Talk:Mount Price (British Columbia)

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 (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mount Price (British Columbia) → Mount Price
• Mount Price → Mount Price (disambiguation)

– Mount Price (British Columbia) seems to be the primary topic. Numbers for this mountain are generally greater than those for the mountain in California. Google also confirms this: 12,700 results for the mountain in British Columbia, 7,470 results for the mountain in California and 4,380 results for the mountain in Washington. A Google search for "Mount Price" also gives most of the first results to the mountain in British Columbia. Volcanoguy 08:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose oppose oppose oppose how is 12,700 a clear and substantial absolute majority over 7,470+4,380 = 11,850? How is that the normal 66% plus of all Book references combined? There are too many RMs like this. Maybe we need to change the shortcut WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to make it clearer that Wikipedia works on WP:ABSOLUTETOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not supposed to combine the other results to form a bigger number; that's cheating and they are not even related. Even if you do combine the numbers for the California and Washington Mount Prices it still doesn't put down the fact that the Mount Price in British Columbia is the most notable and the most viewed. It also has the most reliable sources. Volcanoguy 09:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you stating that there are too many RMs like this raises a point; it is the most common method used to pin point what is the primary topic. Volcanoguy 09:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"You are not supposed to combine the other results to form a bigger number; that's cheating" that, I'm sorry is a perfect illustration of why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs rewriting to make what is there clearly stand out in bold letters to avoid so many time-wasting RMs like this one. Unless a topic (not article, a topic) has an overwhelming absolute majority in both criteria (not just one) then it should be at an ambiguated title. Ambiguating titles is a necessary ill done in super-cases like Paris, not to be done casually when there is no real global overwhelming meaning for a word. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs rewriting since WP:PRIMARYTOPIC appears to already cover this with this line 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. Based on that line would argue that combining the other results in not cheating but in fact necessary.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — there doesn't seem to be a sufficiently substantial majority for the mountain in BC over the others to warrant this move. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per usage statistics presented, it is neither more than thrice as likely as all other topics, nor an order of magnitude more likely than the next likely topic. It fails than all the other topics combined -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:39, 23 January 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.