Jump to content

Talk:James Stewart (disambiguation)

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

Previous requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. There are several reasons why I think this is so. First, though the number of editors supporting the move is large, many of these do so on the basis of the 'hit statistics'. This is clearly a flawed approach not only because of the Jimmy Stewart redirect but also because of the many internal links, particularly from some of his films (which are classic enough to haunt holiday television!). Add a hefty discount factor for this bias and James Stewart Jr. suddenly looks attractive. A second reason is the sheer number of James Stewarts out there. In general, if there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term. Clearly there are many topics associated with this term and there should be a strong reason for overriding that guideline. The George Washington argument, while persuasive, is insufficient in this case because he (Stewart) was often enough referred to as Jimmy to add a bit of doubt to the primacy of James AND he is not a famous and iconic historical figure. Third, I found the google rationale persuasive since it pulls up several other James Stewarts on the very first page even if the wikipedia articles pulled up are not discounted. Finally, there is this guideline If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no (disambiguation). While it doesn't directly apply (since there is no alternative primary topic), coupled with all the other reasons I concluded that James Stewart should remain a disambiguation page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC) h[reply]

James Stewart → James Stewart (disambiguation) — The suggestion is to move James Stewart to James Stewart (disambiguation) and to move James Stewart (actor) to James Stewart. That is, make the American actor the primary target. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The following was copied from Talk:James Stewart (actor) - up to and including the Support as primary meaning by DMacks (John User:Jwy talk) 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the proposal to make this page name the primary use page for James Stewart, moving the disambiguation page to James Stewart (disambiguation). Do the persons who oppose the move to Jimmy Stewart also support this alternative? I would support this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this too. Rossrs (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems reasonable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I, for one, would not. Most people I know have never heard of "James Stewart". No way does this person (the actor) meet primary usage criteria for that name. He does have primary usage of "Jimmy Stewart" - no question about that. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please support that most people have never heard of James Stewart. I'm just not seeing proof beyond your contention about who and what name has primary usage. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an opinion. Just because most people you know have never heard of James Stewart does not provide a compelling reason to aim his Wikipedia article at their level of knowledge. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate and if they don't know his name was James, perhaps Wikipedia should be telling them that it was. He is widely known as James Stewart, and is documented as such by primary sources, with Jimmy as secondary. So, please support your notion with something of substance that we can assess. Rossrs (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, in line with Wildhartlivie's specific question which is not about the name "Jimmy": This sub-proposal is "James Stewart (actor)" vs "James Stewart", and in this section, "Jimmy Stewart" is not a candidate. It's a secondary consideration that could only be considered if there is no consensus in the main discussion to move to "Jimmy Stewart" . The "Jimmy" vs "James" discussion needs to stay in the main section, otherwise this is just going to become confusing. Rossrs (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I didn't say most people have no heard of "James Stewart", so I'm not going to support it. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NC and particularly WP:NC (people), which states:

This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming:

  1. The name that is most generally recognisable
  2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles
The fact that he himself used "Jimmy Stewart" in his own TV show and book title shows that he himself recognized that that name is the one that is "most generally recognizable". So should we. The fact the he used "James" officially, legally, and professionally is neither disputed nor relevant with respect to what should be used as the name of the Wikipedia article. Even if you insist that "Jimmy Stewart" and "James Stewart" are a toss-up for (1), Jimmy Stewart wins easily by criteria (2). --Born2cycle (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even the canard of "stage" name is being invoked; there was never one film or production in which he was credited where "Jimmy", "Jimmi", "Jimmie", "Jim" or other form of "Jimmy" was used. "James Stewart" was his personal, professional and stage name throughout his life. The fact that a reporter, publicity agent or media type used a familiar name was a part of the marketing of the Stewart persona as an everyman. Gerard Molyneaux in his comprehensive James Stewart: A Bio-Bibliography (1992) explains that as a young boy, to his mother, he was "Jimsey" while his father called him "Jimbo", but these were names of affection, kept in the family and rarely ever heard outside of his immediate relatives. His father also later called him "Jimmie" (sic) in a letter and other close friends invariably used "Jimmy" up until and into his later life. At Princeton, he went by the unlikely moniker of "Elmer" bestowed as he was a gangly and awkward youth. As a grown man, entering the field of the theatre and movie business, he was credited as "James Stewart" and from that point on, always used that form of address. While in the US Army Air Corps, and USAAF (later USAF) service, he was always addressed as "<rank> James Stewart." Although he acknowledged that people called him "Jimmy", it was not his preference and in all of his personal writing, he signed his name as "James." In later years, being know as "Jimmy" did not detract from the role that he took on as a storyteller and his folksey poetry was compiled in a 1989 collection as Jimmy Stewart and His Poems by Jimmy Stewart. The publishers used the "Jimmy" in this case, to indicate his iconic connection to his fans and admirers, with the back cover even having an explanatory note in his own words from "Jim." Albeit the use of "Jimmy" was not personal, professional or even commonly used name, so I still would consider this article to be more faithful to the individual to use his preferred name, "James Stewart", one that was most often used in primary sources, while recognizing that the public often knew him in a more familial way, as one of their own, their "Jimmy." FWiW, the fact remains that consensus is what needs to be reached and there appears to be a long stretch before there is consensus on a name change from the present article title, regardless of the flapping about made above. (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Born2cycle : Why would you be so presumptuous as to suggest that I familiarise myself with WP:NC or WP:NC (people), when I have quoted some of the bits from them that you have avoided quoting, in my comments in the previous section. I have no dispute about the policy or the guideline and there are no points that I'm unclear about, but thank you for your concern. I've said several times that I disagree with the selective interpretation of the policy and the guideline, and with the line of argument you are offering in support of your opinion, so do not kid yourself that you are scoring a point by dismissing my disagreement as ignorance. I'm not going to continue repeating why I disagree with you, simply because you keep repeating your viewpoint. For now, let's focus on this section only. Look again at what I've said here and I'll repeat it for the last time. There are two things being discussed. 1. whether to use James Stewart (actor) or Jimmy Stewart. That is being discussed as the main topic above in the previous section. Call it Question 1. If there is no consensus there, (and currently there is no consensus for a move) this sub-section is asking whether "James Stewart (actor)" or "James Stewart" should be used. This subsection is question number 2. Question 2 is framed as a follow-on from Question 1, and Question 2 only comes into play if the decision is made to not use "Jimmy Stewart". Therefore to give "Jimmy Stewart" as an answer to Question 2 is illogical as it is not one of the options in this section. For the record, you said "Most people I know have never heard of "James Stewart" and I replied about the "most people you know. Read my comment again if you missed it. I did not reduce it to "most people", so I do not understand why you've directed such a comment at me. As long as you've raised the point, "most people" and "most people I know" are equally bad in terms of quantifying something that you say is easy to quantify, so I'm not going to continue quibbling over semantics. Enough. I know your opinion, so if you reply to me, please don't just repeat it all again. If you've got something new to say, find the right place in this discussion and say it there, and unless there is something new to discuss, I'm done. Rossrs (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) If the move above is not approved, which I believe it will not be, I would Support a move to "James Stewart". I've gotten quite used to writing "James Stewart (actor)", but I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of inquiries for "James Stewart" will be about him, and there's no reason to make all those people go through a disambiguation page. "James Stewart" is the best option. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would have to be a separate move request and discussion, noted on the James Stewart talk page, and on the talk pages of all the other uses of that name. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the discussion of the proposal to make this page name the primary use page for James Stewart, moving the disambiguation page to James Stewart (disambiguation) appears to be going that way, a change in the disambiguation page can involve a WP:BOLD move. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
All potentially controversial moves are supposed to go through WP:RM precisely to notify all potential editors who may have input. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And considering that the alternative proposal was posted within 3 hours of the initial posting of the requested move posting, which is more than available to any interested editors, it is contained in the current discussion and has been available for comment, and to date, the "controversy" has been almost completely on your part, there is no valid reason why it would require reposting. Please don't wikilawyer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm wrong, certainly am not 100% sure, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the key is not the listing at WP:RM, but the listing at the dab page and the other James Stewart articles. This discussion is not listed at Talk:James Stewart, so anyone who is watching that page, but not WP:RM or this page, will not know about this discussion. We can verify either way at WT:RM, if you'd like. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, ask at WT:RM, but for note, there has never been a posting at Talk:James Stewart. Of the 27 pages using this spelling of Stewart listed at the disambiguation page now called James Stewart only one has a capnote saying "For other persons named James Stewart, see James Stewart" and two have notation of other pages named James Stewart, and those have a capnote saying "For other persons named James Stewart, see James Stewart (disambiguation)", which is the proposed name of the page, and which is currently redirected to James Stewart. To me, that extends the page name discussion unnecessarily and drags this out for no good reason. I do not believe the spirit of the guidelines require the posting of such a change to garner comment from 27+ article pages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link to this discussion from Talk:James Stewart. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No separate move request needs to be initiated to move to James Stewart. It is sufficient to use this move request to decide what to do and how to do it. It is quite common for a move request to evolve into a very different suggestion than the one originally proposed. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since he was always billed as "James Stewart" in his movies, that is what we should use here. In Britain and Europe few people ever referred to him as "Jimmy", and apparently he didn't even like the nickname. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Done. Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The determining factor must always be the prominence of the subject's place in history, rather than the remoteness of his time period from our own, otherwise, George Washington, who died 210 years ago would become one of seven other same-named individuals listed in George Washington (disambiguation). Gary Cooper died 48 years ago and yet no one has seriously proposed that he should simply join five other Gary Coopers on the Gary Cooper (disambiguation) page. There are seven other blue-linked names on the William Powell (disambiguation) page, but nobody has yet indicated that the actor, who died 25 years ago, should not be the primary target. Likewise John Ford, who won four Oscars as Best Director, and died 36 years ago, is the main topic rather than the 17th century playwright notable for 'Tis Pity She's a Whore or the twenty others in John Ford (disambiguation). Jack Warner, who died 31 years ago, having been in charge of Warner Bros. production during the Golden Age of Hollywood and beyond, is the primary one, rather than five others with that name, including the English Jack Warner (actor).
In American Film Institute's list of the 25 Greatest Male Stars in American Cinema, James Stewart came in at number three, behind Humphrey Bogart and Cary Grant and ahead of Marlon Brando, Fred Astaire, Henry Fonda, Clark Gable, James Cagney, Spencer Tracy, Charlie Chaplin, Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, John Wayne, Laurence Olivier and... need we go on?—Roman Spinner (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) How dominant is determined by how many times the pages have been viewed. James Stewart (actor) has had 364381 page views since January 1. Going down the disambig page from January 1, 2009 - now:

The sum total of page views for all 26 others was 158767, 39.41% of which were for Stewart Granger alone, which is more than a bit misleading since his stage name isn't anywhere close to James or Jimmy. Regardless, the James Stewart on this page was viewed over 2 1/4 times as many as all other James Stewarts combined. Without the Stewart Granger figure included, there were then 96191 views of the entire other 25 articles. That makes this James Stewart viewed over 3 3/4 times as many as all the other articles combined named James Stewart. I don't know about anyone else, but that says to me that James Stewart (actor) more than dominates over all the other James Stewarts combined. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitive to me: The purpose of the dab page is to navigate quickly. These statistics strongly support the assumption that a reasonable majority of people entering "James Stewart" into the search box are looking for the (American) actor. This would suggest access to his article should be more streamlined than the others. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support/oppose

[edit]
  • Support as primary meaning. Since another admin is handling this now, I'll state my own position on this issue. Wildhartlivie's data supports what I already suspected, that the (actor) really is who "most" readers probably want or expect to find. And indeed time doesn't matter, no matter how many less-used-by-readers or less-notable/generally-important other same names may exist more recently. Another interesting analysis of the relative "primary" nature would be the number of direct What Links Here links pointing to each page. "Fight data with data" if you want to counterargue that (actor) isn't primary meaning. DMacks (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as primary meaning. The statistics show that, as of now, it highly likely that the number of clicks to get to the desired article by all people entering "James Stewart" into the search box would be reduced if the American actor is primary topic as suggested above. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my logic on the clicks appears to be flawed (see my comment below), but I still believe its the primary topic. We need better statistics (i.e. where hits came from!). (John User:Jwy talk) 16:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as primary meaning. The hits data speaks for itself that the actor is what the vast majority are seeking. To repeat: James Stewart the actor is hit 2 1/4 times as much in comparison to all the other incarnations of the name use combined (including Stewart Granger). James Stewart the actor is hit nearly 4 times as much in comparision to all the other incarnations of the name use combined (excluding Stewart Granger). That is not possible to ignore. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as primary meaning. Per comments above. The data above concerning number of hits is based upon Wikipedia usage so it takes the discussion away from any perception of common usage and applies it directly to Wikipedia users. The numbers very strongly support that James Stewart the American actor, is the primary target here. Rossrs (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as primary meaning and moving current page to James Stewart (disambiguation). My first gut reaction was oppose, since in my little part of the world he is almost always referred to as "Jimmy Stewart", but the page view numbers make it clear that even for "James Stewart" he is the primary target by far. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Jimmy" issue is quite separate from this one. Lets not confuse things. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no doubt that the topic currently at James Stewart (actor) is more popular than all other topics named James Stewart, which is all that the above statistics show. Because of all the incoming links to this article, including the redirect from Jimmy Stewart, they would show the same results if the name of this article was incorrectly named anything else, like Ymmij Trawets (actor). So these stats don't prove that this article is the primary topic for James Stewart any more than the same stats would prove that this article is the primary topic for Semaj Trawets. Given all the other uses of James Stewart, including some that show up on the first page of google search results for James Stewart, I don't see how the case for primary topic was made. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: That makes no sense to me. If one types in Jimmy Stewart and it redirects to the actor, then the actor page has a page view recorded. If it isn't the actor that the reader wants, they would go to the disambig and then view the other page for which they were searching. That page would get a page view. Since the actor page still has 2 1/4 to nearly 4 times as many views for all the other uses of the name, even if one supposed that all the page views for all the other James Stewart pages were for the others first went to the actor page, it still leaves a preponderance of searches for the actor. The question was "But how dominant is James Stewart (American actor) over 25 other James Stewarts?" That is determined by page views, and the stats bear that out. If the actor was Ymmij Trawets, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but if he were, it would still the be actor that was getting the preponderance of hits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way. There is no evidence that even one person got to James Stewart (actor) by searching for "James Stewart", much less that more people got there by searching for "James Stewart" than got to the other pages by searching for James Stewart.
The actor's name wouldn't be Ymmij Trawets, the article title for the actor would be Ymmij Trawets, and the actor (not the name) would get as many hits.
Another example... imagine moving Paris to Portland (France) and waiting 6 months, and then counting the page hits. The results would indicate that that topic is far dominant that any other use of Portland (because everyone looking for Paris would be redirected to Portland (France)). Would that be evidence that the most dominant use of "Portland" is the capital of France? Of course not. All that would show is that the capital of France is a more dominant topic than any use of Portland - it would tell us nothing about the dominance of the name Portland for that topic -- which of course in that case would be zilch -- relative to other uses of it. Similarly the page hits on James Stewart (actor) tell us everything about the popularity of that actor relative to other uses of James Stewart, but nothing about the dominance of the name James Stewart relative to other uses of it. It might be zilch too. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand you now. You are saying that our use of these statistics assumes that most of the hits on the actor are due to "James Stewart" being used in the search box - and since there are other ways at getting to the actor's page (wiki links and "Jimmy Stewart", for example), the statistics are useless. You've prompted me to go back and look at http://stats.grok.se/ for "James Stewart" and "Jimmy Stewart." I was surprised to find that both have significantly lower numbers of hits (1/6th in the few months I checked) than "James Stewart (actor)," meaning they were not the primary path into the actor's page! This does bring our use of the statistics into question. But still, when I think "James Stewart," I think of none other than the actor- so my vote here is unchanged. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The (actor) page is the top or next-to-top google hit for both jimmy stewart and james stewart, so that could drive a lot of the page-views. I think the page-views count is useful for determining popularity of the topic on the page, not where WP readers go from the disambiguation page. That is, it helps establish what the most-commonly-accessed James Stewart article is. It's weaker than directly analyzing external sources to find true primary-meaning in the real world (WP:V of external sources), but it's good data that to me illustrates that (actor) is by far the primary meaning among WP readers. DMacks (talk)
Yes, Jwy, you got it.
DMacks, I agree data clearly shows that the actor is widely known, but I simply don't see any data that supports the notion that the primary meaning for "James Stewart" is the actor. That this page comes up first for a "James Stewart" google search does not establish primary meaning. That another "James Stewart", the motocross rider, pops up near the top, indicates that it is not the primary meaning.
In contrast, search for "Jimmy Stewart" - all ghits are for the actor. That's primary meaning. Search for "Paris". Again, all ghits on first page are for the city in France. Again, that's primary meaning. See the difference? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That dog is not going to hunt. The move proposal was roundly defeated. FWiW, leave it be. Bzuk (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that ship has sailed, but I am not now arguing for a move to Jimmy Stewart, I'm simply pointing out the relevant-to-this-discussion fact that while the data supports the notions that the primary meaning for "Jimmy Stewart" is the topic of this article, that the primary meaning for "Paris" is the city in France, the data does not support the notion that the primary meaning for "James Stewart" is the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm following this correctly, and I admit that it still confuses me, the numbers I posted are not from the disambiguation page. They are directly from the page views for each name that is listed on that page. The disambiguation page is only where I got the list of names. Those would be the more relevant outcome, the final destination, not the ways in which someone got there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So if someone searches for "Jimmy Stewart", since Jimmy Stewart redirects to James Stewart (actor), that's where they would end up, and that article would get the page view count bumped. So you would count that as a point in favor of proving that "James Stewart" is the primary meaning, even though the user searched for "Jimmy Stewart".
Similarly, someone scanning over the list at Americana (for example) might notice and click on the Jimmy Stewart link, which would also take her to the James Stewart (actor) page, and that too would bump the count of the actor's page and you would also count as another point in favor of "proving" that the actor is the primary meaning of "James Stewart", even though nothing in that process had anything to do with "James Stewart".
There are countless ways of getting to this article (and bumping the page view count) that have nothing to do with the name "James Stewart". How many of those 364k page counts are the result of such routes to get here that have nothing to do with referring to this topic as "James Stewart"? 10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? 99%? Who knows?
So all this evidence simply establishes the undisputed high popularity (high interest) of the actor independent of how he is called, and not at all whether this use of "James Stewart" is the primary meaning of "James Stewart". --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except I am not seeing how that effects this. If all roads lead to China, and China is where one is going, then there is where one wanted to go. One would not immediately leave there and go to Japan. If one were going to Japan, and ended up in China, then one would turn around and go to Japan. That does not negate that the page views for the actor named James Stewart still is exponentially higher. If you subtract all hits to all the other articles using the name, the count is still doubled. The question really has never been what is a dominant use, the question is what is the more popular usage on Wikipedia, or the one that generates the highest interest, and thus more highly viewed page. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives three methods for helping arrive at what is the primary topic. One is the page views, one is what links here and the other is Google hits. No method is going to give a definitive answer to what a reader's intent is, it can only give us what they look at or how many other articles link to the actor. I don't think the what links here would reveal results that are much different. 788 articles link to the actor. Omitting Stewart Granger, who I think everyone would agree is rarely what someone would type in James Stewart to find, the results would be similar. The motocross James Stewart has around 75 links. If they are looking at the Americana article and see Jimmy Stewart, I'm fairly certain they are not assuming it is a link to the Black Knight of Lorn. While it is clear you feel strongly about this entire line of discussion, including Jimmy vs. James, I don't see that it is persuading anyone, nor has anyone else spoken in favor of something different regarding this specific discussion. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC notes that the tools are there to help a discussion, not to be the determining factor. Consensus is the determining factor. Consensus isn't going to necessarily mean 100% agreement, it is the preponderance of opinion. I think the point made by Roman Spinner regarding the name George Washington applies quite well as a different example. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to say this. I'm not denying that this is the place they (mostly) want to go. They want to read about the actor. That in and of itself does not prove that the primary meaning of the name this article happens to be (be it James Stewart, Sejam Trawets, Random Name Number 1234729 or water) is this article. It's a tautology. But you're right, I'm not persuading anyone, so, unless something changes, I'm done. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The primary topic is "what is overwhelmingly searched for by someone entering 'X'." Not "what is most popular of all the things listed on 'X (disambiguation)'." They could be different. For example, the David Jones page. I haven't run the numbers, but suspect that David Bowie likely has the most hits of all those listed, but that does not mean he should be primary on the David Jones page. Most hits for Bowie are likely via his stage name. I now believe the stats are not "definitive" as I once did. I have yet to change my mind about the vote. I just can't depend on the hit statistic argument. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we can't know the difference. All we can know is what is there. No, David Jones is likely not going to be what someone enters when looking for David Bowie, no more than James Stewart is what people enter while looking for Stewart Granger. However, the actor does use the same name as the page, so that is more transparent. The numbers aren't the definitive answer, nor should they be, but they are a tool that is offered to see where people go when they want James Stewart. I wonder if the disambiguation on George Washington raised this much discussion. It says "For other uses, see George Washington (disambiguation)." That's all that is being proposed here. I'm at a loss as to how this is such a huge issue for mostly one person, but then that's me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as primary meaning See all comments above (except for the most recent one; James Stewart (actor) received 364,381 hits; anyone looking for the American actor found their way to the article and a vast number of people use "James" as his name). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC) WP:SNOWBALL.[reply]
  • Support as primary meaning That a legendary personality at the highest rung of American (and world) film and folkloric pantheon should not be the primary topic is beyond comprehension. I'm still rankled that one of history's most renowned religious philosophers, 18th century's Jonathan Edwards (theologian) should be forced to wear the ill-fitting parenthetical qualifier, but having James Stewart (actor) on the disambiguation page titled "James Stewart" is almost tantamount to moving George Washington to George Washington (president) and adding him as one of the entries in George Washington (disambiguation). An obviously exaggerated example, to be sure, since the other notable Washingtons were obviously named "George" in his honor, but the disambiguation page exists, nonetheless, and, I'm sure there are enough anti-First President votes out there to give it a modest run but, ultimately, withholding the rightful place of primacy from the rightful and obvious occupant of that place only diminishes the entire project.—Roman Spinner (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as primary meaning (again). As User:199.125.109.126 originally pointed out at Talk:James Stewart (actor), 6:1 page views over the next most viewed topic is a good indication of primary usage, and 10k monthly hits on a dab page is too many. Almost all the links to the dab page were for the actor, before the recent clean up by Rossrs. In the previous discussion, 11 editors supported this move by my count, while 2 opposed and one was unclear. There are now two additional editors supporting, above. It does seem like consensus to me. Station1 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as primary meaning This issue is not as crucial, in my estimation, as the Jimmy/James issue. But the evidence and arguments for and against convince me to support James Stewart the actor as the primary meaning. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The actor in question was best known as Jimmy Stewart; that is the search term most likely used to reach the article about Jimmy Stewart. Moving the article about Jimmy Stewart to James Stewart (and leaving redirects behind) would be like moving New York City to New York. Must all possible variants of his name be monopolized by redirects to his article? --Una Smith (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have stats, diffs or any support to back your statement about what the search term most used is or that he is best known as Jimmy Stewart? That topic has already been explored and discussed and there was no consensus to rename the article about James Stewart the American actor to Jimmy Stewart and many valid arguments were made for why. The article about the actor is called James Stewart, not Jimmy. At present, entering the name Jimmy Stewart redirects to the one titled James Stewart (actor), so I'm not following your reasoning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My statement is based on examining Google search results for "James Stewart" and "Jimmy Stewart". "Jimmy Stewart" gets 622,000 hits, and on the first 50 or so hits are mostly about this Jimmy Stewart. ""James Stewart" gets 2,670,000 hits but more of the first 50 or so (the majority, in fact?) are not about this Jimmy Stewart. Also, think about it: a redirect rather than a disambiguation page is a kind of declaration that the target article is the primary topic. There are other notable people known as Jimmy Stewart. See for example Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFLOL. The one person that agrees with me is Una Smith??? Una, what's happening??? Should we have coffee? LOL! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's happening, B2c, is you are beginning to see why I think the primary topic doctrine is flawed. --Una Smith (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If by "flawed" you mean it's hard for most people to understand, you might be right. Everyone here seems to think that because of all the topics that might be referred to as "James Stewart" the topic here is most popular, this must be the "primary topic" for "James Stewart". What "primary topic" means is that if a given name (like "James Stewart") means one particular topic for almost all English speakers, then, and only then, is that topic the primary topic. Now, some topics might be the primary topic for multiple names - I have no problem with that. So just because the primary topic for "Jimmy Stewart" is obviously the topic of this article, that does not preclude this topic being primary for some other name (like "James Stewart"). What I don't see here is any evidence of that being the case. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Comment. Born2cycle is right that the evidence here is not really evidence. (I hope that makes you feel better, Born2cycle.) Total page views for the actor's article are irrelevant to what people want to see when they enter the search term "James Stewart", since most of the hits to the actor's article are unlikely to be through the search term "James Stewart". That doesn't mean anything is wrong with determining primary topics in general, which is something we did long before page stats showed up. Dekimasuよ! 05:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The doctrine is flawed primarily because the "tests" are bogus, and because it discounts the value of correct links within Wikipedia and overstates the value of the Wikipedia search tool relative to other search tools (eg, Google, which is far more powerful). Re evidence that the American actor is the primary topic of James Stewart, the Google stats pretty well prove it is not: 2.6 million minus 0.6 million equals 2 million pages with "James Stewart" that do not contain "Jimmy Stewart". How likely is it those 2 million pages refer to the American actor? Not very likely. --Una Smith (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of numerical tests for determining primary topics was already discouraged before grok came around. In your example, in the 2 million you cite here, you've discounted every web page that refers to the actor consistently by one name, as well as included every web page that refers to someone named "James Stewart" who doesn't pass notability tests and has no Wikipedia article. Also, please note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC originally said nothing about using Wikipedia search tests. Dekimasuよ! 06:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The key is that the concept of "primary topic" is meaningless without a name. That is, "primary topic" only has meaning when associated with a name. The question is always, Does name have a primary topic, and, if so, what is it?
Now, I don't think anyone will disagree that the name Jimmy Stewart has a primary topic, and that topic is the topic of this article. Note that that in and of itself is not an argument for that name being the title of the article about that topic. The question of what is the primary topic for a given name, and what name is most commonly used to refer to a given topic, are two entirely different questions, and only the latter is relevant to naming an article. The former is relevant to naming an article only when the name in question is most commonly used to refer to a given topic, and that name is the primary topic for that topic. The latter condition has not been established at all with respect to the name "James Stewart" and the topic of this article, while Una has demonstrated evidence for the name "James Stewart" not having a primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with all of those things. Dekimasuよ! 07:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) If, as Una Smith has stated, the entire concept of "primary topic" is "flawed", we should have been, and should be now, having this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation rather than here. There is, however, general consensus on virtually all individuals who have been singled out as unquestioned primary topics with an associated disambiguation page. Starting with the obvious, George Washington, and going through James Stewart's contemporaries, such as John Ford, Gary Cooper, William Powell and Jack Warner, all have remained secure. The only exceptions have been with 18th century religious philosopher Jonathan Edwards, found at Jonathan Edwards (theologian), whose historical prominence can best be judged by the space devoted him in every edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (and every other English-language encyclopedia for the past two centuries) and, of course, with James Stewart. Ironically, if not for the fact that he is very frequently referenced as "Jimmy Stewart", he would, almost certainly have been the unquestioned primary topic (that subject is best disposed of by the submission from Monkeyzpop who points out that using "Jimmy Stewart" as the main title header would be tantamount to using Abe Lincoln, Jimmy Cagney, Bogie or Duke Wayne as main titles). Old Blue Eyes redirects to Frank Sinatra, but few have proposed using that as the title. The opposite situation is true for Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Johnny Carson and innumerable athletes, musicians, politicians, etc. who use only those nicknames and are so referenced in biographical indexes and, if prominent enough, in encyclopedias. Since there is no consensus for the change to "Jimmy Stewart", James Stewart, whose status as a primary topic is, in practical terms, as obvious as that of George Washington has been held hostage to his "Jimmy" nickname. The number of redirects is, basically, immaterial (since there is no Wikipedia article with that title, the Jimmy Stuart redirect is simply there for those who misspell the name) and the Jimmy Stewart redirect, even taking into account the Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) page, accepts what James Stewart (disambiguation) needs to accept, that James Stewart is the primary topic for both James Stewart and Jimmy Stewart. Extrapolating such redirects into the concept of redirecting James and Stewart to James Stewart is, of course, reductio ad absurdum, since both are common names and common name, which requires a disambiguation page, is what this entire discussion is about. Many great historical and entertainment industry personalities are referred to by an instantly identifiable single name such as Napoleon, Nietsche, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Mozart, Beethoven or Shakespeare and have been given those and numerous other redirects which take into account misspellings. "Pyotr" and "Chaikovski" (in their variety of transliterations) are very common Slavic names and "Ilyich" is a common patronymic, but typing Tchaikovsky leads unerringly to Pyotr Ilyich, although there are nearly thirty articles whose subjects have surnames with that pronunciation. With 77 variant spelling redirects, the main title is still Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, since that is how he is listed in English-language encyclopedias. As for the closing argument on James Stewart, it has already been pointed out that all film reference books as well as Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Americana title his entry James Stewart. What other individual appears in all encyclopedias under that name?—Roman Spinner (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how helpful it is to compare WP article titles to other encyclopedias and references since, as far as I know, WP is unique in how much preference it gives to the most easily recognized name and the most commonly used name.
Also, since there is no printed version of WP, WP does not have the same space constraints as references that are published on paper. As such, the standard of "notability" is much lower in WP than in other encyclopedias. So whether other individuals named James Stewart appear in other encyclopedias is immaterial to this issue.
What matters here, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, is usage frequency of the name to refer to this topic as compared to "any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer". --Born2cycle (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the majority of those searching for Abraham Lincoln were to do so by typing Honest Abe, we still would not change the main title header to that affectionate moniker. Wikipedia has enough of a credibility problem with many professors refusing to accept it as a reference and permitting its use solely as a guideline for searching "reputable" references, although this project started with thousands of downloads from the public-domain 1911 Britannica, an "official", "reputable" source, however old-fashioned it may be, with its outdated terminology and attitudes. Nonetheless, to now disregard the name usage unanimity of all modern-day encyclopedias as well as such definitive sources as Current Biography, Biography Index, Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, International Index, The New York Times Index, The Wall Street Journal Index and on and on, all in the cause of establishing a reputation as a new, futuristic reference guide, unbeholden to all of its 19th and 20th century predecessors through the example of refusing to grant primacy of use to the indisputably correct appellation, "James Stewart", may serve, instead, to give additional ammunition to those who continue to describe the whole enterprise as amateurish and unprofessional.—Roman Spinner (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever opinions many professors might have about the credibility of Wikipedia is irrelevant. How other reliable publications refer to him is a factor to consider, although there are quite a lot of publications that refer to him as Jimmy Stewart. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

[edit]
  • Comment. Primary topic means more common than any other, not more common than every other. You only have to compare the most common with the second most common. You do not take the percentage of the total. For example, John Smith is a very common English name, but if someone with that name became, for example, a popular actor (see John Smith (actor)), even though there were, say, 1,000 WP entries for people named John Smith, they would quickly become the primary topic. See, for example, Will Smith (disambiguation), vs. William Smith. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. But the definition of 'primary target' should be discussed at WT:Disambiguation#Primary topic uber alles. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Primary topic often is taken to mean more common than all others, and should. Else it becomes a trivial distinction and a contest of favorites. --Una Smith (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that erroneous interpretation is commonly expressed. But that is not what the guideline says. It says any other, not every other. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize I'm jumping into the middle of a long discussion here. But the move as stated seems rather silly. The article for the American actor should be at Jimmy Stewart. As with Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and many others, the actor is by far most commonly known as Jimmy rather than James. Although it would take some time to sort out the incoming links, I think James Stewart should likely remain a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This debate was split out from the "Jimmy" versus "James" item - Jimmy lost. see Talk:James Stewart (actor). (John User:Jwy talk) 16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should reopen that discussion here, I believe a broad poll of generally knowedgeable Wikipedia editors would conclude the article should be at Jimmy Stewart. Unfortunately some of the primary editors of the article seem to have an entrenched opinion otherwise, which made the discussion a non-starter at Talk:James Stewart (actor). That is, it got shot down... Yworo (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restarting a move proposal that was soundly defeated involved the participation in the discussion by a large number of editors who have been actively involved in the creation and development of the article. FWiW, re-read the "string" that was involved and stick to the topic, rather than pronouncing characterizations of other editors. 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC).
It's not appropriate to brand other editors simply because they had the temerity to disagree with you, or to assume that the "generally knowledgeable Wikipedia editors" would agree with you. (Does that mean that the people who disagree with you are lacking in knowledge?) The proposal was discussed by a number of editors. A "non-starter" would be a proposal that failed to attract discussion, but it's not a "non-starter" on the basis that the result didn't go your way. Rossrs (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think discussion at Talk:James Stewart (actor) is more appropriate if it is to be done - with pointers from here, perhaps. (Don't get me wrong, I'm a Jimmy fan myself, but the interactions of the two discussions are limited and subtle and are easily confused, IMO). And lets keep it cool. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the point raised by older ≠ wiser, Wikipedia is an entity which maintains its credibility on the basis of sources and references provided at the bottom of its articles. All encyclopedias from Britannica, Americana, Compton's, Word Book and so on, to all the standard library resources such as Current Biography, Biography Index, Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, International Index, Educational Index, The New York Times Index, The Wall Street Journal Index... are unanimous in using "James Stewart", while also using "Jimmy Carter", "Bill Clinton" and "Johnny Carson", among others, since those were the appellations which the individuals themselves used as their names, whether on film credits, election ballots, presidential signatures or Tonight Show openings.—Roman Spinner (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

A reinvigorated go-round of James Stewart→James Stewart (disambiguation) and James Stewart (actor)→James Stewart

[edit]

One might have thought that it should be a WP:SNOWBALL---one of the world's most renowned film stars, number three on American Film Institute's list of 25 Greatest Male Stars in American Cinema, James Stewart would be so indisputably more prominent than all others who were known by that name that comparisons became moot (as for the British royal Stuarts, they are so firmly ingrained under that form of the name, that the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even bother with a "Stewart"→"Stuart" redirect). He was the primary target from 2001 to 2008 (more about that below), but was relegated without a vote or consensus (unless silence, at the time, was taken to represent consensus or absence of dissent) to the disambiguation page and has languished there for a year-and-a-half.

To provide convincing contrary evidence for those who continue to support the use of "Jimmy Stewart" as the sole primary target, one can point to the 37 Interwiki links to James Stewart (actor) (from "ar-Aragonese" to "zh-Chinese"), with virtually all of the languages using either the Latin and Cyrillic alphabet, indicating "James" in the local-language article, with not a single "Jimmy". Are they slavishly taking their cue from the English-language Wikipedia and if we were to title it "Jimmy", they would follow suit? It's possible, although immaterial to this argument which aims to prove that James Stewart and Jimmy Stewart are each the primary topic within their respective disambiguation pages. The only exception among the interwikis is, incidentally, the principled "la-Latin Wikipedia", which remaining steadfast to its literary mandate, has titled its entry "Iacobus Stewart". Further examination also shows that of the 37 interwikis, only five ["cy-Welsh", "id-Indonesian", "nl-Dutch", "ja-Japanese" and "sh-Serbo-Croatian"] use a parenthetical qualifier. Thus, in the remaining 32 Wikipedias, there are no other "James Stewarts"---he is the only one.

The twenty-seven names on the English Wikipedia's James Stewart page which, until January 21, 2008, was known as James Stewart (disambiguation), consist of the actor and twenty-six others. Stewart Granger (who is not indexed in any reference volumes under "Stewart, James") aside, fifteen of the names have no interwikis, seven have one or two interwikis, James Stewart, Jr. and James Stewart, 1st Duke of Richmond have three interwikis and two of the noblemen, James Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorn and James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray have seven interwikis. Returning to the most recent edition of that arbiter of historical prominence, Encyclopedia Britannica, of the twenty-seven individuals listed here as "James Stewart", only one appears under that name in its pages, and all of us know which one. The Britannica also includes an adjacent redirect to the letter "M", for those Earls of Moray whose full name incorporates "James Stewart".

Finally, some of this subject's Wikipedia history is necessary to put the entire matter into perspective. A glance at James Stewart revision history shows that the actor's entry (as "Jimmy Stewart") was created in Wikipedia's first year, 2001, on October 28. A redirect to "James Stewart", created five days later, on November 2, indicates that date as the first one at the article's present location, James Stewart (actor). Thus, from October 28, 2001 until January 21, 2008, it has been an unchallenged primary topic for both James Stewart and Jimmy Stewart and, until the creation of a James Stewart disambiguation page on July 13, 2002, the sole topic. The newly-created disambiguation page stated that "[T]he best-known Jimmy Stewart|James Stewart is the Hollywood actor of that name."

On June 9, 2004, the main title header was changed to reflect the proper form of the actor's given name, "James". Since "James Stewart" was already occupied by the redirect, instead of requesting the deletion of the redirect, "Jimmy Stewart" was simply moved to James Stewart (actor), which it remains to this day. At the same time the redirect was changed from "James Stewart→Jimmy Stewart" to "James Stewart→James Stewart (actor)". The actor was still the primary topic, although now accessed via the redirect, and remained so for the next three-and-a-half years. During the first year-and-a-half there was no hatnote, until the addition, on December 17, 2005, of "Jimmy Stewart redirects here. For other uses, see Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation)". Thirteen months later, on January 13, 2007, the hatnote was revised as "James Stewart redirects here. For other uses, see James Stewart (disambiguation)".

A brief, but illustrative first discussion (from 2002) under the header "Jimmy" in Talk:James Stewart (actor)/Archive 1 is worth a glance for its early James/Jimmy outlook, but the more-specific one in the archive is another brief exchange (from August 2007), #20. "Requested move", in which an editor requested the move from James Stewart (actor) to simply James Stewart. Five editors participated (including Bzuk, one of the current voters in favor of restoring the actor as the primary topic). Only two of the participants expressed opposition to "James Stewart" as the primary topic, but five-and-a-half months later, on January 21, 2008, they were cited as representing consensus for such a move. It was spurred by action taken three weeks earlier, on December 30, 2007 by admin JHunterJ who deleted the "James Stewart" redirect and moved "James Stewart (actor)" to "James Stewart", reasoning that the parenthetical qualifer "(actor)" is redundant since the redirect leads users typing "James Stewart" to the actor's article. Restoration of the hatnote missing since January 13, 2007, "Jimmy Stewart redirects here. For other uses, see Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation)", accompanied the move.

Three weeks later, another admin, who expressed one of the two dissenting views in the August 2007 discussion, returned "James Stewart" to "James Stewart (actor)" and then took two additional key actions—deleting the "James Stewart" redirect and moving the page which had always been titled "James Stewart (disambiguation)" to "James Stewart", thus depriving the actor, who had been the primary topic since 2001, of that place. The comment associated with the move was "[S]omeone went and moved it anyways. I guess consensus doesn't count."[1]. Six months later, on July 9, 2008, another editor repositioned "James Stewart (actor)" from the top of the disambiguation page, where it still gave the appearance of being the primary topic, to be the first name (in order of birth year, 1908) under the subheader, "Actors", ahead of Stewart Granger (born 1913) and James Stewart (Australian actor) (born 1975), thus becoming one of the 27 entries on the page, presumably of equal importance to the remaining 26. The entire action was performed without any discussion or vote, and now, over 17 months later, even eleven strongly argued votes in favor of restoration and only one clearly marked, "oppose", were insufficient for the cause to prevail. Since this is not Twelve Angry Men, a lone holdout cannot influence any views on this topic and further rounds of voting should be initiated at whatever intervals the procedures mandate.—Roman Spinner (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to know what the primary topic is supposed to do before we decide this one. It is not a slam dunk. For example, if the actor is the most popular James Stewart, but most people looking for him enter "Jimmy Stewart" to find him, should he be primary for "James?" See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary_topic_uber_alles. I, for one, can't discuss this further without knowing what criteria we have for determining Primary. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are very well taken, Roman, much better than the arguments presented above. In particular, the total number of topics "competing" for the name in question should not necessarily matter. For example, there could be dozens of uses for "Paris", but Paris should never-the-less be about the city in France. However, the number of other uses does matter, and a high number precludes primary use in most cases. Paris is an exception because it is so well known, that almost everyone in the world immediately thinks of the city when they hear it. I just don't think that "James Stewart" meets that hurdle, and I say that as a lifelong fan of the actor (even did an okay voice impression as a teen), primarily because I always thought of him and referred to him as "Jimmy Stewart", and never as "James Stewart". If the actor was better known as "James Stewart", or if there weren't quite as many other uses, I would be convinced. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The themes of "James" v. "Jimmy" and the meaning of "primary topic" are, obviously, key to this ongoing discussion. Let's take "Jimmy" first. Four-and-a-half months ago, I concluded that the article titled George 'Gabby' Hayes should be simply Gabby Hayes, since 99% of readers would type that name rather than "George Hayes", "George Gabby Hayes" or, especially, use the quotation marks inherent in "George 'Gabby' Hayes". After I made the move, there was a sole comment on the article's discussion page (from Monkeyzpop, who also cast one of the supporting votes in this discussion) dissenting from the move and pointing out that although he was universally known as "Gabby Hayes", the actor was always billed using his given name, George Hayes, first without and later with, the nickname, "Gabby". All of my film reference books bore this out and I moved the page back to George "Gabby" Hayes (with double quotes, as seen on the screen and in the references, rather than single quotes, as it originally was). It might have been better if the page could be reached in a straightforward manner, rather than via the "Gabby Hayes" redirect, but the evidence could not support such a course.
After this rather lengthy preamble, we can make some "Jimmy" comparisons. There are numerous entertainment world personalities, writers, politicians and others who prefer to seem "folksy" and use diminutive forms. Jim Backus, Jim Henson, Jim Nabors, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Durante, Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Breslin and, of course, Jimmy Carter are some obvious examples. They all chose to be known and billed exclusively by those names, even if Jimmy Carter did take the oath of office as James Earl Carter, Jr. Robert Cummings took both paths, using "Robert" for almost all films as well as serious TV roles, such as Twelve Angry Men and The Twilight Zone episode, "King Nine Will Not Return", and keeping "Bob Cummings" for TV comedy and a couple of late-career comedic film roles. Child actors such as Jackie Coogan, Jackie Coogan, Freddie Bartholomew (later known as Fred Bartholomew), Bobby Breen and Skippy Homeier (later using Skip Homeier and G. V. Homeier) were also stuck with their diminutive names into adulthood. As for Jimmy Stewart and The Jimmy Stewart Show, he must have accepted that, in the manner of Lucille Ball becoming the character "Lucy" for her TV public, his "Jim" or "Jimmy" persona was the necessary ingredient for him to succeed in a sitcom. The sitcom was unsuccessful and, in his next series, Hawkins, he was back to being "James Stewart". I see "Jimmy Stewart" as almost comparable to the iconic use of the name of America's most iconic personality in the title, Abe Lincoln in Illinois. Lincoln was seen as a man of the people and, although he always signed himself as "Abraham", the name, "Abraham Lincoln" had the sound of a formal occasion, while "Abe" was for the common folk, and that is how he was referred to by the general public. Ultimately, however, just as encyclopedias and reference books are unanimous in using "Abraham Lincoln" and "James Stewart", Wikipedia, despite its status as a trendsetter, follows suit because, in the end, some norms are meant to remain constant.
Now, to the other matter, standards for primary topics, especially in reference to names. Although the link (above) points me to the pertinent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary topic uber alles, since the comment is posted here, I may as well give my thoughts here. Since it's such a broad topic, ranging from "incoming links" to "string theory", I will narrow my observations to a few specific matters. There are numerous common-name disambiguation pages which do not use the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" simply because one name has not been judged to be preeminently more notable than all others. Robert Williams and William Stewart (each with 43 names) and Charles Johnson (with 30 names), among others, come to mind. On the other hand, John Edwards links to the former senator and from there to John Edwards (disambiguation) (also with 43 names, plus the primary target). John Ford links to the Oscar-winning director and then to John Ford (disambiguation) with 22 names. As the discussion brought out, there are other notables named Michael Jackson, at least 31 of them. There are occasional anomalies, the most prominent, in my mind, concerning one of 18th century's most renowned religious philosophers, Jonathan Edwards, now found at Jonathan Edwards (theologian). Encyclopedia Britannica (again) devotes pages to him and, yet, according to some of the opinions on the article's discussion page, he is not the primary topic because a champion athlete and some others bearing that name are also notable. Gary Cooper, William Powell, Jack Warner, Elizabeth Taylor, James Mason and a number of others seem to be secure as unquestioned primary targets in their respective disambiguation pages. As to the specific standards applied, and to be applicable, in these and other cases—google hits, encyclopedias, reference books, consensus and... what? What happened with Jonathan Edwards (10 names) and James Stewart (27 names)? The path of true consensus does not always run smoothly.—Roman Spinner (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Sorry for a digression that doesn't add to this discussion, but just for the record, Lincoln usually signed his name as "A. Lincoln"; his full name is much rarer. Of course, your point that he didn't sign "Abe" still holds. Station1 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]

The argument for this move essentially is that James Stewart (actor) is the primary topic of Jimmy Stewart, and therefore by translation it also is the primary topic of James Stewart. By that argument, isn't it also the primary topic of several other page names: Jamie Stewart and Jim Stewart? Reductio ad absurdum. One reliable source is Princeton University, the actor's alma mater. There, the actor is Jimmy Stewart and James Stewart is the director of the university art museum. --Una Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the actor was known exclusively as "James Stewart" and, in the manner of, let's say, James Mason, was never referred to as "Jimmy", there wouldn't be any discussion. It would have been sufficient that the current edition of that purportedly-unquestioned arbiter of historical notability in the English-speaking world, Encyclopedia Britannica, lists him as the sole entry of that name among the 27 candidates for that honor who are currently listed on the Wikipedia page titled "James Stewart". An adjacent redirect, there, to "Moray", serves as a guidepost to those searching for such Earls of Moray whose full name includes "James Stewart". With the supporting evidence of like-minded entries in Encyclopedia Americana, World Book, Compton's, Encarta or such references as the Oxford History of World Cinema, Katz's Film Encyclopedia, David Thomson's Biographical Dictionary of Film and Leonard Maltin's Film Encyclopedia, the evidence for "James" becomes overwhelming. Very few actors make it into standard encyclopedias, as the standard may be as high as inclusion in American Film Institute's list of the 25 Greatest Male Stars in American Cinema, in which, as "James Stewart", he came in at number three, behind Humphrey Bogart and Cary Grant and ahead of Marlon Brando, Fred Astaire, Henry Fonda, Clark Gable, James Cagney, Spencer Tracy, Charlie Chaplin, Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, John Wayne, Laurence Olivier, Gene Kelly and ten other top names. But the competing persona of "Jimmy Stewart" does exist at numerous venues, including The Jimmy Stewart Museum in his hometown, which also takes care to point out that it is dedicated to the life and career of James Stewart. The postage stamp in his honor states "James Stewart", the streets, military decorations, his final resting place, all indicate "James". A number of less-common (in the English language, at least) single names redirect to their most-renowned bearers, such as Napoleon (but not Alexander), Leibniz (but not Newton), Shakespeare (but not Marlowe), Descartes (but not Pascal) and yet, despite James Stewart's common name, from October 28, 2001 to January 21, 2008, he was the primary target for any Wikipedia user typing both "James Stewart" and "Jimmy Stewart", but not for those typing "Jim Stewart" or "Jamie Stewart" or, for that matter, speaking of reductio ad absurdum, for anyone typing "James", "Jimmy" or "Stewart" since, unlike Elvis or Bogart, he was never referred to by a single name.—Roman Spinner (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim has been asserted, but not shown, that James Stewart (actor) is the primary topic of James Stewart. Where is the data showing readers follow links from James Stewart to other articles? --Una Smith (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors (and, in this discussion, particularly Born2cycle) have argued that Wikipedia is the non-paper, limitless encyclopedia of the future which cannot be beholden to such 19th-20th-century entities as the Britannica. True to a degree, but Wikipedia's historical articles still originated as a download from the public-domain 1911 Britannica and Britannica's (and any other encyclopedia's) objective standards of notability and, for the most part, naming practices, still apply. No matter how many users access Abraham Lincoln by typing "Abe Lincoln", "Honest Abe" or "The Great Emancipator", Wikipedia would still retain "Abraham Lincoln" as the main header. Similarly, however many Sinatra fans type in "Chairman of the Board" (which does not, directly, lead to Sinatra) or "Old Blue Eyes" to access their hero's article, the original title stays. Since there are no disambiguation pages for "Honest Abe", "The Great Emancipator" or "Old Blue Eyes", the point is somewhat moot and, although there is a dab for "Chairman of the Board" with Sinatra mentioned (along with Whitey Ford), neither celebrity receives more than a couple of links from that nickname.
The central point of this discussion seems to be that since most users purportedly type Jimmy Stewart, rather than James Stewart, to access the actor, clicking GO should lead directly to him, rather than to a page titled "Jimmy Stewart", which lists him along with six others. However, those preferring to type "James Stewart" and clicking GO, now find themselves at a page titled "James Stewart", which lists him along with twenty-six others. If there is a fixation on the number of names in each dab page, rather than their notability, would that mean that if there also were over twenty names on the "Jimmy Stewart" dab page, than it, too, would no longer link to him, but would be renamed from Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) to simply Jimmy Stewart? In 2001 he was the sole "James Stewart" and the sole "Jimmy Stewart" in Wikipedia and even as Wikipedia grew and both disambiguation pages appeared, remained so until displaced as the prime "James Stewart", without a discussion, on January 21, 2008. Is he the most notable Jimmy Stewart among the seven of that name, but not the most notable James Stewart among the twenty-seven of that name?
Wildhartlivie presented a very thorough set of statistics documenting that James Stewart (actor) is so far ahead in page views of all others bearing that name that it's not even a contest. To the point that many or, possibly, most of those page views were not accomplished via the James Stewart disambiguation page, Wildhartlivie answered, in part:
If all roads lead to China, and China is where one is going, then there is where one wanted to go. One would not immediately leave there and go to Japan. If one were going to Japan, and ended up in China, then one would turn around and go to Japan. That does not negate that the page views for the actor named James Stewart still is exponentially higher. If you subtract all hits to all the other articles using the name, the count is still doubled. The question really has never been what is a dominant use, the question is what is the more popular usage on Wikipedia, or the one that generates the highest interest, and thus more highly viewed page. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives three methods for helping arrive at what is the primary topic. One is the page views, one is what links here and the other is Google hits. No method is going to give a definitive answer to what a reader's intent is, it can only give us what they look at or how many other articles link to the actor. I don't think the what links here would reveal results that are much different. 788 articles link to the actor. Omitting Stewart Granger, who I think everyone would agree is rarely what someone would type in James Stewart to find, the results would be similar. The motocross James Stewart has around 75 links. If they are looking at the Americana article and see Jimmy Stewart, I'm fairly certain they are not assuming it is a link to the Black Knight of Lorn.
Ultimately, however, since most of James Stewart's nearly-hundred film and TV projects have a separate article and, in all of them, he is billed as "James Stewart", which now has to be piped to "James Stewart (actor)", there are over 1100 total links in "what links here" to "James Stewart (actor)" while there are 64 to the "Jimmy Stewart" redirect and, of those 64, only 17 are to articles. Also, for the record, the next-largest number of links in "what links here" belongs to James Stewart, Jr., the motocross racer, who has 97.—Roman Spinner (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wildhartlivie's numbers show popularity of the article, but an addition statistic, the number of hits on James Stewart page itself indicates that a large majority of the hits on the James Stewart (actor) page must have come via another route. So while the number support the popularity of the actor, the numbers do not help much in establishing how many WP users enter "James Stewart" in the search box expecting the actor - which is one of the main purposes of the primary topic. I personally believe the actor should be primary, but the statistics don't tell us much useful about my favorite dab page argument: optimization of navigation.
I am working on an essay about these topics in general and will share it when I'm comfortable with it. It is an attempt to be informative about the issues involved in primary topics without an agenda (but that, of course, will have to be decided by those reading it!). As I've said before, I don't think we have as strong understanding of the purpose of the primary target to have "good" discussions about it. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the numbers are an indisputably vital element in bolstering the case for James Stewart (actor) as the prime target, but an even greater emphasis must be on the widest canvas for the entire picture—that of historical notability, irrespective of the numbers. I am still unconvinced that users typing Jonathan Edwards would be looking in greater numbers for Jonathan Edwards (athlete) than Jonathan Edwards (theologian), but even if it were true, the athlete rates two paragraphs in the Britannica, while the theologian over eleven pages. Such anomalies are relatively rare and occur almost entirely due to disputes and differences of opinion, but it is incumbent upon Wikipedians, who devote so much of their time to the project, to maintain and protect its credibility as a model of historical objectivity which has the ability to distinguish a cultural icon from lesser historical personae and elevate him to a commensurate position in the electronic pages of the encyclopedia.—Roman Spinner (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably be looking for Jonathan Edwards (musician), but that's neither here nor there! I don't quite see the primary topic as an "elevation" in our esteem of the subject. As we ARE electronic, users will have some understanding of the differences between media. The search box is more like a google search than flipping through the alphabetical articles in a paper encyclopedia. Google users understand (I think) that the top hit is determined by a variety of factors including current popularity of the topic, not an editorial respect for the topic. I don't see "editorial respect" (is that a good term for what you are saying?) as a key purpose of dab pages - but would like to understand the idea more. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roman, for an argument in favor of the actor being the primary topic for "James Stewart" to be compelling, it needs to avoid conflating the popularity of the topic with the popularity of the name that happens to be where the topic is currently located.
In many primary topic discussions that is not an issue because the most common name used for the topic in question is not at issue. In those cases we can look at the popularity of each article relative to the others, whether in terms of page hit counts or incoming links, and that is very useful. But since this article is at James Stewart (actor), the fact that it has more incoming links than Jimmy Stewart, a redirect to this article, tells us nothing except that this article is at James Stewart (actor), and not at Jimmy Stewart.
By the way, I randomly picked one of the incoming links to James Stewart (actor) and it is the Kevin Spacey page on which it states, "Spacey is well-known in Hollywood for his impressions as when he appeared on Inside the Actors Studio he imitated, at host James Lipton's request: James Stewart, Johnny Carson, Katharine Hepburn, Clint Eastwood, John Gielgud, Marlon Brando, Christopher Walken, Al Pacino and Jack Lemmon." Curious, I looked back 500 revisions, and sure enough, the difference is what I expected: "Spacey is well-known in Hollywood for his impressions as when he appeared on Inside the Actors Studio he imitated, at host James Lipton's request: Jimmy Stewart, Johnny Carson, Katharine Hepburn, Clint Eastwood, John Gielgud, Marlon Brando, Christopher Walken, Al Pacino and Jack Lemmon." It was only a few months ago, on February 10, 2009, that the Jimmy Stewart reference was changed to James Stewart (actor) 1. Obviously, that change was made to reflect the fact that this article was at James Stewart (actor) - it has no bearing on whether the actor is actually the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) On June 26, above, Una Smith described the primary topic doctrine as flawed. If that were really true in terms of historical notability, then Wikipedia, itself, would be made to seem unprofessional and diminished. The ultimate example would be George Washington (president) as one of the eight bearers of that name notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, alongside such celebrities as George Washington (trombonist) and George Washington (baseball). Being electronic, it still wouldn't present a problem—just point to the correct one, click one more time and there's the Father of Our Country,,, but perceptions also matter.

Obviously (I presume), Una was referring more specifically to the flawed system of determining notability on the basis of "the string theory" or, since that sounds like reductio ad absurdum again, on the basis of a complex formula of page views multiplied or divided by incoming links and so forth. What rankles here is that the complexity is not really necessary, because the system is not broken and does work (except, of course, in the two cases of James Stewart (actor) and Jonathan Edwards (theologian)). John Edwards, for example, is still the prime target despite the 43 others on the John Edwards (disambiguation) page and John Ford is still the prime target despite the 21 others, including the 17th century dramatist who wrote 'Tis Pity She's a Whore and whose entry in the Britannica is substantially larger than that of the director. The director, however, along with James Stewart is considered an iconic personality, while the 17th century playwright, although historically important, is rarely performed and not placed in the pantheon of English-language literary giants. If the director was not there, however, a good argument could be made that since Wikipedia has, for all intents, displaced Britannica as the English-speaking world's number one encyclopedia, prestige also matters and Britannica, which has it, having been the arbiter of notability for some 230 years, points the way for the playwright to have been the primary target had the director not existed (or had been of lesser prominence). Although not in disambiguation competition with the playwright, the theologian, judging by the extent of his article, is certainly more prominent than the playwright and, unlike the playwright, is placed in the pantheon, being considered among the most prominent English-language religious philosophers since the Enlightenment.

Even the exceptions, however, prove the rule that the primary target turns out to be the correct one. Although at present, as with other common mega-names such as Robert Williams, William Stewart and Charles Johnson, "James Stewart" and "Jonathan Edwards" have no primary target, both the actor and the theologian had articles created in Wikipedia's first year, with the theologian receiving a download of the large article about him in the 1911 Britannica. With all due respect to Jonathan Edwards (musician), he did not make into either Britannica or Americana. The one who did, world record holder and Olympic gold medalist Jonathan Edwards (athlete) who, incidentally, had been a devout Evangelical Christian all his life, but became an atheist after attaining a degree in physics, has very minor entries in the most recent editions of encyclopedias, and, for over a year, was, along with the theologian, who is remembered for his fire-and-brimstone sermon, "Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God", one of the two names placed at the top of the Jonathan Edwards disambiguation page with the notice, "Jonathan Edwards is the name of a number of people. Most prominent among them are:". However, following a revision of the lead sentence ten months ago, all of the Jonathan Edwardses have had equal prominence, or lack of it, on the page. The actor, as we know, started out as both the sole "Jimmy Stewart" and the sole "James Stewart" and, even as others started to be added, remained the primary target for both "Jimmy" and "James" from 2001 to 2008. Anomalies happen, things fall apart, another admin might come along and put it back the way it was, there might even be a revert war. Anything is possible, but at least no one has suggested that the musician or the motocross racer should be the primary targets on their respective disambiguation pages.

Finally, Born2cycle, your point highlights our two options—make "(actor)" the primary target again or... not. After all those years, from 2001 to 2008, of being the primary target, should James Stewart (actor) now be one of 27 equal entries on the disambiguation page, while Jimmy Stewart continues as the primary target of Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation)? Since no one is clamoring for Jimmy Stewart's removal as the primary target he should, of course, continue. Some are clamoring for James Stewart's restoration, but can't have it... yet. The link you mention is a good example of one that should not have been changed. Since in all of his movies and nearly all TV appearances, the actor was billed as "James", about 1100 incoming links in "what links here" are to "James Stewart" (actor), with nearly 800 of those being links to articles. 67 "what links here" links are to "Jimmy Stewart", with only 17 of those being to articles and if, as in the case of the Kevin Spacey article, the bots and the AWB are let loose on "Jimmy Stewart" there won't be a single one left. I'm sure both James Lipton and Kevin Spacey referred to the actor as "Jimmy Stewart" and that is how it should have remained. Since "Jimmy" is a redirect, anyone clicking on it would have arrived at the correct article in any event. We know now that there is no consensus for renaming the article "Jimmy Stewart", but whether a consensus stronger than 11 votes (if that is still what is needed) can be found for making "James Stewart" the primary target, remains unclear.—Roman Spinner (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see primary topic selection as an honorific; it is a convenience. You are arguing that these people "deserve" to be primary (correct me if I'm wrong). In a vast majority of the cases, long term, classic "notability" and convenience coincide. But for those cases where they do not, how do we incorporate honorific elements (if at all)? What goal are we trying to accomplish? How do we measure (even roughly)? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Key questions, without a doubt, the answers to which could provide a consensus or, at least, some form of guideline for it. Although I did not consider disambiguation page primacy in terms of an honorific (the word brings to mind another recent "support"/"oppose" discussion in which I participated, regarding the use of the honorific, "Sir") or even as a matter of "deserving" the "honor" of being the primary target, I do think that "classic notability" should, indeed, be the overriding factor. If Albert Brooks used his birth name of Albert Einstein as his stage name or if a rock star named Isaac Newton arrived on the scene, the primary link should still go to the original possessor of the name.
As a way of bolstering the evidence against James Stewart (actor) as the primary topic, Una Smith made the argument that the Jimmy Stewart redirect is sufficient, especially in view of the fact that even Jimmy Stuart redirects to him. Using as a redirect a similarly-sounding name which has no other entries of its own is, however, a relatively common practice and, more importantly, the key James Stuart disambiguation page, which lists the British royals, but has no primary target, does not have the actor among its entries, even under "See also". In fact, mentioned in one set of my comments above, are a number of notable figures who have been instantly recognizable or, at least, well known by a single unique name which, here, redirects specifically to them. There is only one Shakespeare, Molière, Goethe, Kant, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietsche, also national liberation figures such as Garibaldi, Kościuszko, Bolivar or Kossuth (which does not, as yet, redirect to Lajos Kossuth, but to a disambiguation page), then World War II figures such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hirohito, Franco or Mussolini and a number of current or recent heads of government such as Obama, Sarkozy and Berlusconi, Putin and Yeltsin (but not Medvedev, Merkel, Thatcher, Major, Blair or Brown). In some cases, such as Napoleon, the name redirects to Napoleon I of France, despite the fact that an indirect descendant ruled France for two decades as Napoleon III. Washington, however, redirects to the state, not to the capital or the president, even though both are named after him. With more than one president named Adams, Harrison and Roosevelt, those names redirect to disambiguation pages rather than to individuals. "Talat" redirected to Mehmed Talat, the anti-Armenian Grand Vizier of Turkey during World War I, so I created a disambiguation page for "Talat", a common name, with the wartime figure who was not referred to as simply, "Talat", now listed as one among the entries. His iconic contemporaries, Lloyd George and Churchill, do have instant redirects, but typing almost all other top names of the conflict, Wilson, Pershing, Clemenceau, Foch, Hindenburg, Ludendorff... leads to disambiguation pages.
Some of it is inconsistent, to be sure, and some names, such as Kossuth and Pershing should go directly to the subject, with a hatnote pointing to a disambiguation page, particularly since every item on their dab page relates to them. Now, as to standards, we've already been through the obvious—google/yahoo hits, encyclopedias, other references, consensus... and, as you indicated, classic "notability" points to itself and the "right" person is selected almost every time. In virtually all of these cases, someone notable enough to be an obvious primary topic, had an article created during Wikipedia's earliest period, 2001–02, when there was a much smaller pool of editors and, consequently, fewer disputes. For the most part, these have remained to this day, unless someone boldly went into contrary territory. That was the case here, in January of last year, and also at Jonathan Edwards, where discussions (smaller than this, since the theologian does not have nearly as many supporters—Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)#Requested move and Talk:Jonathan Edwards#Discussion explaining why J.Edwards the theologian and J.Edwards the athlete belong at the top of this disambiguaton page) took place regarding the equal or possibly greater importance/notability of the athlete and his article, which was created very shortly after the theologian's article. The discussion is fairly long and rather instructive, with some elements which may be useful in your essay (google hits, number of incoming links, etc.). One participant asked whether Brad Pitt, whose birth name is William Pitt, would have become the primary target at William Pitt, based on his google hits, page visits and incoming links, had he been using his birth name as his stage name (currently, there is no direct link primary target since the two prime ministers cancel out each other).
Finally, it should be noted as part of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, that while we're having such difficulty restoring a household name as the primary target, scores of minor personalities, such as (to start at the top of the alphabet), Edward Adams with Edward Adams (disambiguation), Tom Adams with Tom Adams (disambiguation), William Adamson with William Adamson (disambiguation) and many others are primary targets on disambiguation pages with a small number (between three and eight) of other little-known, same-named subjects. Perhaps each of those not-strongly-notable primary topics has more page visits and incoming links than the remaining topics. But would that be enough for the subject to be the primary topic? By that standard, every single disambiguation page, whether with two subjects, such as Geraldine Brooks, or with 43, such as Robert Williams, would have a primary topic. While James Stewart is an obvious choice as #1, it is with these arbitrary and haphazard primary topics that some verifiable standards would really be useful, otherwise Una Smith's complaint about a broken system would gain in validity. Instead of resolving the questions you posed, this last matter seems to have made it all even more difficult. In any event, I will be anticipating your next essay and whatever resolutions or determinations you may draw from the existing factors.—Roman Spinner (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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: pages moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


James Stewart → James Stewart (disambiguation) — As far as I can see this has been the subject of a certain amount of informal discussion before, but has never been the subject of a formal move request. The well-known American actor is clearly the primary meaning of this name. PatGallacher (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Stewart (actor) → James Stewart

  • Oppose I oppose the move as there are just too many other notable James Stewart persons. Keep James Stewart as a proper disambiguation page and keep the acting James Stewart under James Stewart (actor) werldwayd (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - having been through this before (see above), I would suggest we 1) determine what percentage of selection through this page would determine a primary topic (I would suggest 60% or so) and 2) use temporary redirects used only from this page to measure usage over a predetermined amount of time. If any link on the page (as measured by the redirect page usage statistics) exceeds that value, then we make the move based on that. Perhaps we should not completely depend on the numbers, but, to me, it would add some solid basis to the sometimes contentious discussion that has happened on this before. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That last proposal is more of a palaver than it's worth, people should just use a degree of common sense. Werldwayd's argument appears to me to be invalid (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) the number of other James Stewarts is irrelevant to deciding if he is the primary topic. I had never heard of most of the others, the only ones I had heard of were Stewart Granger and some Scots noblemen, who are not normally known as "James Stewart" (the noblemen are normally known by their titles). I suggest that he is better known than all the others who are normally known as James Stewart put together. PatGallacher (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    People were using their common sense above and were unable to reach any consensus. My proposal is a serious one - and if what you are saying is true, it will likely support your position. The actors link will likely get much more traffic. My impression is that the actor is wildly notable in the United States and much less known elsewhere. Its the notability among the readers that is important and that's what this test would measure. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure people that he is very well known in Great Britain, far more than the other James Stewarts, his films are often shown on British television. Although he is usually known there as James, not Jimmy. PatGallacher (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Although it may be a common name, the actor is by far the best known person with that name and is known widely through his films. Cjc13 (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. I'd also support to the use of a new redirect here to measure the "primaryness" of the actor for "James Stewart", but note these counts for May:
    • James Stewart: 6867
    • James Stewart (actor): 72262
    • Jimmy Stewart: 6617
    • James Stewart (Australian actor): 1459
    • James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland: 1187
  • etc. If the other James Stewarts somehow bring the average up to 2K hits, the actor is still getting more usage than all the other James Stewarts combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The actor is clearly the primary usage of James Stewart based on the suggested criteria at WP:PT as documented in previous discussions and immediately above. Most people searching for or linking to James Stewart expect an article about the actor. Station1 (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Stewart_(disambiguation)&oldid=1245181709"