Talk:Lamia (disambiguation)

Plant?

What is Lamia (plant)? The type genus of Lamiaceae is Lamium. -phma

Looks like a mistake to me. I don't find any reference to a plant Lamia. WormRunner 06:47, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lamia is not the latin word for vampire, vespirilito, -onis is. Lamia, -ae, in my dictionary ("The Bantam New College" edition 1966 which got me through several years of latin) is the word for sorceress or witch.

Contested move request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to move (last comment was 12 Aug 2007) Closing old discussion; new discussion below. --KarlB (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 13:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia (mythology) → Lamia — Redirect goes there already, most common usage of term by far, deserves main name space —DreamGuy 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC) DreamGuy 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that redirection was performed by you at about the same time you made the request. Secondly, I see no evidence that the mythological figure is the primary meaning. Determining primary usage is almost always a community process, because any individual is biased by his or her knowledge and experience. That means it can almost never be an uncontroversial move. --Stemonitis 13:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirection was performed by me, so what? Second, if you've seen no evidence that the mythology figure is the primary meaning then you haven't bothered to look at the pages in question or any other evidence at all. Look at the list of terms, do a Google search, do whatever, there's Lamia the mythological character and then there are extremely minor references all based upon it. To call this controversial without even looking to see if there is indeed any is a complete waste of time. DreamGuy 16:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the top google hit [1] for this, after filtering out Wikipedia, is the Keats poem. Second is the place in Greece. I agree with Stemonitis that this is not so obvious as to be uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Redirecting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Archiving this discussion because formal RM discussion is happening below. Further comments should be made at the RM. --KarlB (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make "Lamia" redirect to the mythological figure, with the disambiguation link at the top. That it doesn't already is so stupid, especially since the reason for it was "Google results!", a reason which, at least on my end, is no longer true.
I'll make this change in a few days. If anyone has objections raise them now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.223.206 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2012‎

Please don't do this. There is no clear evidence that the mythological figure is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 03:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When one googles "Lamia," the top result is the Wiki article for the Mythological figure. When one ignores the Wikipedia results, the top two results both deal with the myth of Lamia, while the third result is the Keats poem - which uses the title "Lamia" because of the myth. Most of the competing definitions are not noteworthy at all - a type of beetle. A character from a 1984 Polish movie. These meanings are what disambiguation pages are for, since they are important, but not enough to be the starting point. Likewise the main competing definitions are for the small Greek city and the Keats poem - both of which use the word "Lamia" because of the mythological figure. Both articles are rather rudimentary, while the article for the mythological figure is lengthy, well-sourced, and well-written.

Looking at the history of the Lamia article, it seems like the main reason why it's a disambiguation page is because it's... always been a disambiguation page. For 9 years. It started in 2002 as a quick article describing the city and the myth, and by 2004 it became too much Stuff on one page so someone made a disambiguation, and it's been there ever since. It has only been questioned once in the talk page, and it was dismissed because the google results were ambiguous. So, yeah, you're right - older doesn't mean wiser.

It's clear that the "main" use of Lamia is the mythological creature. That the word is used for other purposes doesn't mean those purposes supplant the original definition - especially when those other sources are so named because of the original definition. In this case, the appropriate thing to do would be to make the mythological creature the main page, and keep the disambiguation link at the top in case someone actually is searching for the poem, city, and so forth. As it is, right now the mythological creature is tucked way down the page, which is so grossly inappropriate. - signed Michael Rogers, (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nifty. http://stats.grok.se/en/201206/lamia%20%28mythology%29 (34614) vs. http://stats.grok.se/en/201206/lamia%20%28poem%29 (1868) vs. http://stats.grok.se/en/201206/lamia%20%28city%29 (1821). Lamia, the mythological figure, last month, was accessed almost ten times more often than both the city and the poem combined. It's clearly by far the most popular article. It shouldn't be a disambiguation page. - signed Michael Rogers, (talk), comment added 03:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I made a chart. http://i.imgur.com/a5jEc.png - signed Michael Rogers, (talk), comment added 03:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Let me drive this point home. http://i.imgur.com/GI3VS.png . I am going to request the redirect now. 96.231.223.206 (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC) signed Michael Rogers, (talk), comment added 04:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

(after ec) Of the entirety of the top results (first page) returned by Google, a variety of topics are returned, which is not a strong indication of a single unequivocal primary topic. The page view statistics are somewhat more compelling. I'd suggest proposing the move at WP:RM to establish a clear consensus before overturning a long-standing disambiguation page. PS and I see you have started the discussion now. older ≠ wiser 04:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "variety" of topics are, in order: the Myth (wiki), the ostensible disambiguation (Wiki), then two articles on the creature, two literature compilation websites with the Keats poem, the Dictionary.com reference, and three personal pages of people happened to be named Lamia. I don't agree that the Google results are ambiguous at all. 96.231.223.206 (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google uses a proprietary algorithm for determining what to place at the top. It generally, but not exclusively reflects usage, but not always. Other factors also affect placement. Consider corsair. A computer parts manufacturer comes up first (and not within paid ad spot). Does that mean it is the primary topic? I think not. Relying the first search result to be an authoritative indication of primary topic is extremely problematic in many ways. older ≠ wiser 04:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a good thing I was relying on the full page. You claimed the results are ambiguous because of the "variety of topics" on the first page; I disagree that they are ambiguous at all. Most of the links point to the mythological creature. The ones that don't instead point to the Keats poem, to personal pages, and to Dictionary.com (which lists the creature as its top definition). Their order only further supports my point: that when people type "Lamia" into the search bar, Google thinks they're going to want to find something about the Greek mythological creature. Even if the order were different, my point would still stand.

I'm saying that Google, Wikipedia's hits, and common sense all agree that the Greek mythological creature is the primary article. To pretend that Lamia is too ambiguous seems, to me, absurd. That you are also relying on the age of the disambiguation is especially ironic considering your signature - older isn't wiser. That nobody in the past actually made a fuss before doesn't mean the current system is correct. 96.231.223.206 (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be seeing different results than I. That you come along with what you think to be brilliant insights is an extremely poor reason for moving a page in any circumstances, let alone to change a long-standing disambiguation. If discussion establishes consensus, that will provide a reference point for anyone else in the future that might have the opposite insight -- if the page is moved unilaterally, others might come along later and also unilaterally determine that their brilliant insight is better than yours. Establishing consensus before acting is almost always a good thing. older ≠ wiser 05:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=lamia&pws=0 . And again you rely on the disambiguation being "longstanding" as if that gave it more weight.

As it is I don't have a Wikipedia account, so I can't make the redirect myself, but even if I did it would be against Wikipedia policy to make the decision without going through the request process. I apologize for implying I would have done otherwise at the start of this discussion. 96.231.223.206 (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link still shows what I would describe as a variety of results. You are misrepresenting what I have said. The only weight I give to the longstanding disambiguation page is that it should not be displaced without due consideration. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then your definition of a "variety" is.. kinda silly. There are three kinds of results: the creature, the poem, and personal pages of otherwise non-noteworthy people who happened to be named Lamia. The creature results have a plurality: the direct Wiki link, the disambiguation page (which as I've shown overwhelmingly implies it goes to the creature), two websites describing the mythology of the creature, and a Dictionary.com definition with the creature as the first definition. That's 5 out of 10 results. Of the poem, there are only 2 results, both of which are just the Keats poem in online anthologies (e.g. Bartleby). Ignoring the non-noteworthy personal pages, that means 5 of the 7 results are about the creature, and 2 are from the poem. I hardly think calling that a "variety" of results is a fair description. - signed Michael Rogers, 170.110.235.42 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything particularly silly in what I understand by variety. I see no clear indication from the top results for the Google search to establish priority between the creature, the poem, or the city. I suppose you see what you want to see. older ≠ wiser 16:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I guess one does. - M.R. 170.110.235.42 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested 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 move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia → Lamia (disambiguation)
Lamia (mythology) → Lamia

– Lamia, the mythological creature, is the primary article as per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Chart of all hits for articles titled Lamia, June 2012: http://i.imgur.com/GI3VS.png , show that it is the primary by usage. The competing definitions are so-called because of the mythological creature as well - "Lamia" the city named after the creature, and "Lamia" the Keats poem alluding to the creature, thus meaning it has long-term acceptance as the primary meaning. This satisfies both requirements of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Google results also show the mythological creature is the most searched; the top result is the Wiki for the creature, and ignoring Wiki results, the next top two are both about the creature. Plurality of first page results are about the monster, as well as other Google indicators such as suggested words and results for "Lamia monster" compared to other permutations. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC). 96.231.223.206 (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB, I adjusted the order of the moves -- the first one should be for the one where the discussion is occurring, else the nove notification bot gets confused. older ≠ wiser 04:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've never done a move request before, generally I just cheer or jeer at others'. 96.231.223.206 (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. While disambiguating links here back in May, I found several which were referring to other meanings - Lamia (Basque mythology), Lucius Aelius Lamia (consul 3), Lamia (poem), and Lamia (city). I agree that Lamia (mythology) is generally the most-referred-to definition, but it isn't overwhelmingly clear-cut. And the existence of a separate, Basque mythological meaning muddies the waters a bit. Nick Number (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The city and the poem are the most commonly referred-to uses of Lamia aside from the mythological figure. Here is a pie chart comparing them: http://i.imgur.com/a5jEc.png . Notice how the results for mythological creature are almost ten times the results for the poem and the city combined. Here is a chart of hit results including: the poem, the city, the football club, the Basque mythological figure, and others. http://i.imgur.com/GI3VS.png Notice how even including all of these alternate meanings, the mythological figure is still over four times more common than the half dozen other possibilities combined. While alternate uses of the word "Lamia" exist, it's obvious from how people use Wikipedia what the primary meaning is.

Common sense also tells us Lamia, the creature, is the primary meaning. The reason why the poem is titled "Lamia" is an allusion to the mythological creature. The small city in Greece is named Lamia because it was believed the creature was from there. The Basque figure is not nearly as well known - indicated by the Wiki hit results, by the length and quality of the article, and by the lack of Google results - and is named "Lamia" because of coincidence. But if people would genuinely be confused, putting a hat on Lamia with a link to the "Basque mythological creature of the identical name" is a perfectly acceptable alternative to the current situation: where the primary subject of the name "Lamia" is tucked away near the bottom of a disambiguation page.

I am not arguing we get rid of the disambiguation page; I am saying the disambiguation should be "Lamia (disambiguation)", and keep "Lamia" referring to the primary meaning. - signed Michael Rogers, 170.110.235.42 (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another point: consistency across Wikipedia. A good example is that of Pegasus (disambiguation) and the main article Pegasus. Lots of things are called Pegasus - ships, towns, weapons, sports clubs. But they are relegated to a disambiguation where they belong because common sense says the primary definition is the winged horse. Likewise a Google search for Pegasus has as the top result the wiki article, but every other result is about a business that happens to be called Pegasus. And yet we wouldn't say there's ambiguity about the word Pegasus; it's clear what the word "means," such that others use it to allude to the winged horse. So it is with Lamia, and so it should be on Wikipedia. - signed Michael Rogers, 170.110.235.42 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that. You can't in one breath say "the Google results are ambiguous because there's so many different results," but then a second later say "oh well that doesn't count because it's assumed other things exist." You can't have it both ways. 96.231.223.206 (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the linked statement. It doesn't matter that "Pegasus" is a mythological horse and that the disambiguation page is located elsewhere. That is other stuff. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't matter if there are other results for Lamia on Google - other stuff exists! It's allowed to exist! That it exists and is more popular on Google doesn't mean Pegasus has multiple competing primary uses! Just saying "but when you Google 'Pegasus' lots of different results come up" is asinine, because common sense tells us Pegasus the winged horse is the primary meaning, and it's APPROPRIATE that Pegasus is exclusively about the winged horse. So it is with Lamia - just because other stuff exists for Lamia doesn't mean the Greek monster isn't the primary usage - that the Google results are actually more favorable to Lamia than Pegasus should be even better for my case.

That's what I'm saying. You can't, in one breath, say that Pegasus is okay because other stuff exists but Lamia isn't because other stuff exists. We need to look at other criteria - such as actual usage statistics on Wikipedia (which I have presented, repeatedly, at length), enduring notability (which I have presented, at length), and common sense. The only reason you can possibly be opposed to this but support keeping Pegasus where it is is because that's the way it currently is and it's better to not change things because change is bad. 170.110.235.42 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose primarity not shown, if it were the primary meaning, then MOST of the entries of the first 100 Google hits would be about the mythological beast, and they are not. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint: The plurality of results are involving the monster. The majority of results are personal pages for people named Lamia. Nor should "top 100 Google Results" be the sole criteria - again I post the usage statistics. I am not saying the Greek monster is the only meaning, I am saying it's the primary meaning by far.

People are opposing this for patently untrue reasons and this is getting very frustrating. I feel like the only reason people are against the move is from a subconscious appeal to tradition - that because it's a change it's wrong. - Michael Rogers, 170.110.235.42 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to show the primary meaning is the mythological beast, and you have not. A simple Google search, though admittedly not ideal, should atleast show many results for the mythological beast, and it does not. And it is one of the pillars of the nomination (google results:

Google results show the mythological creature is the most searched -- 96.231.223.206 (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

) that this is the primary meaning, that is not borne out by the actual google results. Just saying that A is primary is not showing that A is primary. And your statement about being "patently untrue" needs to be shown. If it were primary by far it would dominate the Google results, and it doesn't. Indeed your statement of it being "patently untrue" is itself "patently untrue", given google results -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown it, repeatedly. First with Wikipedia results. This website records wikipedia article traffic. There are multiple permutations for Lamia; there's a city, a poem, the contentious mythological beast, and others. Here is a chart I made using June 2012 numbers of every permutation of "Lamia" listed on the disambiguation. Each point of data represents a "hit" for the article. Look at it. Notice how Lamia, the Greek mythological creature, is by far the most hit article, over four times more hits than all the other ones combined. Now see WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, where, "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." Because the mythological beast is more likely to be sought than all other topics combined, then it is the primary article with regards to usage.

Now see WP:PRIME, where, and I quote, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." I have shown this with Lamia the mythological creature already. The city and the poem are the main competing definition as seen from both Google results, where 2 results on the first page are of the poem and 1 result is of the city, AND from the chart, where the city and poem are the second and third-most visited articles. But when we look at why the poem and city are called Lamia, we see the city is called Lamia because people believed Lamia, the monster, was from there. Likewise the poem is titled Lamia as a deliberate allusion to the monster. In this way, the monster has substantially greater long-term significance, having been a famous mythological figure for thousands of years. Thus, Lamia the mythological creature is the primary article with regards to long-term significance as well.

Thus, Lamia satisfies both criteria for a primary article - it satisfies the requirement for primary usage, AND it satisfies the requirement for long-term significance.

But let's say we live in the fantasy land where google results dictate Wikipedia articles (ignoring the Pegasus problem I talked about above). When we see the first page of Google results, Lamia the myth has 5 results. Lamia the poem has 2 results. Lamia the city has 1 result. Lamia, individuals who happen to have that name, have 2 results. When we google "Lamia monster", there are "About 704,000 results." When we google "Lama poem" we have "About 359,000 results" - about half as many. When we google "Lamia greek city" we get "About 197,000 results." Thus even the google results support Lamia the monster being the primary topic - there are more Google results for "Lamia monster" than "lamia greek city" and "lamia poem" combined. When we google Lamia, the plurality of the results on the first page are about the monster. Hell, when you google just "lamia," to hone your results google suggests "lamia demon (+1), lamia curse (+2), lamia mythology (+3), lamia definition (+4, since lamia as the monster is the first definition in dictionaries), lamia lamia (?), lilith (a similar demon but of hebrew origin), lamia keats, lamia poem." Of those 8 suggestions, 5 are for the demon, 2 for the poem, and 1 for... who knows. Apparently a hair salon. AGAIN, when you Google "lamia," Google thinks you're going to want information about the monster! Because it's the primary topic!

So in conclusion. As per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, Lamia satisfies both criteria by being both the primary usage and the long-term significance. Likewise, when we do Google tests, we see Lamia is, again, consistently the main reference. Lamia is the primary topic. It should be the main page, with the other definitions left as disambiguations.

Sidebar, this experience has been so stupid. There is no reason to oppose this move. There is no evidence suggesting this should have ever been a disambiguation in the first place. It was made a disambiguation ten years ago by someone just trying to streamline the page, way before Wikipedia became this bureaucratic nightmare. Now it's so entrenched nobody has gone through the effort to change it... until now.

You're welcome, Wikipedia. - signed Michael Rogers, 96.231.223.206 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can build any old piechart with a spreadsheet, that doesn't show the data it was built from. Even your link to grok.se shows nothing, since it doesn't link to the actual page usage stats, it just shows the grok.se homepage. Your own searching shows that various uses have high usage on google in comparison with the restricted search "monster". And "Lilith" is totally irrelevant. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological figure (34614) vs. Poem (1868) vs. the City (1821) vs. the Animal (503) vs. Basque mythological figure (872) vs. Genus (170) vs. D&D Monster (920). The numbers in the pie chart are correct, and thus it satisfies the usage requirement of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE.

My own google searching shows that other various usages have a high usage, but "Lamia monster" produces more results than the other search terms combined. What definition of "primary usage" would possible satisfy you? Because "more than other reasonable possibilities combined" seems pretty clear. This, in conjunction with the evidence I have shown from how people actually use Wikipedia, suggests very strongly that the primary usage of Lamia is the Greek mythological monster as per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. I am NOT saying we get rid of all other possible uses! I AM saying we make "Lamia (mythology)" the main page for "Lamia," keeping a link to the disambiguation at the top. 170.110.235.42 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "Lillith" is relevant - it is a half-woman half-serpent monster from Jewish folklore. Lamia is a half-woman half-serpent monster of Greek mythology. When one Googles Lamia, Google suggests "did you mean this other half-serpent half-woman monster?" Considering the other competing suggestions are for a hair salon and for the poem, while other suggestions are for "Lamia demon" and "Lamia mythology", I'm counting it as a point in my favor. But let's play devil's advocate and say Lillith doesn't count; a majority of the suggestions still refer to the monster. 170.110.235.42 (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approve Lamia the mythological being is the fundamental original of the other derivative works and meanings.96.250.216.122 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inherited. It's the other way around - the monster came first. By thousands of years. If anything, you should be saying "not inherited" to the poem - that just because its a Keats poem titled a famous mythological creature doesn't mean it's noteworthy! Because that's how inheritance works. 96.231.223.206 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the linked statement. You cannot inherit upwards either. It doesn't matter what came first. Otherwise Boston would be about Lincolnshire. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except I already established above how Lamia the monster is the primary usage, and it's everything else that has a question of its notability. Try to keep up. 170.110.235.42 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per 170.110.235.42. Several criteria from Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC (historical significance, Google search, page views) are aligned to place the monster at the first place. While page views and Google position would not by themselves be enough to determine a primary topic if isolated, all them pointing together in the same direction are enough. Diego (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. While the mythological creature may be the most common usage, there are numerous other non-obscure meanings. This seems like a borderline case, but I think I favor keeping it as a disambiguation page for now. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear-cut case, in my opinion. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long overdue. There isn't a single usage that doesn't derive ultimately from the mythological character, which is far and away the primary usage. DreamGuy (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there isn't a case for the Greek character being the primary topic, but it's going a little far to say that the Basque meaning and the Ugandan river are derived from it. I'm not sure about the names in the People section either. Nick Number (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Basque one is so completely obviously based on the Greek one it isn't even funny. There's no reason to think the river and names had any other origin. It's an extremely well known classical term. It'd be remarkable if any thing or person got that name by accident. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Diego. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be a simple decision -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 00:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support. The argument that there's a primary topic here is strong. Deor (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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