Talk:Lawrence Becker

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United States: Indiana Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Lawrence Becker. WP:TWODABS seems applicable here, as noted by Fuhghettaboutit. -- tariqabjotu 04:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Becker (Indiana) → Lawrence Becker (lawyer) – It seems strange to have a state as a disambiguator for a person. I propose either Lawrence Becker (lawyer) or Lawrence Becker (judge), or open to any other suggestions. Zarcadia (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support either but prefer Lawrence Becker (judge) - see "judge Lawrence Becker" 44 GB hits or re-run for "Lawrence Becker" lawyer Indiana 334 GB hits. A similar run ["Lawrence Becker" lawyer Indiana] gets tangled with modern law book author Lawrence Becker, Property Rights, and "lawyer Lawrence Becker" gets zero in books and hits a second living person. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lawrence Becker. I entirely agree with the nom's reasoning, but we don't usually have a disambiguation page for only two entries. The other Lawrence Becker can be linked by a hatnote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lawrence Becker per Necrothesp, WP:TWODABS. bd2412 T 13:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lawrence Becker (judge) per IIO. TWODABS is great, but absent evidence of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's not a reason to artificially crown one. In fact, last month this page received a paltry 43 views, to the philosopher's 233. If anything, the latter should be primary topic. I would support that, per TWODABS. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Lawrence Becker (judge) or failing that to Lawrence Becker (lawyer). Oppose move to Lawrence Becker (which should have a heads-up at Talk:Lawrence Becker before it's contemplated anyway), as if there is a primary topic at all it's not this guy. Andrewa (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lawrence Becker, per Necrothesp. While I agree with the idea and basis of criticism that we should have a dab page at the primary title where there is no primary topic (per TWODABS), this is not the vanilla situation of that because we already have natural disambiguation. The article on the philosopher is at Lawrence C. Becker, and the "C." is not just a concession but appears to be the more common use of his name in reliable sources. Thus, we can safely use a hatnote at Lawrence Becker, such as {{For|the philosopher|Lawrence C. Becker}} and expect that far fewer people looking for the philosopher will have to go through the hatnote than would be the case if the names were simply the same.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.