Talk:Archer (disambiguation)

Untitled

Archer is also an extraordinary fish, my company logo, which catches flying insects by spitting on them

Also 'The Archers' an English BBC daily radio soap is I believe at 50+ years the longest running soap in the world which I have listened to since day one Michael Archer— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.153.186 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangements

I suggest this page move to Archer (disambiguation) and replaced here with a redirect to Archery with a hatnote pointing to the dab page.

As a separate suggestion, I plan to move the people with the surname to the Archer (surname). (John User:Jwy talk) 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 May 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Move. Both archer and archers will redirect to archery. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archer → Archer (disambiguation) – I would like to suggest that the primary topic of "archer" is a person who practices archery. We should redirect archer to archery, with the appropriate complementary move of this disambiguation page. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes obviously. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Common sense. bd2412 T 02:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Red Slash 02:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -Zanhe (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 04:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would archers also be the same? (and would the two disambig pages be merge into one?) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense to me Red Slash 02:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2015 (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.

"Archer" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Archer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 15#Archer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 October 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a consensus that the current title is the primary topic per the long-term significance criterion and the page is therefore not moved. — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archer (disambiguation) → Archer – Since the last RM closed, which established Archer as a redirect to Archery, Archer (2009 TV series) was created, and the TV series has consistently dwarfed the sport in pageviews, leading to a situation where there is presently NOPRIMARY. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Colin M (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to let this go for a bit more..— Relisting. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that archery is not the primary topic, but I would go further and argue that Archer (2009 TV series) is the primary topic, which greatly exceeds both the article about the sport and the dab page in pageviews. Thus I oppose this move and instead believe there should be an RM proposing to move Archer (2009 TV series) to Archer. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I feel like if you want that as an end goal, it'd make sense to vote to put the disambiguation page at the basename first, THEN considering a move request of the show's page, possibly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just trying to avoid having to move the dab page back and forth and state my ultimate opinion. That said, I seem to be in the minority there and debate here is between whether archery is the primary topic or if there is no primary topic. But I agree with the "Support" votes here that archery is not the primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In terms of long-term significance, "Archery" is very clearly the primary topic, enough to discount the current usage disparity. This is very similar to the Apple vs. Apple Inc. question, except that the long term significance of the TV series is considerably less than the long term significance of the company. BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. The tv program which I had heard of before but did not know what it was, is an adult cartoon on US cable, so quite niche. It's a TV program though so of course a lot of people read its article, looking for plot details, for broadcast/release dates, or like me for basic information on what it's about. I don't need to look at archery to know what it is, or e.g. when it's on TV – if I wanted to know that I might look at the schedule of a sports broadcaster. So the page view count is not a good guide, and without that archery is clearly the primary topic, with more long term significance, more global recognition, and use of the word "archer" in the English language.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:B578:5490:57B9:A4CB (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT Your personal viewpoints have no bearing on what is or isn't the primary topic. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom, and also because of the significance of Archer (given name) and Archer (surname). No primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the general meaning seems to be primary by long-term significance but the TV series has 100,652 views compared with only 16,939[[1]] for Archery. Per 162 there are also a large number of other uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With thousands of pageviews per day, several times that of archery (a different title), much less archer, the TV series is the WP:primary topic for the title "Archer". "Archery", of course is the primary topic for that word, but the titles don't conflict. Station1 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 162. Page views lean strongly to the TV show, there are quite a lot of less-prominent meanings. And the article is titled Archery; if this weren't replacing a redirect it would be a more difficult choice. You can make there recency argument to discount the TV show somewhat, but even still there is no primary topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 15 § Archer. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed that discussion despite being involved here as "procedural close" since RM is more suitable than RFD and we don't need 2 discussions on the same proposal, closer of this discussion please take into account comments there to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far and away the primary topic in terms of long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~How far into the future did you go to determine this? The TV series is already over 10 years old. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

You've got to really twist your brain into a knot to figure that acknowledging the fact that archery has been significant to human civilization for thousands of years is an attempt to predict the future. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I confidently predict that within ten years when everyone hears the word "archer" they'll immediately think of a TV series and completely forget about the obscure blokes firing arrows even though they were a major part of warfare for thousands of years. Oh wait, no I don't, that would be a truly ludicrous prediction. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The pageviews for the tv show are quite strong, and even if the other items in the disambiguation page are smaller, there are still hundreds when you include the given names and surnames. Regardless of what happens though, the tv show should be added as a primary topic as well. Do not move Archer (2009 TV series) to Archer though. OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above statements concerning long-term sig. MB 16:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bow and arrows is the primary topic for "archer" by long-term significance. Sport is more searched than the American TV show in google trends. I agree with other comments the show is quite niche. I bet more people have watched archery on TV or online than have watched the animated show. Vpab15 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Necrothesp -- there is WP:RECENT going on here that is making page views not the only deciding factor. Clearly the current redirect reflects long term (centuries long) significance.TiggerJay (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As others have said, moving the page because to a recent US TV series is short sighted. Most people, even in the US, do not think of the TV series when hearing the term "archer", a concept dating back thousands of years. The TV series could be instead placed higher up the disambiguation page while it enjoys short term popularity. Djks1 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Archery" is very clearly the primary topic. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: While I have met plenty of people who love the TV show, I do not think it is the primary topic. I would instead say that archery is still the primary topic. Aoba47 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support when in doubt, disambiguate.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very US-centric to assert the TV show is the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify, I'm not trying to assert that the TV show is the PRIMARY (unlike a few others), but rather, at time of writing, there is no PRIMARY at all. Perhaps in a few years the pageviews for the show will die down, but for now, I agree with Ortizesp's rationale above. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a comment from Ortizesp that I'm missing? There are two comments now citing this editor, but all I see from them is a 4-word "rationale" that seems to dismiss the entire process of figuring out if there's a primary topic in favor of just lazily going with disambiguation whenever a primary topic is challenged. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on long-term significance. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that Archery is the clear primary topic in terms of long-term significance. Although the TV show has a staggering lead in pageviews, pageviews are not the only tool with which we assess a primary topic. One can easily make a dismissive argument here based on intuition, but it helps to have data: ngram viewer shows mentions of "Archer" going back to the 1500's. That said, somehow despite being at a title with a disambiguator, the TV series still got those views, meaning whoever was looking for it found it anyways (hey, the hatnote worked!) Despite all this, I can see an argument that making the wide variety of other options on the dab page accessible, but if anything, the lead in pageviews for the TV series shows that our readers are committed enough to look at the hatnote to find the topic they intended. This crashes into the issue of long-term significance vs usage, but I do feel that widespread significance is a factor here. If you were to ask somebody who has never watched television what they think of Archer, they would very likely think you were referring to Archery. ASUKITE 00:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a (FWIW) non-USian who doesn't follow TV closely, I would be ASTONISHed to find a TV series where I expected an article about a millennia-old cross-cultural technology and sport. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 08:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What I'm proposing will not lead to this happening, though. What I propose would mean that searching for "Archer" would take you to a dab page, of which Archery would still be at or very close to the top. Meanwhile, searching for "Archery" will still take you directly to the Archery article; that is not a part of this RM. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close no need for further relists @MJL:, long term encyclopaedic WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Archery is the long-term primary topic --Spekkios (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mdewman6; 162 etc.; Crouch, Swale; Station1; User:力; OcelotCreeper2 and Ortizesp. Those wishing to research Archery already have that term as the primary topic of the Archery (disambiguation) page. On the other hand, those who type "Archer", but nonetheless wish to research the same subject as those who who would type "Archery", will still see the text with the blue link, "An archer is a person who practices archery, using a bow to shoot arrows" at the very top of the 64-entry Archer (disambiguation) page, thus such users would not be inconvenienced under any arrangement. The inconvenienced users are the ones who are searching for one of the other 63 entries on the Archer (disambiguation) page, especially the extremely popular TV series, which is buried under sub-section header "Television" as the 40th entry on the dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Barely anybody goes through the dab page. Why would we inconvenience more? Srnec (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
391 pageviews [2] in the last 20 days, I disagree strongly with this. The ones being inconvenienced right now are the ones searching for any of the other 63 entries on the page. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.