but it could include more examples of these departments and a list of common duties. It could also include a mention of particularly influential departments and information about reform within the department or information about its design. New15txstate (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]