Talk:Three Sisters

Title of disambiguation page

Wikipedia's disambiguation page naming guidelines indicate that Three Sisters (disambiguation) should only be used if there is a "primary meaning" to the term. In this case, the Chekhov play is not the primary meaning. In support of this, I present the Google test:

"Three Sisters" Chekhov yields 153,000 hits
"Three Sisters" corn yields 185,000 hits
"Three Sisters" Oregon yields 171,000 hits

which show that they are all (roughly) equally common. The guidelines thus lead us to having a page titled Three Sisters that is a disambiguation page, with all other pages being disambiguated like Three Sisters (Oregon) or Three Sisters (play)

Thanks! hike395 02:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Data does not show that the play is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. JPG-GR (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same Google test, I get 3,060,000 hits for "'Three Sisters' Chekhov", compared to 310,000 for "'Three Sisters' Oregon" and 155,000 for "'Three Sisters' corn". This therefore shows it to be the primary usage, and so I propose changing "Three Sisters" to link to the play, unless there are any objections.Butterboy (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are impressive and probably not too surprising so I agree with your proposal. This page needs to be moved to Three Sisters (disambiguation) and the current Three Sisters (play) needs to be moved to Three Sisters. I am unable to do it and even making the request needs some thought which I don't have time for right now. Abtract (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree. I've asked the admins to help move the page. It should happen at some point. hike395 (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, an admin rejected the proposal, wanting to have evidence of consensus. hike395 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put notification on some of the other pages listed in the Three Sisters disambiguation page, since this affects those pages also and it's unlikely their editors have this page watchlisted. My opinion is that surely less than 50% of visitors to Three Sisters are actually looking for the play, considering the huge number of other options? Somno (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mildly oppose. Encyclopedia Britannica uses disambiguation for all terms. See here. —EncMstr (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to be scientific (as opposed to my "surely less than 50%" remark above), I looked up page visits using this tool.

Three_Sisters_(play) has been viewed 9534 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(agriculture) has been viewed 4237 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(Australia) has been viewed 3227 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(Oregon) has been viewed 2609 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(Pittsburgh) has been viewed 632 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(film) has been viewed 574 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(Alberta) has been viewed 504 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(District_of_Columbia) has been viewed 504 times in 200804
The_Three_Sisters_(Ireland) has been viewed 362 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_Wilderness has been viewed 424 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_Springs_(Florida) has been viewed 250 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(British_Columbia) has been viewed 199 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(tomato) has been viewed 171 times in 200804
The_Three_Sisters_(Queensland) has been viewed 121 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(Georgia) has been viewed 115 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_Recreation_Area has been viewed 112 times in 200804
Three_Sisters_(Glen_Coe) has been viewed 71 times in 200804

In April there were 23646 visits to the pages named within the "Three Sisters" disambiguation page (excluding Tri Vestry). 9534 visits were to the play, which is 40% of the total. Somno (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the visitation data from Somno, I am now opposed to the move. Visitation is a better metric than the Google test. Thanks for the data, Somno. hike395 (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy it helped. I think it's worth waiting to see whether any other editors want to offer their opinions, based on the messages I left on various Three Sisters talk pages. Then we can achieve consensus either way. Somno (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the play seems streets ahead on both "visits" and google I fail to see why anyone opposes the move. Abtract (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ahead, but not overwhelmingly. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under the disambiguation guidelines. Since there isn't obvious agreement, that suggests it should remain the way it is. To be an unqualified name, I think it ought to have at least ten or twenty times as many views as any other variation. —EncMstr (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the move. I think the page should remain the way it is. Figaro (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

60% of Three Sisters-related visits were to articles other than the play... so I fail to see why anyone supports the move. ;) As EncMstr's link shows, the fact that it's even being discussed makes it unlikely there is one primary topic. Somno (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say ... and humour always helps :) Abtract (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More three sisters in BC

I have to reboot my computer before I can continue (hard drive's too full....) but wanted to drop a copy-paste from a British Columbia Geographical Names Information System]] search query here; the entry for the currently-linked item has not been included in this list, these will all be new entries: 2 Three Sisters Peaks 82F/3 49°10'15" 117°02'26" 3 Three Sisters Creek Creek (1) 92I/11 50°39'00" 121°27'00" 4 Three Sisters Islands Islands 104G/14 57°50'22" 131°22'49" 5 Three Sisters Lake Lake 82F/3 49°10'00" 117°03'00" 6 Three Sisters Lakes Park Provincial Park 93G/10 53°32'30" 122°33'00" 7 Three Sisters Range Range (2) 104I/3 58°07'00" 129°25'00" 8 Three Sisters, The Peaks 92N/7 51°26'00" 124°53'00" I know where some of these are - the Islands are in the Stikine River near Telegraph Creek, the Ranges is on the Tanzilla Plateau southeast of Dease Lake, the provincial park already has a stub probably - titled Three Sisters Lakes Provincial Park adn the last group of peaks are on Vancouver Island....I think. I'll be back in a bit....Skookum1 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Three Sisters (1970 Olivier film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]