Talk:Jack Fulton

Requested move 26 November 2017[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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Fulton (singer) → Jack Fulton – Sole subject of a Wikipedia biographical entry who is named Jack Fulton. Instead of serving as a redirect to the John Fulton disambiguation page, Jack Fulton should be the main header of the singer's entry in the same manner that Jackie Fulton has a stand-alone title. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question is this really "sole subject"? This isn't the only "jack fulton is" or "Jack Fulton was" in books. Are we certain that none of those Johns were also called Jack? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable Jack Fultons may well exist or have existed, but the nomination does specify, "Sole subject of a Wikipedia biographical entry". No other Jack Fulton is currently using this main header and we would not preemptively add a qualifier for future consideration. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Does appear to be the case that this is the only Jack Fulton on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only topic named Jack Fulton covered on WP, therefore it is the primary topic. Heck, there isn't even a disambiguation issue here since there are no other uses of this name, so it's the only topic. See also: User:Born2cycle/PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 04:55, 2 December 2017 (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.

@Roman Spinner: I checked here and in books, and looks like none of the John Fulton articles were also known as Jacks, though they easily could have been. But really it's the nom's job to check this before nominating, at least I do in this kind of case, William/Bill James/Jim etc.. We do not disambiguate by title but by usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: I understand your point of view on this matter, but the disambiguation that we do have is, in fact, by title. If any of the other John Fultons has or had been known as "Jack" then the main title header of his Wikipedia entry also should have been "Jack" and not "John". A cursory search did not turn up any examples of unique names bearing parenthetical qualifiers and if/when one is found, it should probably be moved.

Glancing at a few of the other Fultons, the Robert Fulton (disambiguation) page displays a single Bob Fulton and a single Bobby Fulton, without proof that research was conducted to ascertain whether any of the other Robert Fultons was known as "Bob" or "Bobby".

Again, how much research is needed to determine whether anyone at the Charles Fulton dab page was also called "Charlie" so that we could append a qualifier to the main title header of the sole Charlie Fulton with a Wikipedia entry?

As for another Fulton, if his WP:COMMONNAME is Jim Fulton, the sole such name within Wikipedia, then his header should not be James Fulton (Canadian politician) unless, of course, any of the other James Fultons can be shown to be best known as "Jim". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner: unfortunately it's a fact: some people are known equally both as William and Bill, equally Philip and Phil, it crops up throughout the bio article corpus. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: True, without a doubt, but then the choice has to be made which form is considered the more-common common name to be chosen for that entry's main title header.

Once the choice is made, it falls to us, individually and as a team or a group, to verify that Charlie Fulton or Bob Fulton are listed among those at the Charles Fulton and Robert Fulton (disambiguation) pages (currently Charlie is not listed) and that the Charlie Fulton and Bob Fulton entries have hatnotes directing users to those same Charles Fulton and Robert Fulton (disambiguation) pages, in case some of those Charleses and Roberts may also be known as Charlies and Bobs (currently there are no such hatnotes). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it absolutely does not :) that's the whole point. It does not have to be handled by hatnotes. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not every Jack is a John, not every Phil is a Philip and not every Kathy is a Katherine, although the probability that they are should always be considered. When Jack Fulton (singer) was moved to Jack Fulton, a hatnote was appended, which states, "For other people named Jack Fulton, see John Fulton (disambiguation)."

Since there are no other Wikipedia articles which have "Jack Fulton" as the main header, the hatnote could also state, "For similarly named individuals, see John Fulton (disambiguation)." An even shorter hatnote form could be, "See also John Fulton (disambiguation)." However, the absence of any indicator would not be helpful and recent RMs have shown that adding a qualifier to a unique main header is an unpopular option which goes against some guidelines. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]