Talk:Mitcham

: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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved {{#if:|(non-admin closure)|{{#if:|(closed by non-admin page mover)}}}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

----

:Mitcham, London → {{no redirect|Mitcham}} – Mitcham already redirects here and there's a separate disambiguation page, so I see no point why this is called "Mitcham, London" instead of just "Mitcham". CastleCapt (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes there's no point in having the base name redirect per WP:UKPLACE and WP:PRECISION, viewshttps://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Mitcham,_London might show a primary topic (if others are named after this one) but anyway this has been a stable primary topic even after the move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - considering there are so many more entries on the DAB related to Australia, I think this move leads to confusion. [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2019-02&end=2020-02&pages=Mitcham_(disambiguation)|Mitcham,_London|Mitcham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)|Mitcham_Industries|City_of_Mitcham|Electoral_district_of_Mitcham_(South_Australia)|Electoral_district_of_Mitcham_(Victoria)|Mitcham,_South_Australia Page views for the last year] don't indicate that the London subject is dominantly primary nor should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I'd support move Mitcham (disambiguation) to primary instead. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

::Are you sure? When I look at page views analysis it is pretty clear that this article is much more popular compared to the second highest "Mitcham, South Australia". The Australian article has had a spike in Nov/Dec 2019 but it seems to be an anomaly. Mitcham London currently gets almost 6x more views, and without counting the spike in Oct 2019, got as much as 8x more at this point last year. That rings primary to me. --CastleCapt (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

::: Rather than simply being "more popular" than any one other topic, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC recommends the it should be "{{tq|much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined}}". I do agree the London topic is the most popular, but due to all the other options available, I don't see it as more popular than all of them combined. I'm not basing this on raw page views alone... seeing that others topics have in the past for brief periods been close to parity with the London topic leads me to think that in the long-term we are better off keeping them all disambiguated. -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

:::: The point is to serve WP searchers best. If occasionally a topic is not more popular than all others combined, but usually is, then searchers are best served by having that topic’s article at the base name in question. —-В²C ☎ 22:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The page view stats provided by Netoholic suggests that the place in London meets the criterion "{{tq|more likely than all the other topics combined}}". There is nothing else which otherwise suggests that the other topics, even if combined, may rival the London topic in significance. feminist ^{Wear a mask to protect everyone} 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic per Netaholic. I don’t see, nor can I imagine, a coherent oppose argument based on policy or conventions. —В²C ☎ 08:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

----

: The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.