Talk:Ringo (disambiguation)

Primary

@Wbm1058: I would suggest 2 years of viewing by many and updates by several editors would be considered consensus for a primary topic - and would expect discussion here before making the move. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, never mind. The page hits are so low and the stats look like they support your change anyway. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evnoweb (contributions) disagrees with you. "Ringo" (song) was a #1 hit in 1964. I had to disambiguate some pages (diff, diff). The name was ambiguous for 11 years before the Beatle was made primary three years ago. Yes, this is in a gray zone but I think it would prevent more periodic bold-reverts if we had a discussion to definitively determine whether there is a primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support the current state - no Primary. I'd have to be convinced that - if there IS a primary, its not Mr. Starkey. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wbm1058 has presumed my opinion, but I would rather speak for myself on all topics. I`ve never said anywhere that I disagree with John or anyone else. I do, however, agree that WP:MALPLACED applies to this disambiguation page. Evnoweb (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be presumptive. For the benefit of non-administrators, for the record here is your now-deleted edit:

23:17, 11 April 2018 . . Evnoweb (36 bytes) (redirect to disambiguation page) (Tag: Redirect target changed)

In any event, it seems that we're all in agreement now. wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Beatle not the primary topic? Even with that song in mind or Mr. Starkey's Ringo album, I rarely (if ever) have seen or heard of instances where people are pertaining to anyone or anything else when they say "Ringo". People will say "Let's go see Ringo" or "Play some Ringo" and tend to mean him. Google search is also loaded with mainly results on the guy. I don't see any convincing reason to think he isn't primary. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the complete history of the page titled "Ringo", for the benefit of non-admins. From this, we can see the defacto !votes of all participants to date, based on their bold actions.

There was no primary topic for Ringo for 11 years, up to 4 April 2015. Ringo Starr was then made primary for the last three years, but this has recently been disputed.
One !vote for the Beatle is primary topic: SNUGGUMS (based on 2 page moves Ringo to Ringo (disambiguation))
Three !votes for no primary:
- Evnoweb (based on twice redirecting Ringo to Ringo (disambiguation))
- wbm1058 (based on one move Ringo (disambiguation) to Ringo: per WP:MALPLACED)
- Jwy (I support the current state - no Primary. I'd have to be convinced that - if there IS a primary, its not Mr. Starkey.)
  - After being away for a bit: I'm backing off my support to sit beside Wbm1058 "close to the fence." I think I misread some of the stats. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, now the ball is back in my court. This is MALPLACED again, and nobody else has yet intervened to resolve that. This should be resolved by either:

Moving Ringo (disambiguation) to Ringo: per WP:MALPLACED, or
Reverting Evnoweb's edit

I don't see that the !votes for no primary are particularly strong. Personally, I'm close to the fence. The Google search makes a good argument for the Beatle. I think the best way to resolve this is to use WP:requested moves to get a broader consensus, so I'm submitting an RM, the outcome of that should be either of the two bullet-listed results above. I have some more points, which I'll save for the discussion section of the RM. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 May 2018

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. The base title will be retargeted back to Ringo Starr as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo (disambiguation) → Ringo – per WP:MALPLACED and Ringo Starr has not been established as primary topic. Note the preliminary discussion in the above section. I'll add additional points in the discussion section. wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose per everything I said in the previous thread. Not a malplaced title at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Ringo" should redirect to "Ringo Starr". He is clearly the primary topic for "Ringo", as that is what the vast majority of readers will be looking for when they search for "Ringo". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:MALPLACED and Ringo Starr has not been established as primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and redirect back to Ringo Starr, per common sense, primary topic, WP:HUH?, per The Beatles and their place in history (not only of music but of culture and societal direction), and per Pete Best (for leaving). Ringo Starr was a necessary part of the chemistry which created whatever phenomena occurred to allow the Beatles to take over the world stage and to somehow bring about a quantum jump in music every year for five years in a row. Looking at the disambig page I can see no reason why Ringo Starr is not the primary redirect of "Ringo". Randy Kryn (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I really don't see anything that challenges Ringo Starr's claim of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Plus, pageviews for Ringo typically go up alongside Ringo Starr's, which makes me think it's getting most people to where they want to be. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ringo Starr is a clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The Wiktionary definition (see wikt:Ringo) is curious. Etymology: From the stage name of one of the Beatles, Ringo Starr, actually named Richard Starkey
While the Google Ngram shows a significant increase in usage since 1960, Richard Starkey did not "invent" the name 'Ringo'. Google Books shows significant usage prior to 1962. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page views of both Ringo and Ringo (disambiguation) are roughly equivalent, and both are dwarfed by page views of Ringo Starr, suggesting that most readers directly link to Ringo Starr. Very few readers get to this article via just entering "Ringo". However, there are more views of 'Ringo' than there are of Richard Starkey. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ringo Starr is not a mononymous person, as he also "invented" his surname Starr. He is not primary topic for that common surname. We do have some mononymous pop musicians, such as Adele, Cher and Prince. Some are primary topics; some are not. I would be interested to see other examples of first-name primary topic redirects to persons who are not mononymous, to assess what sort of precedent we might be setting here if Ringo Starr is made primary topic for his first name. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, I thought of Elvis and found a lengthy page history there that may be relevant to this discussion. I haven't found any discussions about that one; looks like it was settled via a lot of 'bold' editing. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2018 (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.

Requested move 11 July 2020

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 03:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo (disambiguation) → Ringo – ringo starr is not primary topic. ringo was a redirect for 5 years, but was a dab page for 11 years - more than double the time it was a redirect. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Someone searching for "Ringo" is highly likely to be looking for Ringo Starr, which makes it the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this nomination does not make sense. Why does it matter that it was a DAB page for longer than a redirect? Nohomersryan (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment but there is no proof that ringo starr is the primary topic TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ neutral, He is the primary topic. While not definitive, the statistics indicate many more visits to Ringo Starr than to the disambiguation page. People entering Ringo would end up at Ringo Starr. If the drummer were not the primary topic, they would usually navigate to the disambiguation page. This does not appear to be happening: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Ringo_Starr%7CRingo_(disambiguation) --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment it's better to look at ringo per se vs ringo (disambiguation) [1] TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried to do that and only now see the "include redirects." Definitely less definitive. But I'm still in opposition. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it and comparing it to "Sting" https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Sting%7CSting_(disambiguation) - I'm less convinced. Neutral. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the Beatle is the primary topic, the most historically significant, and per my comment in the May, 2018, move request above. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Times change. I recently had to concede that an edit to add "a Beatle" when John Lennon was mentioned was probably necessary. From the statistics, it is obvious Gordon Sumner is the primary topic of 'Sting'. The statistics are much less clear with Mr. Starkey. It's not historical significance that matters, it's ease of navigation. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jwy, I think that, based on this comment and the above statistics you linked, you may have missed that Sting is a disambiguation page, and not the musician. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is because sting is a real word which has encyclopedic significance. this is exactly the way it should be for ringo. ringo starr may be of primary usage, but sure isn't of primary encyclopedic significance. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is more encyclopedically significant in this case? Nohomersryan (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

probably some of the places called ringo TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"primary encyclopedic significance" is not the criteria here - it's how useful does it make the navigation for people entering "Ringo." See WP:MOSDAB if you haven't. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and you should see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if you haven't. It clearly says: 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. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although you leave out the context: that's but one of sometime conflicting criteria people bring to the table. I personally think that a useless criteria for a navigation page. And might further argue that the drummer might win on that criteria. But I am reminded why I stopped getting so involved in these DAB discussions: the search engines basically make them obsolete for most uses and I find my energy is better spent elsewhere. (Do note I HAVE withdrawn my opposition). Thanks for pointing out my misconception of that suggested "definition" of primary topic. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Correct. Here is a 'real' example of a clear primary topic: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Elvis_Presley%7CElvis_(disambiguation)

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.