Talk:Travis
(Redirected from Talk:Travis (disambiguation))
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | On January 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Travis. The result of the discussion was move. |
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. 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: move. j⚛e deckertalk 04:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
– A one-sentence, unreferenced stub article on a name is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and it should probably be merged with Travis [surname]). The band is far more notable. — AjaxSmack 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it make sense to merge the three pages (Travis, Travis (disambiguation), Travis (surname))? It's not an unmanageable amount of information, and I believe it's more convenient for the reader than having to navigate to different pages. --87.78.47.225 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fine with merging the two name articles but not the disambiguation page for reasons given by User:JHunterJ below. — AjaxSmack 02:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Number of sentences, stub-ness, and references are not part of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. How is the band far more notable than the given name? (Also, I hope we do not merge anthroponymy list article stubs with non-article disambiguation pages.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)- True about primary topics, but do you have an affirmative argument as to why the given name article is primary, especially given the existence of the surname article? — AjaxSmack 05:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Long-term significance. Travis has been a common given name for longer than the current band. I'm not sure why the existence of a surname article merits an "especially". -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wrote "especially" because the given name does not appear to have long-term usage. It seems to be largely restricted to the U.S. and largely to the last 50 years or so and is derived from the surname. The surname has much wider temporal and spatial scope. — AjaxSmack 02:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Long-term significance. Travis has been a common given name for longer than the current band. I'm not sure why the existence of a surname article merits an "especially". -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- True about primary topics, but do you have an affirmative argument as to why the given name article is primary, especially given the existence of the surname article? — AjaxSmack 05:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The band should be primary. It comes up first when you google travis -wikipedia. The other stuff that comes up is personal names like Travis Pastrana, nothing that's plausible as a primary topic. Kauffner (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- While Bing hits a credit union and a county in Texas before the band. Google's #1 is not a primary topic criterion either. And the other stuff being personal names is an indicator that the personal names, but not any individual person, is a good candidate for primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- When I binged, the band's site, Travisonline, came up first. If a reader is looking for someone named Travis, I don't think it follows that his second choice is an article about the name "Travis." The thing is just listcruft anyway. The band got 77,000 views in the last 90 days. Despite being primary topic, the name got less than 11,000. Kauffner (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no love for given-name-holder lists either, but the consensus is for them (Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Home backup#Background reading). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- When I binged, the band's site, Travisonline, came up first. If a reader is looking for someone named Travis, I don't think it follows that his second choice is an article about the name "Travis." The thing is just listcruft anyway. The band got 77,000 views in the last 90 days. Despite being primary topic, the name got less than 11,000. Kauffner (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- While Bing hits a credit union and a county in Texas before the band. Google's #1 is not a primary topic criterion either. And the other stuff being personal names is an indicator that the personal names, but not any individual person, is a good candidate for primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support at the very least Travis (surname) would be a more fitting topic than the current given name article. So disambiguation is best. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment can someone bluelink Travis (given name) if it isn't renamed? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support based on the traffic counts from Kauffner. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support: given name article does not appear to be Primary use, dab page at base name would be preferable. PamD 14:18, 11 December 2012 (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.