Talk:Darwin

Link out of date

Can someone change the link of the "A Letter" at the very bottom Its out of date http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=EHBeagleDiary&viewtype=text&pageseq=694&keywords=tahiti

Redirect to Charles Darwin

I think darwin should redirect to THE GREATEST SCIENTIST OF ALL TIME DUH!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.35.132 (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be restored back to redirecting to Charles Darwin (the way it was before it was deleted for a page move that was soon reversed). Some of the topics there, especially Darwin, Northern Territory are quite important. However, I believe that an unqualified "Darwin" can be assumed to refer to Charles Darwin and that the redirect should reflect this. Any thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that it should remain as it is, redirecting to Darwin (disambiguation). Tony Sidaway and I figured this to be a reasonable compromise. Darwin, Northern Territory should never have been moved to Darwin, but it is finally appropriately named. And while "Darwin" will always most likely refer to something associated with Charles Darwin, he is not always likely to be the topic of choice. "Darwin", unqualified, will always (though not exlusively) refer to the city. Having Darwin redirect to Darwin (disambiguation) is no impediment to a user searching for either topic, and should be preferred to "primary topic disambig" in this case because, I think, there is not one.--Cyberjunkie 04:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand that Darwin, Northern Territory may have considerable importance in that area of the world, but I definitely disagree that "'Darwin', unqualified, will always...refer to the city." I actually have never heard "Darwin" refer to the Northern Territory capital, although given the distance between the United States and Australia (and the relative geography ignorance here), that's probably not too much of a surprise. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was, Darwin (city) is not said with any qualification. People simply don't state *City* and then *Polity* in common-speech and rarely do formally. This is not to say, however, that "Darwin" by itself exclusively refers to the city - it doesn't. But because there is no exclusivity is precisely why Darwin should redirect as presently.--Cyberjunkie 06:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Knowledge Seeker that "Darwin" will be a search for Charles Darwin vastly more often than for anything else; he's one of the most famous figures in human history, period. And since Charles Darwin already links to Darwin (disambiguation) at its top, those who aren't searching for Darwin will not be much inconvenienced. However, considering that almost everyone knows his first name as well as his last name, the argument that "Charles Darwin" will be searched for much more often than "Darwin" when seeking that specific page is a valid one; plus consider Lincoln not redirecting to Abraham Lincoln, nor even Santa to Santa Claus or whatnot. I think we should at least seriously consider having the redirect go to Charles Darwin, though. -Silence 09:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users searching for a particular person are likely to give first and last names, as disambig pages for last name only are typically patchy (even this one doesn't contain all the people in Wikipedia with the surname Darwin). Disambig pages for places are usually much more complete, as are pages for 'firstname lastname', as somebody has probably tried to resolve all links to it at least once. As such, Darwin should be (or redirect to) the disambig page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are all missing the fact that Darwin is the name of a very popular operating system the core of mac OS X-- which millions of people are using. For this reason the disambibuation page is needed. Glen Pepicelli 07:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein and not Einstein (disambiguation). Same with Mozart. Newton describes the unit, and has dab links at the top for Isaac Newton and Newton (disambiguation). The precedent isn't clear, but might lean slightly towards moving this to Darwin (disambig) and making this redirect to Charles Darwin. Anyway, for what it's worth, I favor that option. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is keeping this as a redirect to the disambiguation page: after all, people may come here looking for the famous naturalist who pioneered ideas about evolution, Erasmus Darwin :) ..dave souza, talk 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an Australian, I actually expected to find the article on Darwin (city) when I typed in "Darwin". I think Darwin should direct to the disambiguation page. GK1 22:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from a scientist or a student of science, and it is utterly incomprehensible to me how "darwin" ever came to lead to this disambugation page. --76.188.161.254 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the original English-speakers have evolved into lesser beings over time. 80.47.219.117 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just because the chap has so many things named after him, and we can't expect everyone living in Darwin or standing atop a Mount Darwin or swimming in the Darwin Sound etc. to know where to look. And of course there are all those other famous Darwins. This disambig is a good option. .. dave souza, talk 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think the status quo is fine. It's what, one extra click? Lankiveil 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As the term "Darwin" refers to many things and people, I don't have a problem with it being a "disambiguous" page. While I love the theories of Chuck Darwin and think Creationists are a bunch of diluted nutjobs, I think this should remain as it is. ThomasSixten (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, point this to Darwin. [See, you didn't even think I was talking about the city or his reputed uncle.] The name refers to so "many things" because of him (like my work DB named "Socrates"). You say it's "one extra click"... exactly, the click back to the disambiguation page. "Beagle" appropriately points first to the dog, "Aquinas" to the man, "Weber" to disambiguation, "Kant" to the man... let's get "Darwin" right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.5.140 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renowned

According to Websters renown is defined as "state of being widely acclaimed and highly honored". Is it appropriate to refer to a man who is looked upon by many as a lier because of his unproven theory appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjb891 (talk • contribs)

"Widely" means there are a number of exceptions, which caters for those poor deluded souls ;) .. dave souza, talk 13:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on whether or not evolution is true aside, Darwin is renowned for his contributions to biology. I would say that Neils Bohr is renowned for his contributions to chemistry even though it turns out his model of the atom was far from correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.91.72 (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to call someone a lier when those who accuse his of being such do so because they are clinging to outdated and unreasonable beliefs? ThomasSixten (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operating System

The OS should be removed from the primary choices right at the top- It's not as notable as Charles Darwin or the Australian city and is already listed below. I'm going to remove it. 90.242.66.1 (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin → Darwin (disambiguation) — Disambiguation page Darwin to Darwin (disambiguation), please, freeing up Darwin to be a redirect to Charles Darwin. Darwin the giant of science and history, given a dab page next to the city in Australia that bears his name? Incredible that this ever even happened. — Anarchangel (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While Charles Darwin may have been a great scientist however Darwin, NT is the same if not more well known then Charles Darwin himself. Bidgee (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bidgee, don't waste everyone's time. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe assume good faith, remain civil and don't get personal and you will see that anyone can be for or against the move and that I've not wasted anyones time. Bidgee (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I'm an Australian and I support this move. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as an obvious case where readers are as likely to be looking for the city as for any or the Darwin family, and where more than one Darwin is eminent in their own right. This disambiguation is useful and informative, redirecting many readers to the wrong article is just an annoyance. . dave souza, talk 09:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not Australian, and I think Darwin NT is significant enough to make this a dab. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Charles Darwin is most likely the best known "Darwin" (and probably my personal intellectual hero) but not to the extent where the overwhelming majority people searching for "Darwin" would be looking for the scientist. The disambiguation page as it stands is quite appropriate. Note: I am Australian, if anyone finds it at all relevant. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — looking at the very long list of "Darwin" article titles, many related to each other, I have no doubt the incoming links to Darwin need frequent disambiguating. So the dab page should stay there. --Una Smith (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Matt's comment. Also, I took a look at the page statistics with Henrik's tool and while the Charles Darwin article gets significantly more traffic with between 4,000-14,000 hits per day, the Darwin, NT article is mostly getting 900-2,000 hits per day. While Charles Darwin is obviously the more searched for of the two, the traffic going to Darwin, NT, is not insignificant and sufficient, IMO, to justify maintaining the current disambiguation page at Darwin. Sarah 01:01, 13 September 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 15 September 2020

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: Not moved. WP:SNOW closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 02:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin → Darwin (disambiguation)
Darwin, Northern Territory → Darwin

– The above discussion from 2009, as well as my own experience, would suggest that Darwin, Northern Territory is the primary topic for this article name. A generic Google search for "Darwin" only brings results for the capital city, with Charles Darwin (the only other considerable subject) not showing up until significantly further into the results. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The reasons given in 2009 above still apply. Fleet Lists (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying? A number of !votes from the 2009 discussion suggested that Darwin, NT was the more likely primary topic, not Charles Darwin (as the proposer suggested). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Support as nominated. the northern territory's city is clearly Primary Topic. "Darwin" without disambiguation of it would be known more about the Australian city, not Charles Darwin. Even Charles Darwin is still known as Darwin does not strengthen the evidence that Darwin in first of mind is actually a Australian city. Many people around the world aside from historian more likely refer Darwin as an Australian city. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Sock !vote stricken.[reply]
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That might be that the city is potentially a more likely target for "Darwin" alone but doesn't mean it is primary. Charles (who is well known globally) has considerable long-term significance and its reasonable to think he would sometimes be searched this way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no primary topic for the word "Darwin": the scientist and the city both have strong claims but neither reaches the criteria to be WP:Primary topic. The current dab page is the best option. PamD 08:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Darwin, Northern Territory got 21,478 views but Darwin (operating system) got 12,364, Darwin (Marvel Comics) got 3,466 and Darwin, California got 1,212[[1]]. Even ignoring all the other uses (including Charles who is a PTM but often known as Darwin) there doesn't seem to be a primary topic by usage. By long-term significance Charles probably has enough long-term significance to prevent the Australian city from being primary. When I Google Darwin the results are mixed but Charles does come up more but Google is more likely to show PTMs than what people would search for here and is probably somewhat biased because of my location. Even so I don't see a clear primary topic and while I don't think Charles should be primary I don't think the city is either. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move per view count provided above. O.N.R. ^(talk) 10:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Google results are very location-specific, I get 8 Charles Darwins (with him being at the top) and then two Darwins, Australia lower on the page. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move per above, searches are liable to relate to search location, but clearly as many look for Charles Darwin and his works as do for things named after him, including the city. In the event of such a move, WP:R#ASTONISH would require the city article to give equal prominence in the lead to Charles Darwin, which isn't currently the case. Not sure why not. . . dave souza, talk 11:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no primary topic, considering Charles Darwin and many other notable topics. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no primary topic, considering Charles Darwin etc etc and WP:SNOW early close please. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. No clear primary topic, considering Charles Darwin, etc. The search results are completely location-based. In the U.S. and many other non-Australia places, Darwin the city doesn't appear on the Google search until a few topics down. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2020 (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.