Talk:Charlotte (disambiguation)

redirected to Charlotte, NC

I redirected this to Charlotte. Looking at number of hits per article:

• Charlotte (band): 407
• Charlotte (Kittie song): 528
• Charlotte (song): 285
• Charlotte (ship): 1442
• Charlotte (sloop): 79
• Charlotte (sternwheeler): 92
• HMS Queen Charlotte: 252
• Charlotte (dessert): 1213
• Charlotte (figure skating): 372
• Charlotte, North Carolina: 57,000
• Entire dab page: 2273

I think it's safe to call Charlotte, North Carolina the primary usage for "Charlotte".--Loodog (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the dab page to give much greater emphasis to the NC city and redirected tot he dab page as clearly the name is an equally valid search term for Charlotte and directing people via the city is not acceptable; but nor was failing to give prominence to the city in the dab page. BTW, your analysis is OR, Loodog. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, with all respect, I think this is a mistake. Charlotte (name) has 4 hits. And I fail to see how it being "OR" is inappropriate. I'm not writing the article, I'm redirecting the namespace. By that reasoning, all determinations of primary usage are OR. This is how it's done. Based on the evidence, I feel very strongly that this should redirect to Charlotte, North Carolina.--Loodog (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, that is cos I started the article a few hours ago, give it a few weeks first, please, but its a common name and will be a good article. And we cannot use OR in any part of the mainspace, which redirects clearly are. I have devised a solution, please respect it, esp given most people outside the US have never heard of Charlotte the city while it is a common name, and you have failed to address why we non US folk looking for the name should be directed to the city. My analysis that the name is notable is not OR, that is a ridiculous comment not worthy of serious response given the city was named after the given name, amongst other things. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1. So was Providence, Rhode Island, named after Divine Providence, Houston named after Sam Houston, Dallas named after George M. Dallas (and so indirectly from Dallas, Moray in Scotland. Or perhaps more compelling, Boston was named after Boston, Lincolnshire, yet the primary usages of all these names are in fact the derivatives and not the originals. Etymology/origins have no bearing on notability, which is the basis for determination of primary usage.

2. I never called your analysis OR. I meant it as a reductio ad absurdem against calling my analysis OR. Anytime we declare the primary usage of a phrase, we're doing it through OR. It doesn't matter because OR, while unacceptable for the content of articles, is commonly used to determine their locations.

3.WP:PRIMARYUSAGE says that the best indicators of primary usage are (1) hit counts, which I've already shown, (2)google results, which overwhelmingly point to the city, and (3) Quantity of incoming links — for Charlotte, there are 3500 incoming links, the band has 6, the song has about 10, the kitty songs has about 20, the ship has about 20, the sloop has 10, sternwheeler has about 70, HMS Queen Charlotte has about 20, desert has about 10, figure skating has 5, and name has 3. So then all three best indicators of primary usage overwhelmingly indicate Charlotte, North Carolina as the primary usage.--Loodog (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for all the rules i'm probably erring against (Wikipedia rules are overwhelming, although i try really hard to understand). I was curious whether redirects are excluded from these statistics? I'm also curious as to how to interpret the source data, because i found no clues on how to do that. I would like to point out though, what i did find at the source: that the pageviews are not unique. That is, assuming this interpretation of data is correct, it only means that some people have had a really big interest in this (could be a big bunch of students making research about this city). My speculation aside, i do strongly second the opinion of being able to choose(id est disambiguation page instead). I have a really hard time imagining anyone in my country or Europe in general caring about some random, albeit big, city in USA (i know this is my problem, but still). I personally landed on this page to find Charlotte (dessert). I didn't contribute pageviews, because i was not interested of details. I just wanted to be sure it exists. Thanks for attention. Karland90 (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte - redirect to Charlotte (disambiguation)

I don't know if it's wise to open this discussion again, but wouldn't it make more sense to direct the page "Charlotte" to "Charlotte (disambiguation)" rather than having it come here to the city?

While hit counts are one way of indicating what most people are going to when they type in "Charlotte", it might be be out of curiosity or because it's the first and most detailed entry available on wikipedia rather than a primary usage. The previous discussion based the decision that "Charlotte" (the city in North Carolina) was the primary use of Charlotte because it received the most hits statistically. I don't think it's sufficient to make the decision for this redirect merely based on the most common use.

For example, the name Victoria does not redirect to the most prominent page associated with that name; if that were the case, wouldn't it make sense to direct it to Queen Victoria? Instead, the page goes to a disambiguation page that allows the users to select.

For this reason, I think that "Charlotte" should be redirected to Charlotte (disambiguation), which would also allow users to direct themselves to Charlotte, North Carolina if that is what they intended or Charlotte (name). 96.53.57.74 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Honestly, I don't know this city (and I doubt that most non-americans do). The only thing I know about Charlotte is the name. Infovarius (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Doing it now! Godsakes, this is a bit like Perth-Perth WA, but at least I'd heard of Perth. Brendandh (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have undone this change for three reasons.

1. It is a highly disruptive change that breaks links in hundreds of existing articles. If the meaning of the link Charlotte is going to be changed, all those articles need to be edited.
2. Given the impact of this change on other articles, the proposal was not adequately advertised or discussed. Agreement between two editors does not constitute consensus.
3. Even if there were consensus that there is no primary topic, technically, a redirect from "Title" to "Title (disambiguation)" is incorrect (see WP:MDP). Instead, the change should have been proposed by the mechanism of WP:RM to propose moving the disambiguation page from Charlotte (disambiguation) to Charlotte.

Those supporting the change are free to re-propose it in the correct manner, provided that all affected articles are edited if and when there is consensus to move the disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

2014/2015

Please see Talk:Charlotte (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 December 2014. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charlotte (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charlotte (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion now at Talk:Charlotte#Requested_move_6_December_2023 – robertsky (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)