Jump to content

Talk:Jack Short (betrayer of William Wallace)

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

Requested move 1 November 2018

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. First nomination will be moved to Jack Short (betrayer of William Wallace). See general agreement below to include a disambiguator, and this one was suggested more than once. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– I'm pretty sure there is no primary topic. However I have no idea what disambiguator this article should have, hence the RM. I suspect the reason why this is still primary is because nobody else could think of one either. Xezbeth (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. IffyChat -- 09:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All disambiguation pages contain entries which have more views than other entries. If page views were to be the determining factor, all dab pages would have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and, going a step further, the entries would be ranked in order of page views and periodically rearranged depending upon varying proportions of such views. Obviously, other factors must be taken into account. The three of us participated in another recent RM — Talk:Harold Abbott (rugby union)#Requested move 29 September 2018 — where a seven-sentence stub for a one-season player from 110 years ago was the primary topic. Here, the stub is only three sentences. As User:Kevin McE commented in that previous discussion, "[T]his is almost definitive in the implicit possibility that the answer is "No" when we have a guideline that asks Is there a primary topic."    Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 02:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The state of the article has no bearing on the primacy of the topic. And I didn't say pageviews are the determining factor. I also pointed to long-term significance, the lack of a good qualifier, and the absence of any problem with the current setup. Station1 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If other Wikipedians concur that the subject of a three-sentence stub has sufficient notability to serve as a dab page primary topic, then we may consider that the state of the article has no bearing. As for long-term significance, over 700 years later, the name of Wallace's betrayer is still relegated to an obscure corner of history. Finally, the lack of a good qualifier is not a pathway to primacy, otherwise Sarah Jane Brown would be the primary topic Sarah Brown, thus obviating the need for that entire lengthy discussion, which leads us to an obvious comparison with the contention that all is fine here.    Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 02:57, 4 November 2018 (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.