Talk:Whit

Requested move 7 April 2016

The following is a closed 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: pages moved. Stats clearly indicate that, at least in the UK, if anything might be primary, it's the holiday. wbm1058 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whit (disambiguation) → Whit
Whit → Whit (novel)

– Restore from move in January (Whit (novel) to Whit "no need for this disambiguator") : Whit (given name) is the most commonly encountered in books, but the baseline being occupied by the dab page will pick up more mislinks and help readers more. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well looks like that it has been sitting at Whit for some time, but still. It clearly fails absolute meaning for "Whit". In ictu oculi (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probable oppose. I don't think there are any mislinks. And almost no one visits the given name article - 26 views over two months (?!). The likeliest confusion would be with the broadcast station WHIT. But given the pageviews, even assuming every single person who went to Whit wanted WHIT, that leaves a healthy majority who did not. My misgiving is that we do not know how many people wanted the novel article versus the station or the dicdef (which of course does not have an article). If the seekers of the novel outnumber those of the station, then the current setup works. And since I don't see clear evidence to the contrary, I'd just as soon stick with the 14-year stable status quo. Dohn joe (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – An obscure novel as primarytopic for an ambiguous generic term is not a good idea. It leaves the novel's article title more ambiguous, less recognizable, and less precise; so let's fix this error from recent undiscussed move. Dicklyon (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to be clear, the current name has been in place for 14 years. The undiscussed move to the disambiguated title was done and undone within a few hours in January. Dohn joe (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification; I was misled by the nomination. I still support fixing it though. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support move: the Whitsun sense seems quite likely to be sought (though I see from the page that it's a British and Irish usage), as in "Whit walks", "a few weeks before Whit", etc. In fact I think I'll upgrade that from "see also", as it's not just a partial title match. PamD 09:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per page views. SSTflyer 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - to me Whit means Whitsun which, if you add it into the page view stats, rather dwarfs any of the other concepts. I guess the lowly page views for the dab page do sort of indicate that not too many people are following the Whit -> Whit (disambiguation) -> Whitsun route, but it might be that they type "Whit" and then immediately retype it as "Whitsun" when they end up at the wrong place. All in all I think there's enough ambiguity to merit a disambig page at the primary location. — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2016 (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.