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.
Evelyn Wood (British Army officer) → Evelyn Wood – Google returns more results for the Army officer than the teacher, Sir Evelyn Wood returns 189,000 results whereas Evelyn Wood teacher returns 186,000. Also, the army officer is of more prominence, being a Victoria Cross recipient. Also the article on the teacher is of really poor quality and would definitely not exemplify Wikipedia's best work. Whereas this is a decent article. —James(Talk • Contribs) • 8:52pm • 10:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I support moving it to Evelyn Wood. It seems clear to me that the army officer is the primary topic looking at whatlinkshere and google searches. Whatlinkshere gives about 300 for the army officer in article space with only 7 for the teacher. A more accurate google search would be Evelyn Wood soldier which brings 1,110,000 results. Although google search is a very primitive test, I think it offers a basic clear result. I don't think the quality of the article should be a consideration, if it doesn't look good, clean it up so it does. Woody (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Although I agree that the Army officer's article is well done, the number of results between these two persons is almost exactly the same on Google; a mere 1% difference. If anything, this is convincing not to move. Also, outside the UK, and especially in the US, mentioning "Evelyn Wood" as a tangential or popular culture reference nearly always refers to the teacher, not some historical military figure. Therefore, differentiation as it stands is my suggestion.--SidP (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually both are useful; we should work for stability, not quiver every time view counts vary. But Oppose; in addition to the above, we do not make bad articles harder to get to; sweeping them under the rug will delay their being fixed. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 00:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Support -- As this is a dabpage with only two entries, the teacher can conveniently be dealt with in a hatnote, so that it will take no more clicks to reach that article than at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - except for the anomaly on the 20th, the page views are pretty much the same. MarcusQwertyus 04:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Without the "(British_Army_officer)" disambiguator in the article title, a lot of readers will pick the wrong article. Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
Should explanation of Victoria Cross be in lead paragraph
Several editors are disagreeing over whether there should be an explanation of the Victoria Cross in the lead paragraph. I have reverted to the original version before the edit war started (that is, no explanation) for the following reason:
The lead paragraph is meant to summarize the subject of the wiki, which in this case is not the Victoria Cross, but Evelyn Wood. If an in-depth explanation of the Victoria Cross is needed, it should be placed in the paragraph detailing how Wood earned the medal.
That being said, if a good explanation for the other case can be made, I am willing to consider it.Guinness323 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
There is now virtually nothing in the lede which is not great really is it? The lede is supposed to summarise all the key aspects of the subjects life. The VC (Victoria Cross) is the highest decoration for bravery in the British award system and few people ever receive it and so is one of the major aspects of the subjects life. Deleting key information from an article is usually considered vandalism hence my reversal. The edit summary provided by the anon editor did not consider this information You will note that the information has been there for 'ages' and was only recently deleted so a reversal should be to the deleted text which I restored. Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)