Talk:John Rickman (parliamentary official)

Requested move 3 June 2021

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 to John Rickman (parliamentary official), John Rickman (disambiguation) moved to John Rickman. No such user (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

---

John Rickman → John Rickman (parliamentary official) – Move necessary per WP:NOPRIMARY. See other people at John Rickman (disambiguation) 4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Appears to be the clear primary topic. He even has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Necrothesp The psychoanalyst has the highest page views by far and is the first thing that comes up in a google search. If an argument is going to be made for primary I would say it would be the psychoanalyst over the politician. Personally, I think the primary is not clear here.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Page views are not the be all and end all and do not override long-term significance, which an entry in the DNB indicates. The psychoanalyst does not have one, despite having been dead for seventy years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is not the arbiter of relative notability in a global encyclopedia. Such blatantly nationalist arguments have no place here. We should care what content is being read predominantly by an international audience. 4meter4 (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is a ludicrous argument, especially since you are claiming that another person of the same nationality is more notable! How on earth is what I said "nationalist"? Also see WP:ANYBIO #3, which rather confirms how seriously we take things such as the DNB. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Nationalist in the sense of viewing notability from a national audiences perspective. International audiences (i.e. wikipedia's audience) are going to have a different perspective on who they will be searching for and reading about than a specifically national audience (which is the target audience of The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography). Clearly the psychoanalyst is of more interest to international readers as evidenced by the predominance of page views and search engine results. Ultimately disambiguation is about making searching easier for the largest number of readers. I fail to see how keeping this article as the primary subject fits that description. Ultimately we serve all our readers best when we make the disambiguation page the central article per WP:NOPRIMARY. 4meter4 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you'll find that, in this internet age, the DNB is used by and aimed at people from all over the world, not just the UK! I find your allegations of nationalism more than a little insulting, as well as ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

When dismbiguation arguments stop being focused on what is pragmatic and best serves the reader as they navigate the encyclopedia, one should reflect on what bias I am bringing to this conversation.4meter4 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom, no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even if this one is slightly more historic than the others.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Commment. From the article he doesn't look like a politician, in the sense of someone who had elected office or represented a political party. He is referred to as a government official and it seems to me that he would be a civil servant in modern terms rather than a politician. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Bcp67 Excellent point, I have modified the move request accordingly.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really a civil servant either. Parliamentary officials in the UK are not members of the Civil Service and are not considered to be civil servants. They are servants of Parliament. Either John Rickman (statistician) or John Rickman (parliamentary official) would be better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Necrothesp comment above regarding long-term significance of the UK census instigator (if there is consensus for a move, John Rickman (parliamentary official) would be better, IMO). Paul W (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I too would back John Rickman (parliamentary official) if there is consensus for a move, but I still consider this John Rickman to be the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Ortizesp. Having supported the unsuccessful attempts at primary topic for Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)#Requested move 22 August 2016, I am sympathetic to the historical positioning of John Rickman (1771–1840) and would likewise support the forms John Rickman (statistician) or John Rickman (parliamentary official) but, among the four men listed upon the John Rickman (disambiguation) page, his notability does not appear to reach the level of dwarfing the combined prominence of the other three. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment modifying to parliamentary official per building consensus.4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning support, as there is no overwhelming primary topic of the name. Historical importance must be gauged from something more than appearance in one valued source. BD2412 T 01:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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.