Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation)

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: not moved. The discussion has been open for over a month, and there is no support for the proposed move. Number 57 14:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and make other suggestion 3 Katherines, 1 Katharine and 2 Catherines. Clearly Katharine is not the dominant spelling; Katherine is, and
  Catherine Blake (wife of William Blake). People unsure of the spelling are highly likely to type in 'Catherine' and end up at Blake's wife's page. Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Although the central aim/concern of the original proposal is to delete the superfluous qualifier "(disambiguation)", with any of the three name variations capable of serving as the main title header, the differing count of the three names needs clarification. According to both the existing listing and the revised listing, there are two of each, yes, 2 Catherines, but only 2 Katherines (pen name of

Katherine Blake (Shortland Street)) and, subsequently, 2 Katharines (Katharine Blake (singer) and Katharine Blake (actress)). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• I did a Google Books search for "Catherine Blake" "Catherine+Blake"&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 and it seems William Blake's wife is indeed the primary topic, I didn't seem to find anything else other than her in the first three pages, thought I admit I didn't look very closely. At the same time, it's clear it's a rather generic name with a variety of spellings. How long has this disambiguation been set up this way, do we have an important reason to move anything? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Google Books links did not support the contention of Mrs. William Blake being the

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose - I see no reason for this change. "Catherine" is the original spelling of the given name, and pigeon holing the disambiguation page into one of the "Katharine" varieties just because it happens not to require (disambiguation) after the title is unnecessary and confusing.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Catherine" is only the original spelling of the given name of Mrs.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a rhetorical argument could be made for either the South African actress or the American judge since each, separately, has many more links than Mrs. William Blake. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment After two weeks of discussion, I think this is a keep, no consensus to make proposed changes. Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no consensus for keeping Mrs.

Catherine Blake (wife of William Blake) and excise the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" on the dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (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.

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: no consensus. Sorry Roman Spinner, I gave this a relist in the hope more people might join in as I see you've been frustrated about the lack of input in previous RMs. Unfortunately it's now been three weeks since the RM was opened and ten days since the last comment. No further input seems to be forthcoming and there has been no support for the move. Jenks24 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment sorry but can't see the point as per previous 2 RMs. What benefit am I missing? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Oppose per Amakuru above. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that if a dab page has no primary topic, then the deletion of the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" would represent a benefit on its own merit. Such a view appeared to be the consensus at the most recent four RMs on this general topic (Talk:Kenneth Young#Requested move 2 February 2017, Talk:The Man Upstairs (short story collection)#Requested move 27 January 2017, Talk:Hans Ziegler (physicist)#Requested move 25 January 2017, Talk:Hollywood High (video game)#Requested move 19 January 2017 as well as numerous other examples from previous RMs).
A proposal to retain "Catherine Blake" as the dab page's main title header [without the qualifier "(disambiguation)"] at Talk:Catherine Blake#Requested move 1 November 2016, had scant participation, with 3 !votes — 1 Oppose, 1 Mild Oppose and 1 Support, resulting in a finding of "no consensus".
An earlier proposal (3 January 2015, above) to replace "Catherine" with "Katharine", had an equally small attendance, with 2 Oppose and 1 non-vote which seemed to lean towards opposing.
Finally, there is no indication of a specific consensus to use "Catherine" as the main title header, rather than "Katherine" or "Katherine", with those latter two serving as redirects to "Catherine", which is the only one of the three variants that still requires the qualifier "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Catherine Blake is the primary topic for Catherine with a C as established at RM. I agree that she may not be more looked at than the others put together. It is worth mentioning that although I found a 3rd Katherine, 2 of the Katherines do not have an article named as such - one is a pen name which redirects to the author's name and one is a fictional character which redirects to the main article. The 3rd, Katherine Devereux Blake, may only be a partial match, as her sister is also 'Devereux Blake'. Boleyn (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The additional entry, Katherine Devereux Blake, is much appreciated since it bolsters the case that now with 3 Katherines (with or without appearances in main title headers, these still count as legitimate dab page entries), 2 Katharines and 2 Catherines, "Katherine" has become the most frequently indicated given name on this dab page. Moreover, "Katherine Devereux Blake" does appear to be a full match, rather than a partial one, since various sources ([1], [2] or [3]) indicate the alphabetized name as "Blake, Katherine Devereux" rather than as "Devereux Blake, Katherine". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 3 Katherines get less views than the 2 Catherines and are less notable, which may need to be taken into account. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such a ranking should certainly be taken into consideration if dab page entries were listed in order of page views or notability. However, other than relatively rare circumstances in which two (or more) potential primary topics cancel each other and are thus listed at the top of a dab page for users' convenience, dabs which contain name variants such as Bob, Rob, Bobby, Robby, Robert or Lis, Liz, Lizzie, Elisabeth, Elizabeth, etc on the same page, consider all listed names of equal importance and list them in chronological order (many, if not most, pages are in random or fitful alphabetical order) under section headers when such headers exist. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is a very complex case with many subtleties. Nobody has yet come up with any convincing improvement on the current setup. It's quite OK as is. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It should be taken into account that although there are, as of this writing, two "Oppose" votes which indicate preference for the existing form, that is, retention of the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" and retention of Mrs William Blake as the primary topic, no argument has been attempted on behalf of presenting Mrs Blake as the obvious and unchallenged center of attention upon this dab page, whose positioning as the primary topic is due to her receiving more page views than all the other entries combined. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't you already have a move discussion about moving Catherine BLake and there was no consensus to do it? Plus a similar discussion to this in 2015. I don't think there's any consensus for these changes and this is not worth spending hours of discussion on. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your continued interest in this topic and would like to specify that the key word in your question is "similar". None of the three discussions is exactly the same. As I wrote more than two years ago, in January 2015, "There is also no consensus for keeping Mrs. William Blake as the

WP:Consensus can change and, as I pointed out, again, above, "A proposal to retain "Catherine Blake" as the dab page's main title header… had scant participation… An earlier proposal… to replace "Catherine" with "Katharine", had an equally small attendance…"
As for "this is not worth spending hours of discussion on", we are all volunteer editors here and have been around a long time (more than eleven years of editing on a nearly-daily basis, in my case) and we all make choices regarding the use of our resources. For some, nothing here may deserve any devotion of one's time and energy, while for others, everything here does so deserve. I leave it to each individual user and editor to make his or her own choice. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:10, 13 February 2017 (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.

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Little to nothing seems to have changed from the last several RMs on this. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : This is the third RM discussion by the same editor in 7 years. None of his previous discussions gathered any support for this RM. >>> Extorc.talk 08:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per
  WP:BROKE. 162 etc. (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

First of all, the last time this topic was raised was five-and-a-half years ago (in February 2017) and

WP:Consensus can change

.

Secondly, there was indeed at least one direct support vote and another vote that can count as a support vote, to quote, "I would support a move from

Catherine Blake (wife of William Blake)

." (The bold text appears in the original vote)

Thirdly, in countering the

WP:BROKE argument, it would seem that if a dab page has no primary topic, then the deletion of the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" would represent a benefit on its own merit. Such a view appeared to be the consensus at four RMs on this general topic (Talk:Kenneth Young (physicist)#Requested move 2 February 2017, Talk:The Man Upstairs (short story collection)#Requested move 27 January 2017, Talk:Hans Ziegler (physicist)#Requested move 25 January 2017, Talk:Hollywood High (video game)#Requested move 19 January 2017

as well as numerous other examples from previous RMs).

A proposal to retain "Catherine Blake" as the dab page's main title header [without the qualifier "(disambiguation)"] at Talk:Catherine Blake#Requested move 1 November 2016, had scant participation, with 3 !votes — 1 Oppose, 1 Mild Oppose and 1 Support, resulting in a finding of "no consensus".
An earlier proposal (3 January 2015, above) to replace "Catherine" with "Katharine", had an equally small attendance, with 2 Oppose and 1 non-vote which seemed to lean towards opposing.

Finally, there is also no indication in any of the previous discussions of a specific consensus or argument for using "Catherine" as this dab page's the main title header, rather than using "Katherine" or "Katharine", with those latter two currently serving as redirects to "Catherine", the only one of the three variants that theoretically would still requires the qualifier "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The idea that if a dab page has no primary topic, then the deletion of the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" would represent a benefit on its own merit doesn't seem to be supported by policy:
  WP:DABNAME suggests focusing on other considerations. I don't see a strong DABNAME argument either way (neither spelling "reflects the majority of items on the page", nor is either term simpler than the other), so there's no compelling argument for a move. If the nominator really feels strongly that non-parenthetical titles should be favored, I think it would be more efficient to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation so that the issue can be resolved at a global-consensus level. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No need for a global-consensus discussion — the matter of dab page main title header has had consensus since Wikipedia's early years. Since no one has argued that, among the nine women listed upon the dab page, one has made such a profound impact upon history that the combined renown of the other eight women cannot rise above it, then the longstanding

WP:NOPRIMARY provides guidance — If "there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term", thus obviating the need for the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't agree that there's longstanding consensus on this issue—surely you're aware that RMs similar to this one have been unsuccessful many times before, e.g.

WP:NOPRIMARY supports your case: the base name Katherine Blake already does "lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term", so that requirement is satisfied. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]