Jump to content

Talk:Cleveland (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleveland, England

[edit]

I am pretty confused about what has happened to Cleveland, England, but I think that it is no longer a county. There is a Redcar & Cleveland local govt authority but not, as was suggested here and on the relevant page, an actual county of Cleveland. If I'm wrong please let me know! :) Nevilley 19:02 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

Cleveland isn't a county and Redcar & Cleveland is a part of the former county but it doesn't cover parts of the ex-county such as Middlesbrough. Computerjoe's talk 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True or false??

[edit]

True or false: many of these in the United States are honors of Grover Cleveland. This is helpful in determining Cleveland's honor rank. (See Talk:George Washington for what an honor rank is.) 66.245.64.54 15:51, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

[edit]

Someone tried to redirect this page to Cleveland, Ohio. He also created a Cleveland (disambiguation) page. Perhaps THIS page Cleveland should be a direct to Cleveland (disambiguation) but it seems like it should definitely not go to Cleveland, Ohio automatically. See also here.

That redirect was the correct thing to do, IMO. I'm requesting a reinstatement the move and redirect. - EurekaLott 01:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That redirect was a bad mistake and must not be repeated, IMO. Having "Cleveland" is the disamb page is great, having it go to Ohio would be stupid. Don't do it please. 138.37.188.109 18:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleveland → Cleveland (disambiguation)

[edit]

The Cleveland article would then become a redirect to Cleveland, Ohio. This move was made and than undone, but it seems like a good idea. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:How to rename (move) a page#Redirect policy? - EurekaLott 01:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose for the same reasons I opposed Jooler's attempt at making Middlesex about his preferred Middlesex in England and moving the unconfusing disambiguation currently at Middlesex off somewhere else. There are just too many Clevelands, and Ohio's city (while most well known for me) is not the only one. This disambiguation works, albeit taking only mere seconds to navigate for someone seeking the Ohio metropolis. However, it is when we are exposed to more information than we were searching for leading us down paths we never intended to traverse that we learn stuff. —ExplorerCDT 16:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support I can't speak for American usage, but to be honest, if somebody says 'Cleveland' to me, I'll think of the American city, not the British usage. (Granted I live in the south of England though). --Neo 16:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know about you, but I would rather not think of the American city if you know what I mean. —ExplorerCDT 16:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Cleveland, Ohio should not be moved. The current name conforms to naming conventions. For reference, Minneapolis redirects to Minneapolis, Minnesota, Atlanta redirects to Atlanta, Georgia, Miami redirects to Miami, Florida, Detroit redirects to Detroit, Michigan, Philadelphia redirects to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and so on. - EurekaLott 18:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looking at the many links to the current disambiguation page Cleveland, it is clear to me that nearly all of them are meant to link to Cleveland, Ohio, so it makes sense that Cleveland would be a redirect there (with a link to Cleveland (disamiguation) at the top of Cleveland, Ohio, of course). This seems standard practice to me, when one use of a name is far more common than the others. -R. fiend 19:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support moving the disamb page back to Cleveland (disambiguation) and making Cleveland redir to Cleveland, Ohio (which already links to Cleveland (disambiguation)), as there seems to be no other significant current usage for the name--a scan of Cleveland's 'what links here' shows the vast majority are looking for the Ohio city. This would also match Miami, Vancouver, and a host of other cities. I am unaware of any precedent for choosing article titles explicitly to expose readers to other uses. Niteowlneils 19:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. →Raul654 19:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. There is no excuse for thrusting a disambiguation page at the reader who just wants to read about Cleveland. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's by far the best known Cleveland. Not unlike the situation with Boston (disambiguation) and Boston. Cleveland should get us to page for the Ohio city, whether it's titled "Cleveland" or "Cleveland, Ohio". -- Curps 23:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Philip Baird Shearer 00:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Whether or not to redirect articles for major cities is a question still under debate—currently, cities outside the U.S. (Kyoto, Calcutta, Yangôn) are rightfully hosted under their name alone, where the topic is clearly the primary one, but American cities like Chicago, Illinois and Dallas, Texas don't enjoy the same status—this month. They're moved back and forth on a regular basis, but at the moment redirects are the vogue. ADH (t&m) 04:02, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Support - The county of Cleveland in England had only a short history. The majority of links for Cleveland will be about the city in Ohio. Jooler 15:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. / up◦land 22:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutralitytalk 06:37, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I would support having the article on the city at Cleveland as well, but only as part of a general settlement of American city-naming issues, where other cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and so forth are also moved to the article without the state name. There was a lengthy discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (cities and towns), in which there appeared to be an incipient consensus towards this conclusion, but nothing was ever implemented. At any rate, Cleveland should certainly redirect to the Ohio city. john k 02:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is fine how it is right now, thank you very much, with Cleveland as the disambiguation page. There is no way that Cleveland should take you straight off to Ohio - it's monstrous. The English Cleveland is an important historical usage and should not be made into a backwater. People being too lazy to reference things properly (Cleveland, Ohio; Cleveland, England) is a separate problem and should not be dealt with by just going with the US consensus. If you make this change you are once again saying that only the US's Weltanschauung is important here - is that the message you want to give? Oh and the argument above about Cleveland being only briefly a county is disingenuous at best - you don't need to try very hard to understand that its lengthy role as a historic area name predates its brief period as a county and ex-county by - ooh, what, a millennium or so? Really, this is a very sad debate. If you do stuff like this then perhaps you should be honest and make it clear that the intention is to make this into us.wikipedia.org, the wikipedia that believes in US domination of the world. Mmm. nice. 138.37.188.109 18:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Carrp 19:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Engish wording

[edit]

Sorry but this link wording: "Cleveland, a former county in England (1974–96) now known as Tees Valley" is VERY difficult to love. In a historical view, the English Cleveland was a county for a few minutes and has been an ex-county for a few minutes more. It was the historic name of an area for really quite a bit longer than that. Furthermore it maps BADLY onto Tees Valley. I've replaced that wording with something that makes sense. 138.37.188.109 18:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another redirect arguement

[edit]

In my opinion, Cleveland should redirect to this disambig. Cleveland, England's borough's in total have a population over 500,000. Also, the fact you have have Grover Cleveland, which is surely another notable Cleveland? Computerjoe's talk 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What

[edit]

This is anti-nonamerican! Cleveland, Ohio is not the first cleveland so cleveland should go to a disambiguation page. Man! Serminigo 17:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that consensus deems Cleveland, OH is more notable than the rest. Computerjoe's talk 20:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland, Ohio notice of requested move

[edit]

There is a proposal on WP:RM to move Cleveland, Ohio to Cleveland; see Talk:Cleveland, Ohio#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 December 2016

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Despite arguments put forth against this, consensus shows that Cleveland the city is, according to the opinions of several editors, the primary topic. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– In 2009, Cleveland the city was given primarytopic status, even though Cleveland the president and several Cleveland sports teams each gets many more page views. Clearly this should be a "no primarytopic" situation, and the ambiguous term should go straight to the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I think the city is certainly the primary topic for "Cleveland", as it gets far more page views and is far more significant than any other topic named just Cleveland. While it is true the president is prominent too, I think that "Cleveland" is far more likely refer to the city than him without any qualifiers (just try Google or Google Books, you'll primarily get results about the city if you search just "Cleveland"). And who would want a sports team by searching Cleveland? I think if either the topics the nominator mentions were really wanted by readers searching "Cleveland", the DAB page would be seeing more than 25 hits a day. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't the stats show that Cleveland the president gets way more hits than Cleveland the city? Presidents are often called by last name; a few are actually primarytopic (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Obama). Why do you think the city should be primarytopic in such a situation? Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't get "way more". If you discount the spike from this year's election, the city is often ahead of him. Presidents are often referred to by last name only, but not all have gone down particularly well-known as such. This is especially true for Grover; the city was already named and prominent before he took office (population was 261,000ish when he was first elected and only rose from there). I'd say most people would know Cleveland as the Ohio city over Grover, since both are US-centric but the city has the benefit of a large population, several sports teams, and still being around today despite its incorporation predating Grover's birth by 20-or-so years. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The reasoning behind why it was originally given Primary Topic status remains true, especially after a year where the city has been in the national spotlight even more than usual with the sports teams and the RNC. Cleveland is one of the cities listed by the Associated Press as not needing a state with it since it's generally understood "Cleveland" is referring to this city. While Grover Cleveland gets slightly more pageviews than the city over a period of about 14 months, another tool measures how readers get there. In this analysis, the vast majority of the visitors to the Cleveland article are getting there from that link. Cleveland, Ohio is a distant second, generating 342 hits per day. For Grover Cleveland, almost all pageviews are from direct links to that article, meaning readers know they're looking for. Using other presidents as examples isn't a fair comparison since the only other president with a name the same as a major city is Washington, which, of course, is also the name of many well-known things including a US state, on top of the reality that the city is often called "Washington, DC" or just "DC". The hatnote at the top of this article is sufficient.
    • Cleveland: 3,026/day out of 3,560 hits per day total. Cleveland, Ohio: 342 hits per day
    • Grover Cleveland: 3,397/day out of 3,414 hits per day total. President Cleveland: 3 hits per day. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The AP argument isn't valid; that's an American rulebook for how American journalists (working for publications that use the AP Stylebook, which is hardly all of them) should write for American news readers. WP isn't American in scope or language usage, isn't targeted at Americans, and isn't news journalism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the AP is American, but their general policy doesn't only apply to American cities. In other words, its a valid secondary source that refers to the city in Ohio as "Cleveland" instead of "Cleveland, Ohio". The way it doesn't use states or countries for certain cities is a reflection on the reality that in some cases, a specific city is understood by most readers without adding that city's US state or country. The AP also does not use "England" or "UK" when it references London, or "France" when it references Paris, even though there are also quite a few places and things in the world named London and Paris. Again, the Primary Topic aspect comes not from readers' preferences, but how it's referred in secondary sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. The city is unambiguously the primary topic, despite sharing a name with a two-term president.  ONR  (talk)  13:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly per above. The Cleveland vs. Reagan/Obama analogy breaks down pretty quickly. And the incoming links argument shows that our editors and readers treat the city as the primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now. I would like to see input from non-Americans, especially whether non-US publications treat Cleveland by itself as "certainly" meaning the American city. I'm skeptical they do, since the original Cleveland is an entire region in England with a long history (that our article on it mostly neglects to cover, actually), which has been noted for industry since the Industrial Revolution. At any rate, "I personally usually think of the American city" isn't a legit oppose rationale, but seems to be what the above are really based on. Desperately seeking a primary topic, any primary topic, just to avoid disambiguation leads to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS problems of treating a particular topic familiar to one big group, like Americans, as more globally significant than they are. Also, we do not treat historical, geographical and other connections as "inherited" for this kinds of analysis, because notability is not heritable. The fact that the sports teams' names derive from the American city is irrelevant, and they don't "stack" to favor that city as the primary topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Here, this so-called primary topic ideology (invented and heavily pushed by one particular editor) is stretched to a ridiculous extent. There are so many uses of the sole word, and not all for settlement names. It's a surname, even a given name, and a street name, plus much more.

    One measure of this folly is to take a look at the disambiguation page ... how long is that? And try this: type slowly in the searchbox and watch. Not till you get to "Cleveland (" or "Cleveland di" do you even know that there is a DAB page. And then, most searchers would be clueless about what they'd get if they selected it.

    Why are we intent on inconveniencing readers-in-search to this extent?

    Tony (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting point regarding the searchbox: why is it limited to 10 items? Why not allow up to 15 or more? How is the searchbox item-limit set? The seachbox is a de facto disambiguation, which is problematic when it becomes an incomplete disambiguation. Maybe when the searchbox item-limit is exceeded, the search algorithm should force search term (disambiguation) into the results, if it exists. Perhaps label it "more" so that it's more clear to readers who may not understand our qualifier "xxx (disambiguation)". wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This disambiguation page gets a whole 30 hits a day (compared with 3,057/day for Cleveland), so it would appear most readers are not being inconvenienced by the disambiguation. If they were looking for another aspect of "Cleveland" and were directed here by the Cleveland article hatnote, there would be significantly more traffic here. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to prick your logic-balloon, which has just sprayed all over. You must somehow be aware of the proportion of people clicking on "Cleveland" in the WP search facility who know exactly what they're clicking on: care to share this with us? They might be after any of the myriad items listed at the DAB page.

So of course the rorschach term "Cleveland" gets a zillion hits. Conversely, a DAB page with the title "X (disambiguation)" might just as well be concealed in a dark room with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard"; it will get very few hits. Tony (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The US city is well known globally. The British Cleveland is not particularly well known even in the UK outside of the immediate vicinity - the short-lived county may not have generated the hatred of its contemporary Humberside but nor has it really put it on the map and the names "Teesside" and "Tees Valley" are increasingly in use (without any real need for a term to distinguish the non-Darlington area). Hence "Cleveland" on its own normally means the US city even here. Timrollpickering 11:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, or perhaps reluctantly leaning that way. Tony makes a good point about how poorly this is handled by Search. On page views the US president is clearly jockeying for #1 if not in that position, which I find a little surprising. No topic dominates views over all others combined. So we fall to more subjective criteria, and it's hard to argue between a major city and a US president which has greater long-term significance. They both have substantial long term significance. Regarding the AP style book, that assumes that the context is a city or other geographical location. You can say "Cleveland" alone, rather than "Cleveland, Ohio" because it is assumed in context that you're writing from or about a particular location, and without specifically specifying where "Cleveland" is, the reader or listener will assume it's in Ohio. Throw that context out, and just say, I'm doing research about Cleveland, it's arguably ambiguous whether you mean that you're researching the city or the president. In contrast, if you're doing research about Gladstone, it will be assumed you mean the prime minister and not any location. If our Search box handled this better, I might be persuaded to keep the status quo, though. I think it will be an improvement to see the search box unambiguously show searching readers Cleveland, Ohio rather than simply Cleveland. A compromise here may be to just move the city, and have the base name redirect to the city. That would fix the search box somewhat. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—All U.S. cities should be followed by their state. Cleveland, Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExNeddiesBoy (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Page views are only one way of measuring this, and all other indicators point to the city as the primary topic. In addition, WP:USPLACE identifies Cleveland as one of the US cities not needing disambiguation by state. The article titles have stable since 2005, and the city's associated category tree was recently renamed to align with the article. There's no good reason to disrupt a setup that's working quite well. Any concerns can be resolved via hatnote. - Eureka Lott 14:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is the clear primary topic for "Cleveland". Its use on its own far outweighs the fact that the president had this name, since it both predates and outlives him. With regards to the disambiguation page, there's more evidence that readers are mostly getting what they want when they search "Cleveland" than not. I don't see anything showing that there is inconvenience here, just speculation. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:USPLACE says Current convention is to omit the state only with the well-known cities which the Associated Press lists as not requiring the state qualifier in a journalistic context, unless they, like Phoenix, conflict with another non-geographic article; the Associated Press Stylebook is a reliable source, written in American English. Those claiming that USPLACE supports this need to argue why Phoenix (mythology) is a sufficiently strong contender to pull Phoenix, Arizona off of primary topic status, in spite of AP style book support for the city not needing Arizona to disambiguate it, while the US president Grover Cleveland doesn't have as strong a pull as the mythical bird. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1.) Grover Cleveland is only occasionally known as Cleveland, whereas there's no other name for the city other than Cleveland. Even "Cleveland, Ohio" is still pretty much just Cleveland. 2.) This has been mentioned a few times, but the city has been in existence since before Grover was born. It was already thriving when he won his first election, and obviously he's dead now and it's still going. This is obviously not the case for Phoenix (mythology), which predates the Arizona city by likely nearly a thousand years. 3.) Significance in general. If you search "Cleveland" on plain Google/Google Books/Google News, you're going to get the city. After nearly 10 pages of results I gave up trying to find more than a handful of things that weren't tangentially Ohio related. This is not the case for "Phoenix", the mythological bird appears straight away, and the city gets buried in other results rather quickly (in addition to the bird, the French band comes up very frequently) For me, a bare search for Cleveland in Google Books nets a ton results, and nearly every result bar one on the first five pages relates to the Ohio city; it divulges into unrelated meanings far before Grover gets the spotlight. For a search in Google Books for "Phoenix", there's no extra significance for the Arizona city right off the bat; almost everything is about phoenixes or fantasy books about phoenixes, etc. The first book I get that is specifically about Arizona is on the fifth page. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody seems to be using USPLACE as the reason to oppose the move. CTRL-F for "USPLACE" on the page shows one instance to refute the point that all U.S. cities should have the state added to the title, which is against USPLACE; and one instance where the fact that Cleveland is on the AP list is additional evidence to support the PRIMARYTOPIC claim - the rest of that comment is straightforward PRIMARYTOPIC argument. USPLACE is at most a tangent in this discussion, and not cited by most of either the !opposers or !supporters. In any event, Nohomersryan does a decent job showing the difference between Cleveland and Phoenix. Dohn joe (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The close might be OK if it said "in the opinion of lots of editors" rather than "in fact". Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to a more appropriate wording based on your request. I still stand by my close, however. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The idea that primarytopic status is a matter of "fact" seemed highly peculiar. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to disclose interest in RM above

[edit]

I note that editor JonRidinger failed to mention that he is a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, and is or has been active on numerous wikiprojects and other institutional organisations that are dedicated to the theme of that city. Conflict of interest writ large. Tony (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a WP:COI. A COI is when someone works for or is otherwise closely connected with the subject of an article, so bias could potentially be included in edits. An instance would be if I worked for the city of Cleveland or the Greater Cleveland Convention and Visitors Bureau. Just because I live in Northeast Ohio and have been involved in editing Cleveland-area articles doesn't mean I have a COI. In the end, my opinion regarding whether the city in Ohio is a primary topic is based on Wikipedia precedent and policy, not because I have some local desire for the city to not have "Ohio" in the title. I've edited far more articles on other cities than I have Cleveland and participated in many naming discussions for articles. And just FYI, EurekaLott (talk · contribs) is also from the Cleveland area. Doesn't lessen that editor's opinion in any way. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cleveland_(disambiguation)&oldid=1241325193"