Talk:Richard III (disambiguation)
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Comment
[edit]I suggest the king should be the primary meaning, the English king is already the primary meaning of Richard I and Richard II. PatGallacher (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved to Richard III (disambiguation) and Richard III redirected to Richard III of England. Favonian (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Richard III → Richard III (disambiguation) – We should treat the English king as the primary meaning, this is already the case with Richard I and Richard II. PatGallacher (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. What a useless DAB. The English king is fourth choice now, and the top three choices given are far less notable subjects. The king got 170,000 page views in the last 90 days, the Shakespeare play got 90,000. My vision is that one day the biographies of the three kings will have the titles Richard I, Richard II, and Richard III. Kauffner (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. clearly main meaning for English language. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose clearly the stats are not clear on primarity. The play is highly likely considering those stats. 65.92.180.19 (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Statistics aren't everything, but I recognise that some might argue that Shakespeare's play is of comparable notability. I would reply, firstly, that the king is the primary meaning of Richard II even though there is a Shakesperean play of the same name. Secondly, although not invariably decisive, the original meaning should carry some weight in deciding primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, especially since few people looking for Shakespeare's play could legitimately claim surprise that they instead ended up reading about the play's subject. (I should note, though, that Richard II, the play, is probably less popular than Richard III. But then, so are the kings...) Powers T 15:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Statistics aren't everything, but I recognise that some might argue that Shakespeare's play is of comparable notability. I would reply, firstly, that the king is the primary meaning of Richard II even though there is a Shakesperean play of the same name. Secondly, although not invariably decisive, the original meaning should carry some weight in deciding primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Pat, Kauffner and In ictu oculi. Don't think it's a stretch to say that the majority of readers searching for simply "Richard III" will be looking for the English king. Jenks24 (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment if it's moved to Richard III (disambiguation), what will become of Richard III of England? GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. This move is pointless without moving Richard III of England as well. Powers T 15:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, we have several examples where a name + number combination redirects to the full title of a monarch, see e.g. Richard I, Richard II, James IV, Louis XVI. Moving "Richard III of England" to "Richard III" may or may not be a good idea, but it does not automatically follow from this move, it should be considered on its merits. PatGallacher (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- But neither is the redirect proposed here, so under the proposal as it stands, Richard III would redirect to the disambiguation page -- which is silly. I do stand corrected, however, as I didn't realize Richard I of England and Richard II of England were at those titles. Of course Richard III should follow suit. Powers T 19:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- If this is moved to Richard III (disambiguation), then we should have Richard III as a re-direct to Richard III of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that was already implicit in my opening comment that "We should treat the English king as the primary meaning". PatGallacher (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- If this is moved to Richard III (disambiguation), then we should have Richard III as a re-direct to Richard III of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- But neither is the redirect proposed here, so under the proposal as it stands, Richard III would redirect to the disambiguation page -- which is silly. I do stand corrected, however, as I didn't realize Richard I of England and Richard II of England were at those titles. Of course Richard III should follow suit. Powers T 19:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, we have several examples where a name + number combination redirects to the full title of a monarch, see e.g. Richard I, Richard II, James IV, Louis XVI. Moving "Richard III of England" to "Richard III" may or may not be a good idea, but it does not automatically follow from this move, it should be considered on its merits. PatGallacher (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. This move is pointless without moving Richard III of England as well. Powers T 15:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.