Talk:Fairview, Kentucky

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. Even though support for this move isn't overwhelming, it seems amply demonstrated that this is the primary of the two topics and a TWODABS solution works better here than having a disambiguation page. -- tariqabjotu 02:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Fairview, Christian County, Kentucky → Fairview, Kentucky – First, this appears to be the primary "Fairview, Kentucky". It was viewed 936 times in the last 90 days, almost twice as much as the 477 views for the other existing article, Fairview, Kenton County, Kentucky. The dab page was viewed 542 times, suggesting viewers aren't all seeking the Kenton County town of 156 people. This article has some notability as the birthplace of Jefferson Davis and the location of a monument to him. Virtually all 1030 Google Books returns for "Fairview, Kentucky" are for this community and "Fairview, Kentucky" Christian and "Fairview, Kentucky" Todd return relevant hits; "Fairview, Kentucky" Kenton returned no relevant hits.
Second, this community isn't entirely in Christian County, in fact the Davis birthplace and monument are in present-day Todd County.[1] Moving the article will dissolve that issue; the other Fairview can be found just as easily through the hat note or dab page. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 34% of page views is nothing to sneeze at, and the change is very likely to lead to confusion. Also, wondering how many of the page views are by the same people who would be interested in a move? These things tend to come in waves. Dovid (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The page view stats for this article have been relatively consistent for as far back as I checked. The bottom line is, this is really a WP:TWODABS situation, this one is easily the more common of the two by all measures, and the current title is incorrect and misleading.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not TWODABS.

• TWODABS applies when you have a primary topic and a secondary topic, and nothing else. You are proposing to have one become primary. You can't use TWODABS as an argument to do something when TOWABS doesn't apply unless you succeed
• Further, even if you do succeed, you wouldn't be able to apply TWODABS. The DAB already exists, at Fairview, Kentucky (disambiguation), so it can't go away. You're stuck with a DAB. It is possible to delete it, but WP is very wary of deletes of redirects, because of external incoming links.
• Finally, there is a third entry on the DAB, and has been for almost 6 years

So TWODABS doesn't help you here for many reasons. Dovid (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm proposing that this one is the primary topic, as it's far more common in the reliable sources and is viewed twice as often as the only other existing article. The third entry on the dab page doens't even have an article, and it's basically a partial title match anyway, as it isn't called "Fairview, Kentucky". The dab page can either be moved or usurped for this move.

And of course, there's also the matter that this Fairview isn't only in Christian County, so the current title isn't workable for that reason.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, does not compute. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I don't think you understand the circular logic fallacy that I pointed out. TWODABS is not an argument for selecting a PRIMARYTOPIC. It is a guideline about what to do when you already have a PRIMARYTOPIC. If your request succeeds, then you can talk about TWODABS, which will help decide whether to still have a (disambiguation) article at all. Until you succeed in having this declared PRIMARYTOPIC, there is no relevancy of TWODABS to SELECTING a primary topic.
Moving along, the fact that an entry is currently a redlink does not discount it, as there are rules about when to have a redlink in a DAB and when not to; if it belongs there by those guidelines then we have three legitimate entries. In fact, one of the reasons for allowing redlinks in DABs is to encourage a bold editor to create the article. If you go with a hatnote per TWODABS, it will be really awkward, as we can't really allow redlinks in hatnotes. Partial matches are also completely legitimate in DABs, so long as there is a reasonable likelihood that a user searching for the partial title will come to either the DAB or one of its other members.
Finally, as to relative weight of reliable sources, I can't comment, because I haven't reviewed. However, the usage guideline is not based on just reliable sources. It is based on common usage, so you would have to figure out a search phrase unique and comprehensive to each usage, and compare counts. That will be tough, as I'm sure there are plenty of search results to be had that you can only tell their application by reading the content page.Dovid (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not following. This article is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (the most likely to be sought) by all measures - page views, use in reliable sources, incoming links, etc. This is indeed a TWODABS situation as there are only two existing articles, let alone only two articles period that cover anything that would be searched for with the phrase "Fairview, Kentucky". The base title can either be usurped (preferable), or the dab page can be moved and kept, it doesn't really matter. Moving this article to the base title will get the largest number of our readers where they want in the quickest fashion, and also remove the misleading "Christian County" disambiguation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Really weak support because of WP:TWODABS, which I normally support hugely; it's just I feel this is going to be very confusing. The hatnote at this page will have to be REALLY clear. Red Slash 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I would agree that this seems to be the primary topic. Since it is unincorporated, it has no established boundaries or "city limits", so it's hard to define; but based on Topoquest maps it does appear to be in two counties. I would agree that this is another reason to simply name the article "Fairview, Kentucky". Omnedon (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Having found new information about this Fairview, I am, if anything, even more convinced that this is the way to go. Omnedon (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Your own research shows that most (or a v. large minority) of the clicks coming through are from the dab, where this entry is listed first; this community is non-notable apart from the Jeff Davis memorial; the other article still has a sizable number of people looking for it; and the other article is about an incorporated city in Kentucky, whereas this is about a locale so small we don't even have a population number for it. If this community ever were to be sizable enough to be incorporated itself, it would have to change its name to be able to do so because the community in Kenton Co. has priority.
  In other words, your proposal is backwards but because of the importance of the Davis memorial, this page has enough views that we shouldn't make the other page Fairview, Kentucky, even though (in point of fact) it is the only community in the state properly so called.
  As for the county, what community there is is recorded as existing in Christian County; the location of the nearby memorial has no bearing on that. [edit: see below]. — LlywelynII 04:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We do have a population for this Fairview. According to the United States Census Bureau, it is now (as of the 2010 census) a CDP and has a total population of 286 (186 in Christian County and 100 in Todd County). See page 38 of this PDF. So not only does it have twice the population of the Fairview in Kenton County, but it is also more notable because of the memorial. This Fairview is known for that memorial. There's nothing invalid about that. Omnedon (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, being viewed twice as much as the only other article qualifies this as "much more likely" topic sought, and hence the primary topic. It's also much more common in the reliable sources (I couldn't even find any for the other article.) Additionally, for what it's worth, all the incoming links to the dab page are actually intending this town. The other Fairview would be found in just as many clicks through a hat note as through the dab page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Where there are two populated places in a state that share the same name, we distinguish them by county, and if the two are similarly significant, then that applies to both. However, if one has demonstrably greater significance, it's reasonable for that one to have primacy in titling. In this case I think the Christian County community does indeed have greater significance, both by its population and its unique historical connections, so I agree that the move is appropriate. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:31, 2 September 2013 (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.

Formatting

As a side point, I do agree that the current style of page names is ugly and should be changed to Fairview (Christian Co.), Kentucky or Fairview, Kentucky (Christian Co.) instead. But this seems to be a fairly standard format for US articles and we shouldn't go around complaining on individual pages about its ugliness or use of the historic/principal county for borderline cases. Surely there's a MOS community somewhere we should be talking to. — LlywelynII 04:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I found WP:USPLACE which mandates the current format (sigh). It also suggest the godawful Fairview, Christian and Todd Counties, Kentucky as the format for most borderline cases, but the official sources are somewhat contradictory: Todd Co. does claim its part of Fairview as a local community, Christian County does not, but the US Geographic Board on Names (GNIS) clearly states the US government considers the community (GNIS ID: 491893) as solely part of Christian county. Too bad it's not (and can never be) the city of Fairview, Kentucky (GNIS ID: 2403593). Assuming GNIS trumps local website curators, the page is currently where it should be. — LlywelynII 05:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is anything "ugly" about the current convention. To me, the two alternatives you mentioned are ugly, containing (as they do) both parentheses and abbreviations. Omnedon (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As a side point, GNIS has other (even smaller/now-nonexistant) communities and "locales" named Fairview, Kentucky, in other counties as well. For the most part, though, I agree this is a WP:TWODABS situation, where the two are equal enough (one official with a sizable minority of clicks; one unofficial with a majority of clicks) that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC deserving of skipping the dab page. — LlywelynII 05:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the MOS doesn't help us much here. The bottom line is, this Fairview exists in both Christian and Todd Counties, and in fact the most noteworthy thing about it - the Jeff Davis birthplace and memorial - are in Todd County. As such, the current name is not only somewhat wrong, it's misleading regarding the main reason readers are coming to this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Move revert

Sorry, DemocraticLuntz, but I've reverted your move. As you can see above, the current title was decided through an WP:RM, so it shouldn't be moved without a new consensus. The previous discussion found that this is the primary "Fairview, Kentucky" (it's more populous and has more historic significance), and there's the addition problem that it's not all located in Christian County. Feel free to open a new RM if you'd like.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)