Talk:Oppenheimer (surname)

On 26 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Oppenheimer to Oppenheimer (surname). The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

Is there any rule for the order of entries in these lists? I think Robert Oppenheimer may be the most famous here, but it took me some time to find him down the list. A minor irritation I know, but can it be prevented? 193.1.172.163 14:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing just happened to me. Only I could only remember the name oppenheimer, not his first name so it was a bit of a struggle. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. Why are the disambiguation pages giving equal weight to all possibilities instead of drawing out the obviously popular ones. 82.46.67.130 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Oppenheimer should automatically redirect to J._Robert_Oppenheimer, which should have a link to this disambiguation page. I think he's probably more notable than anyone else on this less to justify it. 94.100.23.51 (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surname

Rightly or wrongly, I judged the surname to be the primary topic of Oppenheimer, and moved the other entries to Oppenheimer (disambiguation). Since a list of name-holders is not a disambiguation page, but a set index, which is a list article, then it does not need a disambiguation wikiproject tag. If you disagree with my assessment of the surname having primacy then I don't mind moving the dab page back here. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post and the clarification. While I have already posted this link Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Question regarding Oppenheimer page on your talk page I will also leave it here for any other editors who might come across this thread so that they may join the conversation. MarnetteD | Talk 17:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 June 2023

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: moved. With the base name redirecting to the nuclear physicist; if JRO wasn't the primary topic a decade ago – which is questionable – he arguably is now. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– I split out the disambiguation page a decade ago and judged the surname to be the primary topic. It was arguably a questionable decision then but the existence of Oppenheimer (film) makes it untenable. At the very least the dab page should be at the base term. Xezbeth (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st, oppose 2nd. Redirect Oppenheimer to J. Robert Oppenheimer. Clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the better option. The hatnote can point to both the dab and the film in that case which should be what most readers are currently looking for. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Oppenheimer shows a scattering of traffic with the biography being the most common, but none of it overwhelming, so I don't think we should make changes because of a recent film. I don't think any of this proves a single WP:PTOPIC. Page views for the best known physicist indicates we're at a 10x spike of traffic from what otherwise occurs, so we should let that pass before deciding. --Joy (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the film has 720,311 views, the TV series has 1,412, the play has 738, the crater has 201, the band has 125 and the album has 46 compared with only 4,732[[1]] for the surname. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The film is dated 2023. Too much WP:RECENTISM. Walrasiad (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st, retarget the base page name to J. Robert Oppenheimer. The person is the clear primary topic of the name; particularly given that the film is named after the person. BD2412 T 00:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st – if there is a PTOPIC, it certainly isn't the surname list. Weak support 2nd – a mononymous surname versus a film receiving similar view counts for now (albeit named after the person) feels like a place where we should have the DAB page at the undisambiguated title, at least for now. We can see how pageviews settle down the line. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st and Oppose 2nd per Necrothesp. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppenheimer → Oppenheimer (surname) per nomination and also support the alternative option of retaining main title header Oppenheimer (disambiguation) and redirecting "Oppenheimer" to J. Robert Oppenheimer, per Necrothesp, BD2412 and Festucalex. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but would also support making the top link more clearly pointed at surnames. This is a general problem, not specific to the page, and I should probably bring it up elsewhere. But still. Thmazing (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first. The name article isn't even an article; it's a WP:PTM linkfarm bar one. Agnostic on the second, i.e. redirecting to Robert is fine. — AjaxSmack 22:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, a normal set index article about people named the same way is not a violation of the partial title match guideline. People are habitually referred to using their names, especially surnames, and this creates ambiguity in the real world, which makes it perfectly appropriate to be described by the encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I'm confused. What is actually getting changed here? Are we really going to redirect a disambiguation page to a single subject simply because of a recent film and WP views? Are users so lazy they can't type in Robert Oppenheimer to find his page??? Wow. Guess we need to dumb down WP. Might as well link the film on every Oppenheimer page since clearly that's the only interest here. Maineartists (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, it's not a disambiguation page; if it was, it would fail WP:PTM and could be deleted. Instead, it is supposedly an article about the surname Oppenheimer. The present situation is dumb because the nominal primary topic is a topic with literally zero text about it. Whether the primary topic is a new movie, Robert or none of the above, it's not the surname itself. — AjaxSmack 17:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Set indices are not merely bad articles about surnames, they're navigational aids that help resolve ambiguity, just like disambiguation pages and hatnotes do. --Joy (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2023 (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.

Film link

@Station1 Bringing the discussion here for you to gain consensus per WP: ONUS. I've stated the reasons as to why linking the film on this particular disambiguation page is unnecessary: It already links to the film here: "For other uses, see Oppenheimer (disambiguation)" [2]. Listing it again is redundant. Also, per WP:RECENTISM, this film is no different than the other listed Entertainment links: Oppenheimer (TV series), Oppenheimer (play), etc. To list this particular film at the header of this disambiguation page would be similar to listing " For J. Robert Oppenheimer at the top of the Oppenheimer (disambiguation) page. Given your reasoning, one would have to list the subject at the top of each Oppenheimer disambiguation page due to the film's recent success, too. In a year's time, the film will no longer be relevant and neither will the link. BTW, the subject's page does not even link the film at the header; nor the British mini-series, or the play. Maineartists (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That hatnote was just a temporary measure until the surname page is moved in a few days per the section above. By removing it, you just inconvenience a few hundred readers per day[3], however slightly. Station1 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]