- It's still ambiguous as a self-standing name, which is the point. The main articles for Cher, Ciara, and Selena are are non-disambiguated. Duffy (singer) is disambiguated. I've never seen an eponymous category not disambiguated when the article is. (When the issue is actually discussed, that is. Fans and other users create un-disambiguated ones all the time which need to be corrected, as can be seen from the nominations on this page.) That would be truly weird. If you think it's not ambiguous, you should try to get the article about the singer un-disambiguated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a separate issue and I am willing to nominate it for a rename on the same grounds as above. Given the other category renamings you have nominated here there are several categories where the category is different from the article. Sometimes it may be the name of the article that should be changed. I think each name change should be argued on its own merits. Often the disambiguation takes place without any discussion by simply moving the article. This is the first opportunity to discuss it. Cjc13 (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a separate issue. I often see editors mention at CfD that they intend to get an article moved in support of their position on the category, but I rarely see anything happen in that regard. It's never too late to reverse a move if something does actually happen with the article, but until then ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have suggested change of article name on Talk:Duffy (singer) and will follow up on this. As regards being ambiguous, she is well-known under that name and there are no other claims on that category title. Cjc13 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it unlikely that she is the primary usage, but fans would no doubt disagree. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the primary usage if she is not then? I am not aware of any other contender for primary usage. Cjc13 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is one. In Australia, it would be the locale probably, but I don't think there's one elsewhere. It seems to be a mix-mash. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The locale is a suburb of Canberra with a population of 2,942. Even in Australia, the singer would be better known, see for instance an article in The Australian. Cjc13 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having an article in an Australian newspaper proves what, exactly? Or are you saying I couldn't find any articles with dateline Duffy or that recount events that took place in Duffy? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows that they know about her in Australia and that she is the primary usage even in Australia. Note the headline "Duffy", not "Duffy (singer)". Cjc13 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Chuckle.) No, it doesn't prove that she is the primary usage in Australia. As far as I know headline writers and newspaper editors never follow Wikipedia disambiguation rules. (I have yet to see "Man bites dog in Georgia (country)"; but if you want to play that game, it's just as easy to say that if she were the primary usage, I suppose opening the article with the explanatory adjectives "Welsh pop singer" may not have been necessary. Anyway, such a debate has less to do with the category name and everything to do with the article name.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the article does show is that the singer is not unknown in Australia which suggests your statement "In Australia, it would be the locale probably" to be unlikely. At least you got the joke. Cjc13 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like a basic misunderstanding about what "primary topic" actually means. Anything on Wikipedia can be known to anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection. The fact that something is "known about" somewhere doesn't make it the primary usage in that place. To argue otherwise based on nothing more is just sloppy logic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is she not a primary topic? Her article has been viewed at least 40,000 times each month this year and over 100,000 in both January and February 2009. In terms of incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere and Wikipedia article traffic statistics, she far exceeds any other article on the disambiguation page. In February there were 53,174 viewings of the disambiguation page. This can only be because so many people were looking for the singer's page and went to the disambiguation page by mistake. Cjc13 (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|