Talk:Kansas City (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

City divided

If Kansas City is indeed (as stated on this page) just one city divided over two states, then why not make this page the page about Kansas City, and have the other two pages redirect to it? Or am I wrong?

jheijmans

The statement is incorrect. The two cities are now very separate; each with thir own police departments, city councils, mayors etc. I also read-up on the history of
maveric149

While the city in general is divided between states (ie., separate) .... it does have interrelated facets [an example is the NA football team, located in Mo, but claimed by Kansans as much as those from Mo]. Being a bi-state area, there are several things that KC'ian share between the 2. The pioneers settled, IIRC, on the missouri side 1st [being the 1st stop on the movement west] ... but they also settled in around KCKS during the same time. It was basically concurrent. I'll in the future edit the page to do a bi-state phenonomena [and dab the other meanings in that article]. JDR 18:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's also politically impossible in the US for one city to be incorporated by two states. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make
Kansas City
an real article (i.e. not a disambiguation page)

There sure are a lot of

Kansas City to one of the other "Kansas City" articles? What do you think? Ewlyahoocom 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I think

Kansas City should be a redirect to Kansas City, Missouri, which is the larger and more prominent of the two. Most links have the MO city in mind. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My Great Project 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ehh....this page is kinda messed up, it either needs to be a redirect to KCMO the metropolitan area or a disambig page. Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime soon I will either redirect this page to Kansas City, Missouri and create a disambig page or create the disambig page and redirect to it. Any thoughts?Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it has to redirect anywhere, I think

Kansas City Metropolitan Area would be a much better choice than the KCMO article. Plus this article already has some useful summary content written that could easily be merged with the metro article. Erp Erpington (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

A bit late, but I think that redirecting to the Metropolitan Area is the best thing to do. Someone searching for "Kansas City" may want either KCK or KCMo, and outsiders especially may not know at first that there are two cities by that name just across the river from one another. (Believe it or not, some people are not aware of the presence of both Kansas City KS and MO.) Redirecting to the metro article easily solves this problem. It also avoids misinforming people who are really looking for KCK and end up at the KCMO page. And it also avoids upsetting KCK residents who can get quite vocal about being excluded in favor of KCMO. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have a consensus. KCMA Presumptive (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion on KCMA vs KCMO but based on this edit I got to thinking maybe we should just move
Kansas City. Maybe a redirect is better though, I was just wondering what other peoples opinions were. Stardust8212 14:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Umm, I wouldn't claim consensus quite yet. Two editors support a redirect to
Kansas City Metropolitan Area, and one editor supports change to a Disambiguation page. I don't feel two terrible strongly on this issue, but seeing as it is undecided as of yet, lets figure it out on the talk page before anything gets changed.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Just as a interesting aside, virtually everything that links here is meant to go to Kansas City, Missouri.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll throw a vote to make it point to the Metro area- having lived in the area most "outsiders" don't realize there's a separation until it's explained to them (see the confusion above on this talk page) and most people who live in the area ignore the distinctions unless they're particularly active in politics or forced to notice. Heck, some people don't realize that the other cities and townships that comprise the metro area mean anything more than different zip codes do within a given city. Now, that isn't to say those separations aren't important- but it does imply that assumption that it should link to a particular city in the Metro area is a bit presumptuous. Redirecting to a disambiguation page is unnecessary, given that the Metro area includes (links to) both "confusable" Kansas Cities, and gets a prominent link to the disambiguation page. As an aside, links that arrive here but intend to go to Kansas City, Missouri should be corrected to link there; last I checked policy is against internal links going through redirects at all, so I'm not sure it really bears on this discussion. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple rule: Is there a primary usage

Hi. What is the

primary usage of "Kansas City"? Is there one use of the phrase "Kansas City" that overwhelms all others in usage, google counts, and page hits? If there isn't, this needs to be disambiguated. It's that simple.--Loodog (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I think a dab page is best for Kansas City due to the potential for confusion with the Kansas and Missouri cities. Almost always, twin cities with the same name call for such. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree; this is clearly an example where a disambiguation page is warranted. The two main uses seem to be the distinct cities, not the metropolitan area that contains both of them. Yes, potential for confusion can be cleared up at a disambiguation pages - I personally find the current situation confusing, especially seeing as there isn't even a hatnote to either of the "Kansas Cities". Cheers, Rai•me 05:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have changed the redirect target to Kansas City (disambiguation). The Missouri city, not the metro area, is the target of almost all incoming links and gets the majority of hits, so it doesn't make sense to redirect "Kansas City" to the metro area article. Still, there is a possibility for confusion between the two cities, so a dab page works best. Cheers, Rai•me 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Articles on this page have consistently provided disambiguation coupled with replication of information on more specific pages. There has clearly been no consensus on a specific page being the proper redirect target. Given these things, it seems that leaving this page as a redirect to the disambiguation page and focusing work on improving pages specific to locals is the the best way to produce the most complete, coherent, and encyclopedic set of entries while providing the most relevance to all individuals looking for information on the subject. Darker Dreams (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see
WP:CONCEPTDAB, which allows for a type of hybrid disambiguation/content article, exactly as this was before it was reverted. Such a solution has worked well at Football and there's no reason it couldn't work here. This article made a useful target for "Kansas City" links in articles like List of U.S. cities by number of professional sports championships, where some teams are in Kansas and others are in Missouri. Powers T 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Another thing to consider is the issue of Primary usage. Examining "what links here" alone it it clear that upwards of 90% intend to point to Kansas City, Missouri. I would suggest redirecting there and then at the top of that page there should be a link to a disambiguation page. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to sum up what the above conversation threads concluded. Honestly just about nothing. I see three editors supporting redirecting to

Kansas City Metropolitan Area, and one or two editors for a dab page located here. I would agree with Darker Dreams that nobody really expressed support for what is currently displayed in the mainspace. It is probably best it stays there until there for the duration of this discussion though, as to not favor any of the alternatives under consideration. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Well I'm expressing support. It's perfectly within our
WP:CONCEPTDAB guidelines and has worked well in other tricky situations. Powers T 02:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

LtPowers, It does stand to reason that something more than just a simple disambiguation page could be useful in such an unusual situation. Apologies if I didn't include you, I was just trying to summarize the old discussion, and demonstrate that we were far from coming to any sort of consensus. Loodog, For the record I think primary usage is quite clear in this case, this is based simply on my own musing on the actual usage of "Kansas City." The question seems to me is there enough of a gap between common usage Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas to justify directly to KCMO. The issue of primary usage should be considered separately from the issue of what we presume people may or may not know about "Kansas City." Just some thoughts. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a protocol that allows for this sort of hybrid disambig page doesn't mean it's the best, or even a good, answer in this case. As it is, this page is redundant to two other pages (Kansas City (disambiguation) and Kansas City Metro Area). What does the current semi-disambig provide that neither of those other pages does. As it is currently written, the page ignores the other uses of Kansas City referenced on the disambiguation page. This isn't a tricky situation, this is a situation perfectly covered by a normal disambiguation page. Better covered by the existent disambiguation page then this page. For future consensus counting, I should be counted as voting for disambiguation, which is a change from above. As for leaving the page as is; for how long? Discussion on this subject has never really been ended, just puttered out. Mostly the discussion has pointed away from this version of the page, though, and it was even converted to a redirect once only to be restored just to retry the summary style. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave an example where none of the other pages are suitable links. It frequently happens that someone referring to "Kansas City" means the twin cities, not one or the other, and not the entire metro area (which includes other cities not named "Kansas City", particularly Independence). Powers T 12:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that it "frequently happens" that someone means KCK+KCMO, but not the Metro area. To respond directly to your example of sports teams championships; either the links are imprecise (state where the team is from KCK/KCMO/etc) or it's "claimed" Metro wide. Someone from Independence or Olathe will claim the Chiefs just as readily as someone from KCK. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the list article I linked? The term "Kansas City" in that list is applied to the Chiefs, Royals, and Sporting Kansas City. The first two are in Missouri; the third is in Kansas. But they're all in "Kansas City" as an entity. Powers T 00:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't, and nothing you just said makes me think that was a mistake; wiki pages shouldn't link to a disambiguation page of any type. What you're describing isn't an example- it's something that needs fixed. Darker Dreams (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now, incidentally bringing it into line with other entries like San Francisco and Phoenix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darker Dreams (talk • contribs) 05:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wiki pages shouldn't link to a disambiguation page of any type" -- but that's not true for
WP:CONCEPTDABs, which is exactly what this article should be. Arguing that it should be a disambiguation page (or redirect) because nothing should link to it because it's a dab page is circular reasoning. Powers T 11:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
"This page is redundant to the others that otherwise exist" is not a circular argument though. There is a regular disambiguation page which is not only perfectly servicable but better for non-location purposes, and the KC Metro page provides the same pure location based disambiguation as this page does. It's redundant. I don't see a difference between using a redundant page because it provides disambiguation and linking to a disambiguation page. Darker Dreams (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not redundant; the metro area is much wider than just the twin cities. Powers T 15:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a minute to realize what you meant by "twin cities." The term might make sense in other places, but not for KC. In this context it's gibberish. As a rule you don't talk about Kansas City outside the context of KCK/KCMO/KC Metro. You might talk about one of those three you might talk about Independance, Olathe, JOCO, Lee Summit, Bonner Springs, Piper, Jackson County, or any of a dozen other subdivisions... but "Kansas City" doesn't apply to KCK+KCMO-surrounding suburbs anywhere I've ever seen or heard. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that twin cities isn't really applicable to the Kansas City situation. "Kansas City" in the vernacular only refers to the metro area or the municipality of Kansas City, Missouri. If Kansas City, Kansas is referred to, people specify the "Kansas" part. But Kansas City, Kansas and all the other suburbs are included within the conception of the "Kansas City" Metro Area. Grouping KCK and KCMO together just because of the names is as arbitrary as grouping KCMO and Independence together. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To future clarify, twinning implies a similarity in status. St. Paul and Minnapolis both grew in population separately then merged. However, they have an equilibrium in economic, and cultural importance. KCK experienced it's population growth similarly to Independence, Missouri: As a result of Kansas City, Missouri's suburban expansion. In addition Kansas City, Missouri is the clear central city (vernacular:down town) and cultural center of the entire metro area. What confuses people is the similarity of the names does not indicate a single unit anymore than Kansas City, Kansas and Overland Park are a single unit, or twins for that matter. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note; KCK isn't always specified as "Kansas," this usage actually varies even across the Metro. People from KCK/WYCO certainly don't use it automatically, and it's definitely more common in Missouri than Kansas. Granted, the Mo side of the Metro is bigger, but making the assertion that KCK needs to be specified while KCMO doesn't will get you anger from a lot of people. Darker Dreams (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been on the receiving side of that anger a lot on Wikipedia. I think the anger is telling though, it makes one aware of the cultural relationship between the two cities, all the way back to bleeding Kansas and people tend to get angry when you confront an emotional belief with the truth. I know many Kansans would much rather the central city be on the other side of the border, but that's history for you. I dislike the pattern of misinformation that boosters of both cities have spread far to often both here on wiki and in tourist brochures and websites. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying anything about which side is central or anything else, just that saying one side is more likely/correctly referred to a particular way is probably more a result of personal bias than facts. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've wandered from "should this be a redirect" to "what should it redirect too," I suppose. I still vote that it should redirect to the disambig page as the most neutral of all possibilities. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darker, discussion seems vigorous right now, but if it putters out again after a week or so and you make the change I won't revert it. There is a quick tell on usage. Use the "what links here" tool and view how the term is used on Wikipedia. I think both that tool and a google search of "Kansas City" easily establishes primary usage in favor of Kansas City, Missouri. It is convention, unless there is a good reason not to that the generic name of the city without the state redirects to the municipality not the metro area (St. Louis is a good example), generally this is what people most often looking for. I would suggest scrapping this page as redundant and redirect to Kansas City, Missouri then providing a prominent disambig blurb at the top of the page. I understand suggesting the redirect go to Kansas City Metropolitan Area, but I feel that solution ignores primary usage in favor of catering to a minority who (because of the same axiom of primary usage) are overwhelmingly likely looking for the Kansas City, Missouri page anyways. It would be immediately clear with a disambig header to those who ended up in the wrong place. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "what links here" side seems to have been mostly cleaned out except for talk pages (and the rest should probably get the same, as policy is against linking to disambig pages of any type). Both KCK and KCMO have thousands of link-tos and, honestly, I got bored clicking through pages. Google provides an interesting case where searching "Kansas City" does primarily pull Mo based information- but it's pretty easy to tell because both KCK and KCMO use the separator unless the page is trying to indicate metro-wide appeal/application. I was amused to find a comment you left on the Kansas City, Kansas talk page back in 2008 supporting redirecting this to the Metro area over KCMO. Darker Dreams (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I know. I've never felt particularly strongly one way or the other and I'm generally fine with whatever the wiki community decides. However, my opinion has developed towards the KCMO redirect just based on my work on Kansas City related pages and my online fact-finding. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how opinions drift, above you'll see me suggesting KC Metro and now I'm saying disambiguation. Darker Dreams (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week since this discussion started, two since my initial post, and the discussion seems to have tapered off over the last couple days. Even with the new voice supporting the current quasi-disambig status there is clearly a consensus against that, so I'm returning this to a redirect. There is an open question regarding where it should be redirected to; KCMA, KCMO, or KC(disambig). As a note; linking it to KCMO seems like a good way to bring a whole lot of hate to this page. I'm linking it to the disambiguation page as the most socially neutral and informative option. This may be wrong per general usage, but with the prominance of all primary usages on that page it seems reasonable. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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. There is solid consensus that this proposal is a fair solution to a rather unique problem. There is consensus on all the major points: that something involving "Greater Kansas City" is the obvious primary topic for the term "Kansas City"; that, accepting this fact, readers are better served being sent to a

WP:DABCONCEPT article on "Kansas City" rather than just a standard disambiguation page; and that Kansas City metropolitan area is the article that best fits the DABCONCEPT description for this primary topic. In the future it may be worth discussing moving the metro area article to "Kansas City", but this solution should suffice for now. Cúchullain t/c 15:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]


Kansas City
--that is not my proposal, however). Is that clear?

Summary:

Thanks for your consideration. Red Slash 17:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Red Slash 17:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I stroke my comments, but I still stick to my vote. While the Missouri one met "usage" and "long-term significance" criteria, per
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, those criteria are not absolute. Even metro area and Kansas one might meet one or two criteria but fall below Missouri's level. How about other criteria? According to history, there were early settlers, like Native Americans and Lewis & Clark; first came Town of Kansas, then Kansas City in Missouri, and another Kansas City in Kansas. But the article about the Kansas one isn't absolute; probably the city is not well-researched in terms of history. We can't assume that Kansas one is less significant than Missouri one. Even article quality prejudices the consensus on criteria of primary topic of the same name. --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Why exactly can't we say that one is more significant than the other, any historian of American history would tell you the same. You're correct that the history of KCK is not well-researched as it is a relatively small contribution to the history of the metropolitan area as a whole and lacks national significance, unlike KC proper. What's this about Lewis and CLark and how are they applicable here? Not trying to be rude, but I'm interested in a solution. What is the article about Kansas not "absolute" about? Grey Wanderer (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...
what the article says. I said "Lewis and Clark" because I read History of the Kansas City metropolitan area. I may not know much about the KCK, but there is a photography book of Kansas City, Kansas, and photos have greater educational value. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, There is a communication gap between us. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing sometimes. What is this about the article being expanded? What does that have to do with anything I said above? I'm very well versed in the history of the area as a whole including the history of KCK. I don't think a picture book demonstrates anything meaningful. There is one made of every little village Missouri and I imagine that's true for Kansas as well. Check out the main amazon listings for Kansas City and you'll see dozens upon dozens of full-fledged history books on Kansas City, Missouri. As far as I know, there is one published history of Kansas City, Kansas and it's a history of the entire county. Photos have greater education value than what? why is this relevant? Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading you response I wonder if you think my argument for a primary topic is somehow based on article content or quality. Am I thinking right?
You're correct. You said Missouri is significant and popular more than any other, but that's all there is. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article content and quality is not all there is. Nor is it relevant in anyway and I don't believe I've evoked it as such. Kansas City, Kansas could be a featured article and it would not change the significance of the subject. I've refereed you to census data, history books, google stats, and article view stats. Overwhelmingly the biggest arguments come from a cultural and historical significance standpoint. I draw this conclusion from knowledge of the area and after reading countless books on KC and it's surrounding area; though I am also familiar with the content on Wikipedia; which is regrettably lacking in many respects. I am genuinely interested in answers to the questions I've asked above. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misjudged or misread your comments a lot, so I won't answer those questions, including the Lewis and Clark one. Back to the "significance" part; you are free to say that one is primary topic because it is more significant than other. But I can't consider Missouri one the primary topic based on intriguing significance. As I said, "significance" is not an absolute criterion. Whether it is a strong or weak criterion in this case is determined by consensus. While Missouri has many notable events, Kansas one went through a tornado and an ice storm. And I'm sure that there are notable infrastructures in Kansas one. But I found no currently-active airports in Kansas; just
Fairfax Airport, which is defunct. Category:Kansas City, Kansas has plenty, but articles do need improvement. --George Ho (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Kansas City, Missouri primary topic

Given the discussion above this seems like a good time to make the case for

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
gives two considerations:

  • Usage A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, 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.
  • Long-term significance A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

North Kansas City and Kansas City, Kansas both founded as pre-WWII inner-ring "streetcar" suburbs and both took their names after the central municipality. These towns were never able to compete with Kansas City, Missouri for economic, cultural, and governmental institutions. Check out a google search for "Kansas City historic maps also check out the historical census population trends, KCK is comparable to Kansas City, Missouri's western suburb of Independence, Missouri
in population and always a fraction of Kansas City, Missouri. In the aspect of "Long-term significance" Kansas City, Missouri is clearly the primary topic.

In regards to "Usage" the case is a bit more ambiguous. Kansas City, Missouri is twice as likely to be linked by "What links here" and a google search revels twice as many hits as "Kansas City, Kansas". It is also more likely to be searched for than all other topic combined according to Wikipedia page hits. Wikipedia has a good chance here to help clarify this murky issue. Grey Wanderer (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely anecdotal, but it illustrates the point well: Try using Google Street View, first in Downtown Kansas City, Missouri then in Downtown Kansas City, Kansas this is a crude but illustrative way to demonstrate the notability difference between the two. In addition, you'll notice that a google search for "Kansas City" brings up the Wikipedia article for "Kansas City, Missouri". Grey Wanderer (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, per
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there are no absolute criteria for the primary topic. While usage and significance are top two criteria, there could be other criteria not shown. --George Ho (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Like, for instance, how there's no way to draw a clear line between the metro area and the larger city in Missouri. Do their notabilities overlap? Talk:New York has struggled with this as well. Red Slash 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do we need to. New York City, and St. Louis are both located directly at those namespaces. While that may not be appropriate here, a redirect would surly be right in line with this and other large North American cities. What other criteria George? What does do their notabilities overlap mean? Grey Wanderer (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that NYC is not directly located at its base name, "New York". If the state just north of Pennsylvania were named Buffalonia instead of "New York", NYC would surely be located at New York. Red Slash 03:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a former Buffalonian, I heartily endorse this proposal. Viva Buffalonia! --BDD (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2013 (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.

Requested move 7 December 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: Withdrawn. Despite one support, the majority speaks against it. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

criteria to be the "Kansas City" that readers are looking for, which I explain in the Discussion section. Statistics prove that the metro area has less hits than the one in Kansas and in Missouri, the most popular of all. Those typing just "Kansas City" are not easy to examine or analyze as the statistics reveal that they may not be looking for the metro area at all. George Ho (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Survey (2)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
In fact, I'd go far as suggest that we move
Kansas City.--Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Most readers read

the lead section
(and the infobox), and many just stop after the lead and then move to another article or somewhere, while others might read further. Numbers don't tell us whether the readers read the whole articles, however.

Anyhow, let's review the

criteria
for "Kansas City":

I can't treat the above as "rules", so if the criteria are not enough, read what the section says: "Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). Conversely, a name that could refer to several different articles may require disambiguation." Unless the metro area is what the readers typing just "Kansas City" are actually searching for, the consensus of previous RM may have mistaken "Kansas City" as the metro area due to the "broad-concept" definition. --George Ho (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving last year's stats from rationale post; the same as this year's. --George Ho (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More stats of other contenders, though nothing compared to the metro, Missouri, and Kansas. --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 7 December 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.

Requested move 24 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City (disambiguation) → Kansas City – The search term “Kansas City” is being redirected to a page that’s not even the primary topic for that search term, the Kansas City metropolitan area. Kansas City, Missouri receives far more page views than Kansas City metropolitan area. There’s no reason why a search for “Kansas City” shouldn’t land at a disambiguation page Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kansas_City_(disambiguation)&oldid=1136865710"