Talk:Richard H. Williams (New York politician)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 26 August 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: not moved. Consensus here is to retain the redirect to incomplete disambiguation. There could be some mileage in Necrothesp's suggestion, for which a second move discussion could be opened. DrKiernan (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Williams (New York) → Richard H. Williams – Rather than creating a Richard H. Williams sub-disambiguation page split-off from the main Richard Williams dab page with three names: Richard Hughes Williams, Richard Henry Williams and Richard H. Williams (New York), or redirecting Richard H. Williams to the Richard Williams dab page where these three entries already exist, we can delete the qualifier "(New York)" from this title header and add two hatnotes: For the Canadian merchant who served as mayor of the Saskatchewan capital of Regina, see Richard Henry Williams and For the Welsh short story writer, see Richard Hughes Williams —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose No evidence given for primary topic. There are multiple topics that can be referred to by this name. The requested name is a redirect to a disambiguation page, which lists various values for the requested title. There is no need for a new disambiguation page, since the existing disambiguation page already works. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - why would we do this? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The long answer is below. The short answer is that such is the form used on most dab pages. Richard H. Williams is a unique header, thus requiring no qualifier, although a hatnote directing users to the Richard Williams dab page would be helpful. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Richard H. Williams (American politician). Not a New York, but a politician. Disambiguators are supposed to reflect what the individual does, not where they come from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I created this page) "New York" (or any other state) is a common disambiguator at congressmen's bios, it is used when there are people with the same name from other states. This led me to use this, but Richard H. Williams (New York politician) would be correct under WP:QUALIFIER. I think American politician is too broad, at any time another politician with this name could appear, and he was active only in New York state. Richard H. Williams redirects to the dab page Richard Williams, that's why a disambiguator was needed. At the time I didn't think it was necessary to unhook the redirect and add hatnotes. Kraxler (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that many bios of politicians still exist with the state alone used as a disambiguator, but these are generally moved by editors as they are spotted as it conflicts with WP:NCPDAB. Unless we need to disambiguate between politicians of the same name from two different states then "American" is usually considered sufficient. Neither do we usually disambiguate with an eye to the possible appearance of future articles, but only among those that currently exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguator should identify the subject, it should not be used to play games. "New York politician" is right to the point when a politician has held office only in New York and no federal offices. There are actually politicians like John Williams (Salem, New York) and John Williams (Rochester, New York) who both were US congressmen, but lived in different cities in the State of New York. WP:QUALIFIER, somewhat inconsistently, disencourages using numbers, but says to disambiguate as a second criterion by birth year. So, be my guest trying to move all that stuff around, but don't forget to update the dab page entries. Kraxler (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that numerous WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS on dab pages which provide examples of names with middle initials without the need for a qualifier: John C. Brown, John C. Brown (Ohio), John Calhoun Brown, John Cameron Brown, John Campbell Brown, John Crawford Brown, etc; John G. Brown, John George Brown and John Gregory Brown; There is a John R. Brown redirect to the John Robert Brown sub-disambiguation page; Richard S. Brown and Richard Shaw Brown; Robert A. Brown and Robert Allan Brown; Robert G. Brown and Robert George Brown; Robert M. Brown, Robert Mark Brown and Robert McAfee Brown; John S. Brown and John Seely Brown; Robert E. Johnson, Robert E. Johnson (New York) and Robert Erwin Johnson; There is Robert L. Johnson and a Robert Lee Johnson sub-disambiguation page with 3 other names; Robert M. Johnson and Robert Milton Johnson; Robert S. Johnson, Robert Sherlaw Johnson and Robert Simon Johnson; Robert C. Jones, Robert Clive Jones and Robert Clark Jones; Robert F. Jones and Robert Franklin Jones; Richard W. Jones and Richard Wyn Jones. To list more at this point would be overkill, but there are about 50 other such examples ready for listing, with more easily found. Should all those with middle initial have a disambiguating qualifier, or only those with 3 or more examples. 67.70.32.190 raised the issue of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but New York's Richard H. Williams would be no more a primary topic than, from the above examples, Robert C. Jones as a primary for Robert Clive Jones or Robert Clark Jones. More to be said, but that can be left for the next round —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are not the primary topic, then the articles are misnamed. Therefore they need correction. We should not just continued making the wrong topics as pretending to be primary topics if they are not. WP:PRECISE they require enough information to distinguish the topic from all other topics that can use that name, unless it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If it isn't the primary topic, then they are at the wrong name, and need to be fixed. We should not just ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISE just because "other stuff exists"; that is not a sufficient reason. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. On the subject of precision, we should be clear as to the intended meaning of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is understood to be a name or topic of such pre-eminent notability that it easily overrides all the other topics bearing the same appellation. Most disambiguation pages do not feature a topic of such prominence and thus most dab pages do not have a primary topic. For an example that stands out, we can glance at the John Williams (disambiguation) page, where John Williams is the primary topic over 148 others who bear that name, not counting a 7-entry List of ships named John Williams as well as 7 homes named John Williams House.

2. As far as names such as John C. Brown, John G. Brown, Richard S. Brown, Robert S. Johnson, Robert C. Jones or Richard H. Williams are concerned, these are not primary topics because they do not head their own disambiguation pages, but are among the many names listed at their names' main dab page, such as John Brown, Richard Brown, Robert Johnson, Robert Jones or Richard Williams. Anyone typing the unique name John G. Brown (which has no hatnote) is already being precise, but anyone seeking John George Brown or John Gregory Brown, under the presumption that they are to be found under "John G. Brown", would have to return to the John Brown dab page. Should we move, as an example, John G. Brown, whose full name is also "John George Brown" to John G. Brown (politician) or John George Brown (politician) for the sake of precision? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should add a hatnote to John G. Brown. Kraxler (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. All of the pages I mentioned above exist [as of this writing] under the assumption that if one inputs the specific name Richard H. Williams, rather than the all-encompassing Richard Williams, then one is searching for the New York politician (no need for the qualifier), rather than Richard Henry Williams or Richard Hughes Williams. It is the same with Robert S. Johnson which has no hatnote to Robert Sherlaw Johnson or Robert Simon Johnson and all those mentioned above [and numerous others] which either have no hatnotes or contain one general hatnote, such as that for Robert C. Jones, where the hatnote states, For other people with a similar name, see Robert Jones (disambiguation), without any mention of Robert Clive Jones or Robert Clark Jones. The [frequently mistaken] assumption is that by the specificity of typing Richard H. Williams or Robert C. Jones, one already knows the target of one's search. It would seem that there should be no hatnote at all, per WP:NAMB, or specific hatnote(s) pointing solely to Richard Henry Williams and Richard Hughes Williams or to Robert Clive Jones and Robert Clark Jones, respectively.

2. As a [perhaps distantly] related matter, let us consider such non-WP:PRIMARYTOPICs as Ralph Emerson, John Mill or John Galbraith. These dab pages would not have primary topics because Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Stuart Mill or John Kenneth Galbraith would be, to some degree, unrecognizable without their middle names, therefore the presumption is that anyone typing the short name is searching for a less-notable bearer of that respective name. The renowned names are, of course, included on the dab pages. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there other notable people with articles in Wikipedia who are commonly known as "Richard H. Williams"? I looked but could not find. I am also not convinced on the use of place name as topic clarification. Greg Kaye 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Williams (New York) is also a rare, if not sole, instance of a specific, unique name which is nevertheless tethered to a qualifier. All other such middle-initial names either use a hatnote or do not even bother with any directions. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Richard H. Williams should redirect to the disambiguation page as incomplete disambiguation. No opinion on what if anything should be used as disambiguating term for Richard H. Williams (New York). older ≠ wiser 15:09, 29 August 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.