Talk:Ciaramella
(Redirected from Talk:Ciaramella (surname))
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Requested move 9 February 2020
 | This set index article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move 9 February 2020
edit- 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.
| It was proposed in this section that Ciaramella (surname) be renamed and moved to Ciaramella.
result: Links: current log • target log
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
Ciaramella (surname) → Ciaramella – The surname is the WP:PTOPIC for "Ciaramella". The title currently redirects to Piffero, where it is listed as an alternative regional name for the musical instrument in Southern Italy. Page view statistics show that the surname has received more page views than the musical instrument, and search engine results mostly concern people with the surname Ciaramella. feminist (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support move. Especially given recent events, the surname is the primary topic. O.N.R. (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. The first thing I did was to googled up the standard test for primary topic: Ciaramella -wikipedia. Every result relates to [redacted]. Colin Gerhard (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per the long-term significance. The WP:RECENTISM due to the recent news spikes is skewing the page views; all-time page view statistics show Piffero has been the primary topic prior to late-2019. And the BLP issues that Colin Gerhard has mentioned (it is likely that a majority of the page view spike consists of groups of IP's attempting to add the BLP violation but are instead running into the semi-protection). Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- But if the WP:COMMONNAME for the instrument is "Piffero", how many readers would be searching for the instrument using the title "Ciaramella"? feminist (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- The search engine results suggest that the overwhelming majority of readers are looking for information about a particular person, not that they are looking for information about the surname as a name. Colin Gerhard (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- ... and as I stated, some may also be attempting to add him in. Either way, WP:RECENTISM, the recent news spikes is skewing the recent page view stats. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- The search engine results suggest that the overwhelming majority of readers are looking for information about a particular person, not that they are looking for information about the surname as a name. Colin Gerhard (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- But if the WP:COMMONNAME for the instrument is "Piffero", how many readers would be searching for the instrument using the title "Ciaramella"? feminist (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose move based on recentism. At best, this is an ambiguous term.—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The existing content is a redirect, parenthetical disambiguation of the surname makes no sense. Guy (help!) 19:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom and JzG. An obscure regional name for an instrument in a non-English country doesn't trump the surname in either long-term significance or popular usage. The name page has a see-also for the piffero anyway, so is almost serving as a dab page already, given how short it is. — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Seems very strange for an obscure redirect to take precedence over an actual topic.Shakehandsman (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2020 (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.