Talk:Benjamin Franklin Bache

	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 arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania 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.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Is this entry still a stub? How much more information is there available about him? Also, does anyone have a picture of him? Thomas Carson 19:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a picture of him, from the National Archives, so it is public domain. [1]]--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, this is Alexander Dallas Bache, not Benjamin Franklin Bache. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 kB (1899 words) "readable prose size" May 2018--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 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: moved. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– I believe this journalist is far more significant than his nephew (currently at Benjamin Franklin Bache). This is supported by pageviews, page size, and the available coverage of the journalist far outweighs that of the surgeon. The pages should therefore probably be swapped, and the surgeon moved to Benjamin Franklin Bache (surgeon). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like a strong argument for a primary topic. I had to scroll pretty far in Google books searching for this name to find a source not about him, besides cases of just listing the descendants of their famous ancestor.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support 1st, oppose 2nd~~ - I converted this request to a multi-page move as described by OP. Primary swaps are risky due to the lag related to incoming links. Disambiguating both also helps us fix up internal links. Best to disambiguate both and create a two-entry DAB at primary, at least for a while. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Netoholic: had to flip the noms to fix this malformed request, so your !vote flips as well to:
Support 2nd, oppose 1st. (for editor Netoholic, see above) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 01:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this would be agreeing there is a primary topic, but waiting and doing the move as two separate steps? Because not including redirects, it looks like there are only five incoming links to the surgeon so it shouldn't be a big change at all.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it's very easy to confuse these two persons. If the primary at Benjamin Franklin Bache is replaced by a DAB, any editor trying to link to it should get a bot notification that they've linked to a DAB, and hopefully they'll correct the link (or others can easily) so that it points to the right subject. While one may have a slightly better claim to primary, it may be too slight a difference to warrant removing the DAB. But doing an immediate swap would, for a time, confuse readers coming in from search results until the search engines or other incoming links get fixed. So, NOPRIMARY for a while, and possibly reevaluate after some time has passed. -- Netoholic @ 20:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair and makes total sense, but in this case it's not slight -- it's a pretty overwhelmingly clear primary, both in terms of interest in the page and in coverage that exists. And it's not like we are talking a ton of editors trying to link here -- again, there are about a half dozen article space links in total, most of which were simply on pages listing him as a relative of Ben Franklin which also include the proposed primary topic. I get not wanting to have links going to the wrong place, but if we are deciding that a page with that few incoming links shouldn't have a primary than we are basically saying primary topics should never exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know our internal wikilinks are easily checked and corrected. The main concern is from external incoming links like search engines. Primary swaps instantly break those, which is why we usually avoid them and instead do one move, wait, then evaluate the other move. It could be many pageviews are due to confusion between two, fairly obscure though notable, people with the same name. -- Netoholic @

Ah, I see. And are there any sort of guidelines or precedence for doing that even in a case where the primary is very clear? Because if not, is the rule just "never do primary swaps" then?--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think estimation of "very clear" is a matter of editor opinion and decided by consensus. I don't see it as "very clear", which is why I voted to wait on the other half of the swap. If I saw it as "very clear", I'd vote otherwise. -- Netoholic @ 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. So given that it both dominates in page views and search results, in addition to having a much more in depth background that shows more longterm significance, why is it not the primary? Your !vote only addressed the part about not wanting primary swaps.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd, oppose 1st as per above, DAB should be made at base name for now.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why? Is it not the obvious primary? If the only concern is that a half dozen links need to be redirected, I will happily volunteer to do so!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The journalist is overwhelming WP:PRIMARYUSAGE (see pageviews). We have a volunteer to fix wikilinks and Google usually catches up within a few hours or a few days at the most. In the meantime, we have hatnotes. If consensus is to go to a temp dab page, I hope the closer will make clear that the second half of the proposal can be done as an uncontroversial move in 30 or 60 days or whenever. Station1 (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the views but consider creating a DAB at the base name due to incoming external links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any policy or guidelines that encourage us to do that even when there is an overwhelmingly clear primary topic?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an essay at User:Andrewa/Incoming links and there is also WP:EXTERNALROT. But yes I am saying either move as proposed or put a DAB at the base name, either way the surgeon isn't the primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it. Given how low profile the current base page name is, and the incredibly clear primary of the other, shouldn't be a major issue here then to prevent us from moving the primary topic to the primary page. I'm not sure there are many external incoming links at all, even.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there's also WP:2DABPRIMARY that supports moving as proposed since readers can just click on the hatnote rather than having to find the other by clicking on "otheruses" 1st. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to check again, do we have any sort of policy or guidelines that say we shouldn't do primary swaps even when there is a clear primary topic by both page views and historical long term significance?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:56, 31 July 2020 (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.

Picture

Is that actually him? He doesn't seem dressed like a man from the 1790s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.203.4 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]