Talk:Cisneros

Requested move 27 July 2026

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: moved. – robertsky (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Cisneros (disambiguation) → Cisneros – Lots of things and places on the dab page. Having the base name redirect to the already naturally disambiguated Cisneros Group smacks of a land-grab. A WP:PTOPIC claim would be dubious at best. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Definitely not primary topic. Very much WP:SURPRISE. The Cardinal Cisneros would be my natural assumption. Walrasiad (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That's how es:Cisneros works on Spanish wikipedia, but obviously they're closer to him than we are. I clumsily incorporated him into the dab page some minutes ago, but there's certainly room for improvement. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Google suggests no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Looking at the standard points of WP:DPT,

• Page views comparison between redirect and disambiguation page - those are pretty close, and the patterns often match.
• WikiNav view of clickstreams at Grupo Cisneros shows hatnote at #3.
• WikiNav view of clickstreams at the disambiguation list shows surname 18, filtered 4.
• WikiNav view of clickstreams at the surname list shows cardinal 11, filtered 5.

So it's probable that most people went for the cardinal through the surname list. This was before the recent edit that added the cardinal to this list. Still, even that puts the cardinal link at the bottom, which doesn't really make sense.

• All-time mass views of everything linked from the generic list - Dakhla is at the top at 222/day, but it's from the see also section. Its article says it was last named Villa Cisneros, but that probably went away in the 1970s, which is fifty years ago, so it doesn't really mean that people generally recognize it as just "Cisneros". The other places are fairly small. The group article readership average is 29/day.
• All-time mass views of everything linked from the surname list - now that actually shows:

• Sandra Cisneros 339/day
• Al Cisneros 144/day
• Gil Cisneros 140/day
• Henry Cisneros 120/day
• Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros 77/day
• Gustavo Cisneros 60/day
• etc

• Google Books search for the term - mostly brings up references to people.

It seems pretty clear that this is largely recognizable as a surname, and the most readership is in the biographies. The proposed move should be done at the very minimum. (Support)

Beyond that, I think we should go one step further and move Cisneros (surname) to Cisneros. The lead of the new list should list cardinal Cisneros, so people don't have to look far for that. --Joy (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support greater relevance for the cardinal on the dab page, but don't support moving the surname as PT. Other uses (e.g. towns called Cisneros) are sufficiently notable. Walrasiad (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The Colombian town is 10k people, largely unreferenced article that gets 5 views per day. The Spanish village is 500 people, stub article that gets 2 views per day. The Colombian village is similar population, stub with climate data, 1 view a day.

The comparable biography happens to be #12 (out of 31), the Cuban-born Venezuelan businessman who died in 1980, at 9 views a day.

Meh :) --Joy (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Numbers games don't mean much here. Either Cardinal Cisneros is primary, or none is primary. Surname by itself is definitely not primary. Walrasiad (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not a numbers "game", it's me trying to assess how likely it is that the list of places is comparable to the list of biographies, how likely it is that readers are best served by showing one list or the other first.

The underlying problem is the way we split off name lists from disambiguation lists which creates the illusion that they're substantially different. I don't think there is any proof that the average reader actually sees it this way - it's a concept that mostly troubles us editors. There's no fundamental difference between the two lists for navigation - both require the reader to do much the same kind of work to navigate them.

Hence, if we know there's no primary topic, the outcome is fundamentally the same in both cases - the surname list isn't a proper article about the surname, it's just another disambiguation list whose primary purpose is navigation. Even if it's at the base name, it doesn't function as a primary topic the way we do it with normal articles.

Ideally, we wouldn't even be making this meaningless choice, and instead just have a slightly longer list that covers everything. Sadly, our guidelines still document only the overly strict distinct formatting of these lists that perpetuates these illusions. We've discussed this problem since at least the 2024 content assessment RFC, but never fixed it properly. --Joy (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, and support Joy's suggestion as well. Srnec (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Should this page or the surname be at the undisambiguated title? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Suggestion: How about that? Top billing for the cardinal, followed by the surname, the places, and then the WP:PTMs, starting with the business conglomerate? (And deleting the link to Cisne (disambiguation), because, why?) I'm not convinced the primary position should go to Cisneros (surname): User:Joy's comments about "two parallel disambiguation lists" are well taken, but that is where we are, at least since the 2024 RFC. Maybe if the surname article were more developed – origin, distribution, tacky coat of arms like they sell you at the mall, etc. – but not as it currently stands: a list of people with the surname. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well, the 2024 RFC was not actually resolved, so we're technically nowhere :D --Joy (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  At an impasse, or a gridlock, albeit a less thorny one than some others (eg. B&H). No one commenting has backed the current land-grab redirect to Grupo Cisneros, so let's at least get that fixed. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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.