Talk:Gladstone (disambiguation)

Requested move 30 November 2016

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.(non-admin closure) KSFT^C 19:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Gladstone → Gladstone (disambiguation) – Redirect Gladstone to William Ewart Gladstone. Widely referred to as just "Gladstone", similar to how Richard Nixon is usually just referenced to as Nixon (which is a redirect to his article, by the way). As a four-time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I am confident that the majority of readers searching for Gladstone are most likely looking for the 19th-century British statesman. Others with the surname pale in long-term significance to one of the foremost Victorians in history. --Nevé–selbert 21:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. All of the entries under section header "Places" were named after William Ewart Gladstone. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose half the dab page is places. Can't assume every reader out there knows the politician existed. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nomination does not justify the proposal. --MrStoofer (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support: per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Ebonelm (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. For me, the politician is WP:PRIMARY, and I have to make an effort to recall his given name(s). As I do with his most famous adversary, Disraeli - but Wiki helps me there, by redirecting to the most relevant page. Narky Blert (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not particularly well-versed in UK politics but if I saw "Gladstone" mentioned without qualification I'd assume it to be him. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – no sensible case has been made for this primarytopic grab. And the "support" statements are worse than ludicrous. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: As an American citizen, how do you justify Nixon redirecting to Richard Nixon and Reagan redirecting to Ronald Reagan?--Nevé–selbert 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  I would not attempt to justify those. I think single names should almost always go to disambiguation pages, rather than a presumed primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There are four such direct-link presidential names (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Obama), as mentioned in the recently-concluded discussion at Talk:Trump (card games)#Comments. The WP:COMMONNAME in this instance is, plainly, Gladstone, in the same manner as the previously-mentioned Disraeli, as well as Copernicus, Mozart, Garibaldi, Lincoln, Balzac, Freud and others whose resounding surnames indicate their unique place in history. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

At least we quashed the Trump attempt. I don't know what it means when you say " The WP:COMMONNAME in this instance is, plainly, Gladstone." I don't think "The WP:COMMONNAME" is even a sensible concept. Have you read that section? It's basically about a strategy for recognizability, not a suggestion that every topic has a "COMMONNAME". Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

1) I have been striving for years to diminish full-name WP:PRIMARY TOPICS, submitting nominations such as Catherine Blake here and here, David Zimmer, Gary Williams, Paul Young, Thomas Price and numerous others, including non-name entries, such as Golden Mask.
2) However, as examined in Wikipedia's article on mononyms, a substantial number of single names have a historical obligation to stand alone — not merely in their uniqueness (such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Erasmus, Paracelsus, Michelangelo or Rembrandt), but also in the forms which use the full name in the main title header, while additionally redirecting the stand-alone surname to its most renowned holder (Da Vinci, Galileo, Kosciuszko, Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Mickiewicz, Foch, Jung, Bogart) and, again, many others, including those previously mentioned (Copernicus, etc.), with a nod to such obviously key names as Napoleon, Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Hitler.
3) Many such redirects are particularly evident with composers (Rossini, Schubert, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Verdi, Moniuszko, Bizet, Chabrier, Puccini, Debussy) or visual artists (Renoir, Picasso, Kokoschka, Chagall, Gaudier-Brzeska, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Fellini, Rauschenberg, Warhol). Most of these are relatively uncommon names, but an exception was made in September for the holder of a fairly common name — Wagner — when it became a redirect to Richard Wagner.
4) Only three single surnames of British prime ministers redirect to their full names — Disraeli, Churchill and Attlee, as well as four compound surnames — Campbell-Bannerman, Lloyd George, Bonar Law and Douglas-Home.
Considering that virtually all entries within the Gladstone disambiguation page refer to William Ewart Gladstone and, as pointed out by the last sentence in his article's introductory text, "Gladstone is consistently ranked as one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers", his surname should, at least, hold the same position as the surnames of Disraeli, Churchill and Attlee. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll add Archimedes, Kepler, Manet, Monet, Ravel and Rommel to that list. In each case, the obvious person is WP:PRIMARY. Narky Blert (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't towns. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There are also towns named Churchill. We find those under Churchill (disambiguation). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd never heard of any of those towns (or, settlements) until I found them on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the question isn't if he is referred to as the mononym, but rather if that is the commonname AND primarytopic. For example a ghit or gnews will show Nixon is at least have the entries. But for Gladstone, William receives less than half on both gnews and ghits. Now, granted, gnews might be a bit biased against William since his news was generated so long ago. But even Nixon still has a ton of historical gnews hits. While he might be the namesake of the towns and other entries, and also the anchorpoint for many other Glandstone individuals, and quite possibility the most notable Gladstone, it doesn't make him an automatic mononym commonname. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, but there's a ton of Nixons at Nixon (surname), most notably there's a current U.S. governor named Jay Nixon. If Gladstone disqualifies WP:TITLEPTM, then Nixon almost certainly does too. Prime Minister Gladstone is certainly up there with the likes of Messrs Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill, Attlee and Mrs Thatcher as one the very great British prime ministers of all time. If and when this move request happens to fall through, I plan on filing a move request at Nixon (disambiguation). I'm not too sure about Reagan (that would need some extra thought, after considering the arguments at the Nixon dab talkpage).--Nevé–selbert 23:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Easy WP:PTOPIC by long term significance, and by common usage too; none of the other entries on the dab page have anything like the significance of this guy, and he's what mostly comes up through a Google books and Google regular search.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Amakuru. This is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Cuchullain:: Just curious to see how you view this differently than Talk:Bismarck? Tiggerjay (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't !voting in that one. The biggest difference I can see is the page views. In this case, William Gladstone receives a greater percentage of the page views among ambiguous topics than Otto von Bismark did among Bismark topics.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Notable topics with this name include about 2 dozen places (including a city of 50K), a dozen people, 5 rail stations, 2 ships, 2 fictional characters, a bag, a pub, a museum, a park and a series of steam locomotives.
  Sure, the former UK Prime Minister is the single most prominent of these topics, and probably by a significant margin. But no evidence whatsoever has been offered in support of he proposition that the PM is "more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting that there's so much passion regarding this one, and some patently invalid arguments on both sides. Personally I think that it doesn't really matter, but I have to agree that on the evidence the PM seems to be the primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per BrownHairedGirl. Out of interest I did a Google search for the word Gladstone, and couldn't find any reference to the prime minister on the first 6 pages. I found places, hotels, ships, and locomotives, but no prime minister. I'm in Canada, not the UK, but I suspect this may have something to do with the wide range of views on this. For people in the UK / Europe, this may be an obvious primary topic, but people elsewhere may never have even heard of this guy. Bradv 01:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per pageviews unless anyone can substitute topics for the items at the bottom of the list, such that nos. 2–9 come significantly closer to matching #1. Over six times the views as Gladstone, Queensland, the city of 50,000 that sits at #2. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  There's an even stronger case for US President McKinley pageviews though that's a discussion for another day. wbm1058 (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That page view approach would be true if we're talking about DAB and if this was should Gladstone (Prime Minister) should replace a DAB page for Gladstone, I would wholeheartedly agree. However, what we're talking about isn't if the PM is the most popular 'Gladstone' but rather if his commonname is Gladstone. By what you're suggesting Apple Inc. should become Apple because of an overwhelming number of pageviews... And certainly some people looking for Apple Inc. would first discover Apple in error. But at the end, we've establishing the fruit is the commonname and appropriate target for Apple, and therefore the computer company belongs at Apple Inc. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

1. No, "common name" would be an argument for moving William Ewart Gladstone → Gladstone. This proposal is only to make the short form of the common name a redirect to the long form common name.
2. The fledgling town Gladstone, Queensland was named after the British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone and has a 19th-century marble statue on display in its town museum.

The computer company and brand was named after the fruit; thus both the British prime minister and the fruit are primary based on greater long-term significance. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that just because it's a "redirect" doesn't mean that it still doesn't have to meet the criteria for PRIMARY. PRIMARY is specifically NOT selected by historical age, original usage (origin), or due to relevance to a specific people group (UK/Europeans) - of which all three appear to be often cited in this discussion as supporting reasons. It seems like the question is REALLY if a mononym is "implied by popularity". That is, should we presume that the mononym is appropriate, because he is the most popular Gladstone, even if the mononym isn't actually commonname. There are plenty of examples that can be cited going in either direction. In reality, this might be more like Apple than I first thought... In the case of Apple, it wasn't really driven by a policy based standard, but rather due to conesnsus. And perhaps that is what we have here, a situation where policy can be discussed to support either direction, but at the end of the day, this might be a far more consensus driven naming situation more than most. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Tiggerjay, I'm not sure where you're getting your "PRIMARY" criteria from. WP:PRIMARY is about sources. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics: (1) usage, pageviews supports that. (2) long-term significance, the fact that #2, the Australian city was named after #1, seems to support that. Often usage and long-term significance support two different topics, and in that case we need to make a subjective call as to whether to give more weight to usage or to long-term significance, or decide that the two major aspects cancel each other out such that there is no PT. That doesn't seem to be the case here, though. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not specifically rule out any criteria, so there is room for arguments about the "intangibles", or other lesser criteria. Rather than argue that we're wrong about the two major criteria, you need to argue the merits of some intangible. BrownHairedGirl seems to make the best case there, with the argument that the sheer number of alternative uses, even though after adding up all these other topics combined their combined usage doesn't match the prime minister usage, that we deny a PT here just because there are so many others (if there were only three or four alternatives, then we would give the PM PT status). This seems to me a reasonable argument, but I don't know whether this argument has been successfully applied before in other requested moves. Perhaps an example or two of other cases where PT is denied a topic that leads in both usage and long-term significance, due to the large number of alternative uses, some examples of similar disambiguations might help to boost that argument. wbm1058 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And we're not claiming that Gladstone is a Mononymous person... if he were, we would propose actually moving his biography to this title. No more than Obama is a mononymous person. Ronaldo, that's a mononymous person (but he's not a primary topic any more). wbm1058 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the guidelines that I'm forming my positions on:

1. The TWO often cited primary topic items you and other bring up (which I generally agree with) from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are "two major aspects that are commonly discussed" and are not defacto "criterion for defining a primary topic".
2. Instead, I'm referring to how we WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, and utilizing the things which are "not generally consider[ed]" from there "Among several other proposed criteria that have never won acceptance as a general rule, we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic:" -- therein is listed 4 concepts, three of which appear to be the primary basis here for the support of this move.
3. Needing to establish Gladstone as Mononym comes from my understanding of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT where the redirect is based because the redirect page should/could/ought be the article title, but is not because of naming conventions (such Albert Einstein) or aliases (Defamation is the primary topic for five terms: "defamation", "libel", "slander", etc).

Now you might be right on the basis of precedent, as I'm just a bit rusty on my RM after a wikibreak, but if I'm still reading these guidelines properly, then that is why I believe my oppose is properly based in policy/guidelines. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: the applicable guidelines are at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which defines the major aspects commonly discussed in primary topic determination. These are:

1. A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
2. 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.

It seems to be crystal clear that both these two criteria are satisfied for Gladstone, and this is the thrust of the support arguments above, and why in my view it was correct for SSTflyer to call a consensus on that basis. For criterion 1, we generally evaluate page views to determine which topic is the one readers will be seeking, and that page views evidence has been presented several times above in support of the move. The criterion 2, this is clearly a bit more subjective - what is long term significance after all? But when the proposed primary topic is a nineteenth century prime minister, and we still think he is the most common page sought for that term, then it seems like "long term significance" is ticked by default. Basically when comparing the PM with a collection of minor cities around the world, some of which were named after him anyway, I think he wins the long term significance battle. In this regard he is very different from Trump, because the card game term is of more enduring and notable interest than the small cities. Thanks and I hope that helps.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru:: With much respect to a vetted admin, you will see that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is part of a larger section titled "Is there a primary topic?" -- contained within there is Determining a primary topic. Now perhaps it is JUST ME, but I would presume that if the discussion is "IF" something is primary, than the sub-section which is titled "Determining a primary topic" would carry significant weight on this. Right? In that subsection, (which is PART of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) we see it clearly states "we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic". (Emphasis is directly quoted, not mine). Of course, you keep running back to the things stated as "often discussed" (which is okay and valid) but in the process you're ignoring "we do not consider..." the things not considered, are many of the things discussed here. Can you explain why you believe the part of the guideline dealing with "we do not consider" should be ignored in this discussion? Tiggerjay (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: it's a fair point, and you're right that many of the support arguments do rely on him being the first and original holder of this name like Boston, Lincolnshire and should therefore be the primary topic, which as you rightly say is not a good enough reason on its own. I also said something like that in my comment immediately above this one, and I've struck it out, because you're right that it's irrelevant. However, having said all that, and notwithstanding some weak rationales in the supports and the fact that guidelines do not provide hard and fast rules, I still believe that this does satisfy our usual criteria for a primary topic - precedence indicates that the two criteria I've highlighted above are the ones we usually go with, and as I said before, William Gladstone still satisfies both of them - common usage and long term significance, when it comes to the mononym "Gladstone", in the same way that Nixon, Obama etc. do for their names. And the page hits and Google books evidence supports this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru::Thanks for your consideration and reflection. You're correct there may be a precedent in place for these. And to be honest, I've only recently taken a very specific look at these guidelines (which admittedly are not policy) because of this specific instance. Probably because it's my personal 'feelings' that unless it is a popular mononym , that it shouldn't be a PRIMARYREDIRECT -- there are some people that were well known as a monomyn and those should remain, but IMHO things like Trump or Bernie shouldn't be redirects. So that lead me down a more granular approach to find support in the guidelines. At the end of the day, while there might be precedent, I don't believe there is support in the guidelines because a lot of this is specifically 'not agreed upon' as rationales for what is PRIMARY. And none of the guideline examples illustrate situations like this as a reason to redirect in this manner. However, I think both of our positions have been exhaustively documented, and all that is left is for an admin closure, which I'll accept either way, and consider that precedent established. MERRY CHRISTMAS! Tiggerjay (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

While going through my watchlist I was reminded of a move request over at Talk:Bismarck which is likely where I formed some of my positions on the issue of PRIMIARYREDIRECT where COMMONNAME isn't obvious. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, everything's just a guideline, including the "we do not generally consider" items – that doesn't say that we never consider them. There's a big difference between a first-name "mononym" like Bernie or Hillary and a last-name "mononym". These last names aren't strong mononyms, it's more like Prime Minister Gladstone, with "Prime Minister" omitted. Officeholders are commonly referred to by last names only, to the point where some may forget their first names, and the intent here is to help those who can't recall the first name. I suppose you could argue that even those who can't recall the first name should at least be able to recall the title. Bismarck is an interesting comparison, as a city of roughly the same size, but Bismarck has two things going for it (1) it's in the US, which has a much larger population than Australia (2) it's a state capitol. There is also a third strong contender for PT: German battleship Bismarck. Our default should be the status quo, if there is no consensus PT, and it's looking like that may be the case here. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right, they are just guidelines, and there is always IAR, but I'm not suggesting that. I guess I continue to see other popular surnames being left as DAB pages, including: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, William Shakespeare and Otto von Bismarck. And that perhaps we're just using what comes to mind for the exceptions like Obama, and then trying to find ways to rationalize it with guidelines - oer It seems like the precedent is in favor of DAB over primary redirects. If extremely popular/common/WCTM things like Shakespeare are not a 'primary redirect' it really becomes a challenge for things like Gladstone or Obama. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Striked out on 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay:Neither Einstein nor Albert Einstein is a disambiguation page and same for Shakespeare and William Shakespeare. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by mentioning them in this context. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well there we go, you're right! Not sure how I messed that research up on that one... So more stuff to muddy the situation... Then again, both of those examples appear to never have undergone a discussion about naming, in-fact the Shakespeare page didn't even exist until 2013 and was created as a redirect. Astonishingly it would appear there was no prior page there? With any regard, I'll rest, and just leave this topic alone until someone wants to close it... Tiggerjay (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure how you figure that the Shakespeare page didn't even exist until 2013. According to the page history it dates from the earliest prehistory of Wikipedia when an automated conversion script moved pages from old UseModWiki engine to a PHP wiki engine in 2002. older ≠ wiser 22:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed: nost:Shakespeare, created 8 May 2001. However, the misspelling Shakespare was created in January 2013. People with less common names have an advantage in this department. Olajuwon is a redirect to Hakeem, and no dab is needed – just a hatnote to his daughter. Though he is well known in Houston and to basketball fans, I suppose many people have not heard of him. Yet his last name is a primary topic. On the other side of the coin, if Hitler was named Adolph or Adolf Jones, he would not be primary topic for his last name. Of course, most fall somewhere inside this bell curve between uncommon and very common names, and Gladstone falls pretty close to the center. Thus the more lengthy debate over which side the name falls on. wbm1058 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, I was probably erratly looking at the misspelling Shakespare, hence my astonished remark. Agreed that Shakespeare has been in place since the beginning of time, at least on wikipedia. :) TiggerJay (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion reopened post-move

This discussion was closed and the page was moved. However at this edit the non-administrative closer agreed to revert the move and closure based on my request on their talk page. Tiggerjay (talk)

• Support per nomination. I did a google search (from USA) & got 32,900,000 results, of which the Wikipedia article was #1. Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brownhairedgirl and others. There's a lot of Gladstones around of different sorts and the present page serves a useful purpose.--Smerus (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  The page isn't disappearing. It will still be one click away. But the point of primary topic is to take the majority of the readers to their required destination. And it is highly likely, based on page view evidence and Google search and book results, that the vast majority of people typing "Gladstone" in the search box are likely to want the PM.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move/redirect to William Ewart Gladstone; (keep primary topic of "Gladstone" as disambiguation). I was surprised by the outstanding pageviews results in favour of the ex-PM, but that is pageviews for William Ewart Gladstone, not search results of people who searched for "Gladstone" and wanted to find that article. The discussion is mixing two questions: 1) Is William Gladstone commonly known as simply "Gladstone" and 2) is it the dominant use of the name "Gladstone". Pageviews only proves that Bill's page is more commonly read than the ones about things called Gladstone, not that he is called that more often than the towns and railway stations are. His article does not say that he is/was usually known simply as "Gladstone". It is far easier to notice, find and fix erroneous links that are meant to link to one of the things that would naturally be called "Gladstone" (including the towns) if the tools know the link is to a disambig page than to a valid link target. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support move. Single names need certain criteria to be redirects, but Gladstone clearly fits those criteria.  ONR  (talk)  23:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose move/redirect I am not convinced that the use of the term "Gladstone" has for the majority part referred to the British PM. In fact, quite a lot of the recent references seem to point something else. I prefer the status quo here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Gladstone is a towering name in British history and, as in the case of Disraeli and Disraeli (disambiguation) or Churchill and Churchill (disambiguation), virtually all the references upon Gladstone (disambiguation) stem from the prime minister. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose move/redirect to William Ewart Gladstone; (keep primary topic of "Gladstone" as disambiguation). Bertdrunk (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - lots of opposes here, but barely a single explanation as to which, if any, of the other Gladstones are anywhere near as notable as the ex-PM. Or indeed evidence that taken together they add up to something notable. Page views provides compelling evidence that the PM *is* the primary topic, so we need to see some kind of counter-evidence for that assertion. !Votes should be backed up by facts and evidence, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT or speculative comments. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Page views counts show that the page William Ewart Gladstone is viewed more often than other Gladstone pages. That is probably evidence that he is the most prominent Gladstone (surname), but it is not really evidence that he is the primary use of the bare term Gladstone. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topics such as The Glad, which I wrote, are obviously secondary to the man himself. Andrew D. (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, seems a very strong case for primary topic redirect. The number of things also known as "Gladstone" is irrelevant given the towering stature of the PM in British history. older ≠ wiser 11:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Let's take a moment and see how the supporting rationales hold up when we're talking about someone different? I see the primary support comes down to: (1) historical significance and (2) most popular Gladstone. It seems like by virtue of the reason's presented in support, then Bill Gates is the intended target of Gates with perhaps a hatnote to Gate (which incidentally receives 100x less pageviews). The nom claims, widely referred to as just "Gladstone", but I haven't seen anyone present reliable data to support this claim. And statements that it is 'what comes to mind' is simply neutral, not a reason for affirmative support. As with Bill Gates, I believe the decisive factor to prevent a runaway of historically noteworthy, extremely popular individuals automatically becoming WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTS, would be the requirement that there is at least reliable sources which can verify the utilization of the mononym in some sort of commonplace usage. Without it, there is the risk of setting preceedent, of "setting the bar too low" for other articles to be redirected as well. TiggerJay (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Without identifying context, I doubt most people would associate the name "Gates" with Bill. OTOH, I suspect many persons with a moderate educational level would easily recognize Gladstone as the PM (and many might not even know his given name). older ≠ wiser 20:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
    • At least in part hampered by the ubiquity of the name - perhaps JFK for Kennedy would be better fitting, never commonly referred to, but certaintly the most historically significant and by far most prominent by page views of anything DABed at Kennedy. But still, last time I checked, it's not about what comes to mind. TiggerJay (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
      • There is Bobby Kennedy (as well as Teddy and several others that combined make it difficult to claim any one as primary). And if "what comes to mind" doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so be it, what is the evidence? older ≠ wiser 22:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

      (edit conflict) Gates and Kennedy are very poor comparisons. Unlike Kennedy, Gladstone really isn't that ubiquitous a name, and it has no dictionary meaning, hence why the association between the name and the person is so strong. And although "it's not what comes to mind" in some cases, hence the caveat lector you mention, if you actually review most of our primary topic aricles, the majority of them will be what comes to mind first. So that guideline is certainly not a prohibition on making the most mindful subjects be primary. I hope you will now support this move request, Tiggerjay. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

      • Let me define my 'hold out' position based purely on my reading of the policies and guidelines, and not to be taken too much as WP:WIKILAWYERING, but at the same time, it feels that we're a bit too loose on something that appears contentious. While I'm the most vocal here, there is clearly several many other opposers to the move (43% by pure count) - indicating to me that there is definitely a lack of clarity on the subject for these types of redirects. And I don't believe 43% can simply be chocked up to a bunch of people not 'knowing better'. But rather because there is a lack of clarity on this issues. However, if we were ready to revise the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT guideline something to the effect that non-monomyous, non-ubiquitous names which have significant page-views would be a qualifying factor, then I would support the move based on that change to the guidelines. Instead of just deciding one, let's formally establish precedent here. TiggerJay (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2016 (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.

Merge suggestion

William Ewart Gladstone was a former person of note as a former UK prime minister, but given that it is also the surname of other significant people and the name of several towns and cities, suggest Gladstone be redirected to Gladstone (disambiguation). Hakingleads (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you really want to re-hash the extensive discussions that determined that William Ewart Gladstone is the primary topic? Hard to imagine that his relative notability has changed in the last four years, or will change significantly in the next four barring Gladstone Pereira della Valentina winning the Nobel Peace Prize. On a procedural note, this would not be a merge, not even a retarget since the disambiguation page would correctly have to be moved here. Lithopsian (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that prior to a recent concerted campaign by the OP, there were a considerable number of wikilinks to Gladstone. I'm not convinced that removing them is an improvement. Lithopsian (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Lithopsian - no need to rehash.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Lithopsian and Onel5969. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)