Jump to content

Talk:Bismarck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Bismark)

Misc

[edit]

I've deleted the comment "The following were named in honor of him:", as a number of these were not named in honour of him.194.176.105.40 09:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bismarck pastries I've seen (and bought and enjoyed) were more like chocolate-covered cinnamon rolls than jelly donuts. McGehee 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check spelling in "Bismark, another name for Berliner (pastry)". 82.163.24.100 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request - BBC Radio 4's In Our Time broadcast

[edit]

BBC Radio 4's In Our Time is a 45 minute discussion programme about the history of ideas, with three eminent academics in their field, hosted by Melvyn Bragg. Each edition deals with one subject from one of the following fields: philosophy, science, religion, culture and historical events. It is akin to a seminar. The entire archive going back to 1998 is now available online in perpetuity.

An edition about Bismarck was broadcast with Richard J Evans, Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge; Christopher Clark, Reader in Modern European History at the University of Cambridge; and Katharine Lerman, Senior Lecturer in Modern European History at London Metropolitan University.

You can listen to the programme on this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00775pm. Would you be able to include this as an external link?--Herk1955 (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 December 2015

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

The result of the move request was: No move. It appears we have consensus that the name is ambiguous enough that the dab page should be located here. Cúchullain t/c 15:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Bismarck → Bismarck (disambiguation) – The basic reason is that I believe that Otto von Bismarck is the primary target, so the page Bismarck should point there. I will give a detailed justification for this in my support !vote below. BMK (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer. Taking a look at the 25 items on the disambiguation list, the vast majority of them are directly and indirectly connected to Otto von Bismarck. The Bismarck name was an extremely minor one in Europe until Otto von Bismarck came along, brought about the defeat of Napoleon III and created the German Empire. Bismarck dominated Europe in the mid- to late-19th century, and was a hero to German people everywhere (except perhaps in Austria). As a result, many things were named after him.
    Things on the dab list named after Bismarck: the German battleship Bismarck; the SS Bismarck; the Bismarck Sea; the Bismarck Archipelago; the Bismarck Range of mountains; Collinsvale, Tasmania, which was settled by Germans and originally called "Bismarck"; Bismarck, Illinois; Bismarck Township, Sibley County, Minnesota; Bismarck, Missouri; Bismarck, North Dakota; Bismarck, West Virginia; the film Bismarck is about him; a "bismarck" is an alternative name for a berliner pastry; a black velvet (stout and champagne) is also called a "bismarck" after him.
    That's 14 of the 25 right there.
    There's also the House of Bismarck, which would be a totally minor and unexceptional dynasty except for Otto von Bismarck and his achievements. Then there are the indirect references: Bismarck the board game is about hunting down the battleship Bismarck; the USNS Bismarck (T-EPF-9) is named after Bismarck, North Dakota. Of the others, I would not be at all surprised to find out that Bismark, Limpopo was named after Bismarck, since there were strong connections between South Africa and Germany; that Bismarck, Arkansas and Bismarck Township, Michigan are named after him, although their articles don't say so; and that the Dutch baby pancake or "bismarck" was named after him as well.
    In short, the names of these places and things wouldn't exist were it not for the existence and exploits of the "Iron Chancellor", and none of them has the kind of historical and political importance that Otto von Bismarck had. The evidence is very clear that "Otto von Bismarck" is the primary target of "Bismarck", and that this page should point to his article, while the disambiguation page (which is currently a redirect here) should fulfill its proper function as a disambiguation page. BMK (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Bismarck, ND is the first thing I think of when i hear bismarck. I agree with Beyond My Ken 100%. TheJack15 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're contradicting yourself. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 03:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote from confirmed sock. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, I would have done the same had I known. BMK (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The capital of a state with a population of 750,000+ (47th of 50 states), which itself has a population of only 60,000 (the 499th largest city in the US), is more important than the man who manipulated all of Europe for 30 years, created the German Empire out of Prussia, some medium-sized kingdoms, and a whole bunch of tiny ones, caused three wars to be fought, one of which deposed the Emperor of France, and created the conditions under which World War I came about, which then created the conditions that created World War II? Offhand, as an American myself, I'd say that's an extremely US-centric and ahistorical viewpoint. But ... it's your opinion, so be it. I do think you might try to learn a little more about the world, though. BMK (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, being named after does not mean every visitor should have his nose rubbed into it, and be forced to go round just to get to the topic he was looking for. The requester has neglected to produce visitor statistics by the way, which would be one of the ways to prove that the statesman is a much sought after person. --Midas02 (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A whole bunch of highly notable things are called "Bismarck", and especially a significant city and one of the most famous warships ever, so we can't assume that readers are looking for the German leader when they key this term in. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you'll see below, twice as many people visit the article on the statesman as the one on the battleship, and almost 8 times as many as view the article on the city (which is not, BTW -- with sincere apologies to the people of North Dakota -- in any sense a "significant city". BMK (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while Otto von Bismarck is hugely popular, there is nothing here to support that it is the intended target of Bismarck. As such, the DAB page is most appropriate. No other entry on that page is otherwise close enough to establish primary topic. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A whole bunch of well-known things are called "Bismarck", and especially a significant city and one of the most famous warships ever, so we can't assume that readers are looking for the German leader when they key this term in. Regarding page views, Otto gets about 2000-3000 per day, the battleship gets around 800-1500 and the North Dakota city about 380. Interestingly, "Bismark" only gets about 200 views per day. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I didn't really think it was necessary to provide page views, but since I've been taken to task for not doing so...
  • Note that the page views for "Otto von Bismarck" are more than twice those for the battleship, and almost 8 times (7.8) those for the capital of North Dakota. All the page views for all the articles other than "Otto von Bismarck" (excluding this page and the redirects) add up to 62,222, which is not as many page views as "Otto von Bismarck" alone (74,149).
    It really does seem that the "topic people are looking for" is primarily "Otto von Bismarck", with the battleship next by half, and the city lagging behind significantly. BMK (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to the usage statistics listed, Otto von Bismarck fails primary topic status. It is not greatly more likely than all other topics combined, nor is it more than an order of magnitude greater than the next highest topic. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to keep in mind what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says:

    [T]here are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:

    * A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
    * A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

    I believe that the weight of the evidence I've presented here shows that Otto von Bismarck fulfills both of these aspects, and is indeed the primary target of "Bismarck". BMK (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's look at incoming links to the articles. To simplify matters a bit, I'll just look at the three clearest contenders for primary target: the statesman, the battleship and the city in North Dakota. Without getting into laborious counting, Otto von Bismarck shows 5 pages of 500 incoming links, so its actual number is between 2000 and 2500. German battleship Bismarck has 1004 incoming links -- I can tell this precisely because the final one of its three pages (counting by 500s) only has 4 links on it. Bismarck, North Dakota has 3 pages of 500, so it's incoming links are between 1000 and 1500 incoming links. So, once again, judging by incoming links, "Otto von Bismarck" would seem to be the primary target. BMK (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, let's look at Google hits. I know Google numbers can be treacherous, so I'm open to being corrected, but here are the results using these search terms:
  • "Otto von Bismarck" - 578,000
  • "Bismarck, North Dakota" - 458,000
  • Bismarck battleship (no quotes) - 435,000
  • What you are neglecting to demonstrate is if Bismarck == Otto... Yes, Otto is the most notable Bismarck, but is he THE Bismarck people are looking for. I would agree that in google and in WP page views, Otto is the most popular page. I don't think that is in dispute... But rather just because Otto is the most popular Bismarck, doesn't make him the primary target for the term Bismarck when left alone. That does not make him primary. To put it this way, what is the top hits when you search simply Bismarck. Google shows the battleship first, and perhaps more rightly so since that name is more precise. But then the balance of google does to the location, in ND. News goes to location. Google Books, the man.... All that to say, there is no consistency on how the search results return simply the term Bismarck and after all that is the primary topic we're talking about here. The evidence you'd need to support isn't that Otto is the most popular Bismarck, but rather he is the Bismarck people are looking for when the use singularly that term, alone. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello BMK, you have provided a textbook example of how a move request should be motivated, but your conclusion is flawed. The evidence should be overwhelming, or in the words of the paragraphs you cited, "much more likely/substantially greater". This is not the case here. Other topics, specifically the battlecruiser, draw a massive number of readers as well, and for many people, as shown by the Google Search statistics as well, the statesman will quite simply not be the first thing they think about when hearing Bismarck. And that's beside the fact that the statesman has a full name, and is not simply called Bismarck. --Midas02 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I agree with BMK. Bismark is a clear example where there is a primary topic which is the enduring inspiration for the way the word is used elsewhere. Such cases should always link to the primary, inspirational topic, even if it isn't (though it is here) the most accessed usage. A parallel example is Corvette, which links to a type of naval boat and not to a US car named after the boat. Another parallel example is Mustang, which links to a type of horse, and not to another US car named after the horse. Both these cases triggered vigorous but lame opposition. Hopefully the matter here will be decided in a more sensible and direct way. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest those are poor examples since the article title is the full and proper name Corvette... a better example, however, may be Einstein as in Albert Einstein where we are talking WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Which I believe is really what is on the table here... While not formally in this requested move, it is inferred that Bismarck be moved to a DAB to make room for a PRIMARYREDIRECT. And the question is, if there is enough support for a REDIRECT, versus a PRIMARYTOPIC... Which require a slightly different degree of support. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's incoherent. Please try again if you think you have something sensible to say. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He/she stated the assumption that the result of this proposed move would be that the page Bismarck would become a redirect to Otto von Bismarck, not that the consequence of the proposal would be to also move Otto von Bismarck to Bismarck. --Scott Davis Talk 10:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ScottDavis that is what I was trying to convey. The inference and part of the discussion that has been brought into this is that Otto should be the target for Bismarck, hence the need to move this page to a disambiguation page. To suggest that Otto Von Bismarck is the intended target for Bismarck is a discussion of a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT - that is, should Bismarck redirect to Otto Von Bismarck -- and that takes a SNOW amount of statistical data to show that he is the intended target for simply the search for Bismark. As was mentioned below, even Lincoln does not redirect to Abraham Lincoln --- is Abraham the most famous Lincoln? probably yes, much like Otto is the most famous Bismarck -- but that does not transfer to the singular word Lincoln or Bismarck -- there need to be much more overwhelming evidence that people searching for simply "Bismarck" are looking for the man, and not the place, or battleship, etc.
This discussion is very different from the examples you bring up regarding the various iterations of Corvette, because you're talking about multiple items which are known primary by the word Corvette alone. Arguably you could have Corvette (ship) and Corvette (car). That discussion is which is PRIMARY and just not needing the parenthetical disambiguation. Because that is the target, the car is more naturally disambiguated as Chevrolet Corvette. But that discussion is about PRIMARY TOPIC. And in that case a more simple methods to determine which is primary apply. However it is very different in the case of PRIMARY REDIRECT, where you are suggesting the PRIMARY NAME isn't the best name for the article, thus needing a redirect. That shifts from being which page is more popular, to is the term Bismarck most often mean Otto Von Bismarck. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
  1. The lead section of Otto von Bismarck does not say that he is or was usually called "Bismarck", so it is appropriate that article is not moved to the shorter name. As no other article has a better claim at the short name, it is appropriate to keep this page as a disambiguation page.
  2. The statistics above show a slight preference for Otto von Bismarck being the article read and linked to more than all others combined, but there are still significant examples of reading and linking to other "Bismarck"s (and "Bismark"s). For many people, both readers and editors, "there is only one Bismarck" to them in the context they are thinking in. It is far better for the encyclopaedia for people to need to click twice to the article they intended, or link to an obvious default that can provide tools to detect and fix the error, than for them to sometimes link to the wrong article and not detect the error, and otherwise have to click three times to get where they meant to be in the first place. After reading this discussion, I asked my wife "who or what is or was 'Bismarck'?" She picked a German navy ship (she got the wrong battle though).

--Scott Davis Talk 10:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional snippets,
  • If Bismarck would be moved, then Otto's buddy Clemenceau would have to be moved as well. Although, for me (with French heritage), Clemenceau is both a statesman, an aircraft carrier the French government was struggling to get rid of and a well-known Paris metro station.
  • Of all the other major languages, only the German one seems to feel Otto is a primary topic. [1]--Midas02 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, as Beyond My Ken points out, the man does get more views and incoming links than all the other topics combined, but not much more. Plus, if one is looking for information on the man, I would expect that person would be more likely to type "Otto Von Bismarck" or "Otto Bismarck" than just "Bismarck". If someone just types "Bismarck" with no other qualifiers, I would expect them to be looking either for the ship or the pastry. If they were looking for the city in North Dakota I'd expect them to type "Bismarck, North Dakota". In other words, I don't think Otto Von Bismarck is the primary topic that those who simply search for "Bismacrk" are looking for. I think there's enough doubt that having Bismarck be a disambiguation page is easier on readers than having it link to a man who, really, was not known by a mononym. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your supposition is not correct. In German, the preposition "von" would indicate nobility - it is called an Adelsprädikat -, and is dropped when referring to the surname by itself, without the first name. For instance, Goethe and Beethoven als have "von" in front of their names. This convention is also being followed in English. --Midas02 (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please support that assertion with a reliable source? All evidence thus far is to establish Otto as extremely notable and influential. That he is the most popular Bismarck around. But no data, so far, has been presented as his common name as being Bismarck. Many of your arguments could be also applied to Abraham Lincoln but yet Lincoln does not redirect as you propose here. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's start with the fact that both Jonathan Steinberg in Bismarck: A Life (Oxford, 2011) and Erich Eyck in Bismarck and the German Empire (Norton, 1950) consistently refer to him as "Bismarck" throughout their texts, then let's go to the titles of some other English-language books of the subject:
  • A. J. P. Taylor - Bismarck: The Man and the Statesman
  • Alan Palmer - Bismarck
  • James Wycliffe Headlam - Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire
  • Edward Crankshaw - Bismarck
  • D.G. Williamson - Bismarck and Germany: 1862-1890
  • Emil Ludwig and Eden and Cedar Paul - Bismarck: The Story of a Fighter
  • Katharine Lerman - Bismarck
  • Stefan Ihrig - Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler
  • Lothar Gall - Bismarck: The White Revolutionary : 1815-1871
  • George Frost Kennan - The Decline of Bismarck's European Order: Franco-Russian Relations, 1875-1890
  • Michael Embree - Bismarck's First War: The Campaign of Schleswig and Jutland 1864
  • Volker Ullrich and Timothy Beech - Bismarck (Life & Times)
  • Fritz Stern - Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichroder, and the Building of the German Empire
  • David Wetzel - A Duel of Giants: Bismarck, Napoleon III, and the Origins of the Franco-Prussian War
  • John Hubert Greusel - Blood and Iron Origin of German Empire As Revealed by Character of Its Founder, Bismarck
  • Dirk Muller - Bismarck: A Biography
  • Edgar Feuchtwanger - Bismarck: A Political History
  • Otto Pflanze - Bismarck and the Development of Germany
  • Richard E. Frankel - Bismarck's Shadow
  • F. M. Powicke - Bismarck and the Origin of the German Empire
  • Erich Eyck - Bismarck
  • Robert Gerwath - The Bismarck Myth: Weimar and the Legacy of the Iron Chancellor
  • Frederick B. M. Hollyday - Bismarck's Rival: A Political Biography of General and Admiral Albrecht von Stosch
  • J. Alden Nichols - Germany after Bismarck: The Caprivi Era, 1890-1894
  • J. C. G. Rohl - Germany without Bismarck: The Crisis of Government in the Second Reich, 1890-1900
  • James Stone and Winfred Baumgart - The War Scare of 1875: Bismarck and Europe in the Mid-1870s
I could also list works in French and German, all of which use "Bismarck" as the short version to refer to Otto von Bismarck, and not "von Bismarck", but these titles in English clearly show that is the case in our language, sinc enone of these use "von Bismarck" and, in fact, I could not find any that did. BMK (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm that, a search for "von Bismarck" using Bookfinder.com showed that the only time "von Bismarck" appeared in a title was when used with his full name "Otto von Bismarck" or with "Count von Bismarck". BMK (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A final note on whether the short version is "Bismarck" or "von Bismarck" - the Encyclopedia Brittanica online article uses "Bismarck". BMK (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is not whether it's "Bismarck" or "Von Bismarck." The argument is whether he is known by a mononym. What you have shown above, is that authors of books about him follow proper style conventions and, after first referring to a person by their full name, use their last name throughout the remainder of the text, except where doing so causes confusion. You have pointed out that Britannica, in their article about him, follows that convention. However, you have ignored the fact that when you type "Otto Von Bismarck" into Britannica's search, the first result is the article on him, but if you simply type "Bismarck" the first result is the city, then the ship, then the man - because the man is not just "Bismarck", he is " Otto Eduard Leopold, Fürst (prince) von Bismarck, Graf (count) von Bismarck-Schönhausen, Herzog (duke) von Lauenburg" or "Otto von Bismarck."
I think the comparison to Lincoln is appropriate. Abraham Lincoln is the man's name. Lincoln could refer to Abraham Lincoln, but also to Lincoln, Nebraska or a whole bunch of other stuff. Even if "Bismarck" was a mononym, such as Madonna, the mononymous singer, I think it's still not clear that it's the primary topic for Bismarck. Madonna is a disambiguation page, pointing to Mary (mother of Jesus) and Madonna (entertainer). This despite the fact that the mother of Jesus gets more than twice as many page views as the singer, and more page views than all other items on that page combined. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are unnecessarily confusing the question with irrelevant issues. The only thing that is really to be determined here is where a user of Wikipedia expects to be sent when they type in "Bismarck". I think I have shown with evidence, not speculation or opinion, not that Otto von Bismarck is "popular", but that user who types "Bismarck" is most likely going to want his article. If she instead wants the battleship or the city, or something else, the hatnote on the article will send them to the disambiguation page. That is the only question, the rest just muddies the waters and is not relevant. BMK (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, continuing to cite "Lincoln" as a model for this discussion does not appear to me to be useful, since that consensus was, in my opinion, egregiously wrong. If I type in "Lincoln" I expect to be sent to Abraham Lincoln not to Lincoln, Nebraska or Lincoln (car). We are, after all, an encyclopedia. 18:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)
I believe that statement alone sums up your position accurately. Your perception on application of policy differs from consensus. Note that Lincoln was consensus to keep the DAB, which is vastly different than no-consensus. The argument for "what users expect to find" is based on speculation. As ONUnicorn has already pointed out Bismarck is not a mononym for Otto Von Bismarck. If you believe it is, I would suggest you consider a page move over there first. The examples you provide are not the type of reliable sources to establish a mononym -- rather those books are following a very common "Book Titling" not to be confused with WP:ARTICLETITLE. It is common to use shortened names in book titles, even when the topic is not a mononym because the context of the book itself often resolves and ambiguity. For that reason when you search for "Bismarck" in Google, Bookfinder, Amazon, etc., you will find mixed results on the first page of all the other Bismarcks. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, my position is absolutely consistent with consensus and with policy. You keep bringing up irrelevant issues in order to confuse matters and muddy waters, while my move request addresses all the necessary requirements -- but will obviously never satisfy you, because for some reason I don't understand, you wish to interpret policy in a way that was never intended. Because of this, and because I have presented voluminous evidence, while those opposed to the move have presented none (or evidence which I have more than sufficiently refuted), my hope is that the closer of this will not simply count noses, but will take into account which of the arguments are actually consistent with policy, and which are not.
I believe that unless someone has a reasonable request for more evidence, which I will be happy to provide, this will be my last post here, and I'll wait to see if policy will be followed or not. (BTW, I request that only an editor who has specifically been entrusted by the community to enforce policy -- i.e. an admin -- close this request.) BMK (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have demonstrated why Lincoln is indeed a relevant comparison - the original Lincoln, Lincoln, England is one that lots of other things have been named for, yet it is not the "primary topic" for "Lincoln" any more than a US state capital or a man who had an enduring impact on the social order of a major nation at his time in world history. Similarly, the "original Bismarck" is not the universal primary topic, as there are several prime candidates depending on the context and mindset of the individual at the time. --Scott Davis Talk 03:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you live in a world in which value judgments are impossible to make, where Lincoln, England and Bismark, Germany are more important than Abraham Lincoln and Otto von Bismarck simply because they existed first; but we. as editors of an encyclopedia, are called upon to make reasoned judgements about these questions, and say that the 16th President of the United States and the 19th century German statesman are intrinsically more important, not because they came first, but because they had a much more profound effect on the real world -- which we are supposed to be explicating in our encyclopedia. To say otherwise is, I'm afraid, to demonstrate what Monty Python called "blinkered philistine pig-ignorance" on the same scale which ranks Miley Cyrus as more important than, for instance, The Beatles, simply because one is more popular at this moment than the other, without taking into account the effect they have had on popular music. In the end, I'm afraid I must dismiss the majority of the objections to this RM as being based on profound ignorance and an unfortunate lack of knowledge rather than a balanced evaluation of the relative merits of the possible results. BMK (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for misrepresenting what I said. My point is that from a world-wide view, neither Abraham Lincoln nor Otto von Bismarck are universally the primary use of the mononyms "Lincoln" or "Bismarck" respectively. I certainly never indicated that I thought the reasons they are not the primary use is because they were named after places that existed before the people. I make no value judgement on the relative importance of Otto, Abraham, Miley and John Lennon to world history. --Scott Davis Talk 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't propose to judge the relative *value* to society of emperors vis a vis American capitals. I do agree entirely with BMK, though. As editors of an encyclopedia, we are called on to make reasoned judgments about the significance of our entries. And unless you're one of the residents of a Dakota, Otto is the more significant Bismarck to the world, even a century on. This is not a decision that can be made via mechanical reference to policy, numerical searches, or precedent; we are calling for reasoned judgment from educated people writing for other educated people. Your judgment may differ from mine, of course...Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well articulated Moishe... One of the reasons why we need people involved and not just robots following policies and statistical information, and for why WP:IAR exists. I do, however, differ on my own judgement on this topic from you, but I do believe your point is well taken. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose a good PT in theory, but the nom isn't convincing based on derivatives alone: the stats help but show usage is between the ship and the man, with about as likely for man vs other. As per PT it's not overwhelming. If in doubt let the status quo prevail. This one may be like Apple in that if consensus is for the man, then that trumps page views. Unlike Apple, we have two long-term historical items, so a dab will suffice for now, but as they're both already historical, it's unlikely any trend will strengthen the man anytime soon. (Personally the ship and man come to mind.) User:Beyond My Ken we don't delete to move?! I feel a good nom may sway a consensus that this (together with page views) is like Apple in that consensus can determine the most enduring article should be PT, despite page views. Widefox; talk 11:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like 70.51.44.60, my first thought of what I would expect to find at "Bismarck" is the ship. Given the amount of other notable topics, I agree with Nick-D A disambiguation page is preferable to a redirect in this case. Number 57 15:10, 6 January 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bismarck&oldid=1198445246"