Talk:Bolko von Richthofen/Archive 1

Brother of Red Baron

Don't think he was an aviator! (Although two of his brothers were).--Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why this page is here!

A disambiguation page may possibly not be the best or the only way to resolve this one - but we have a real ambiguity here that has caused confusion and is not otherwise resolvable.

The "brother of Manfred" Bolko is probably not notable enough to warrant an article in his own right (although there is no other reason why he shouldn't have one) - but he does score significant mention on his brother's page. There are significant reasons to distinguish him from his namesake and distant cousin. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if he was notable, this would still meet grounds for deletion under Template:db-disambig and the archaeologist shold still be at the primary page. Is the other BVR somoene people would even look up? From my reading of the article, I didn't even see a mention of what he did as a job, just that he was the brother of a notable person. Have tagged for cleanup to see what others think. Boleyn2 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The archeologist is (especially to English speaking readers) barely notable - his views are nowadays extremely unpopular in Germany as being far-right politically, not to mention racist, while outside Germany he is largely unknown. His prominence in 1930s and 40s archaeological circles was principally, of course, due to the fact that his views were at that time very fashionable indeed - as giving "scientific" support for Nazism. Nonetheless, on balance he deserves the informative and unbiased little article he has.

• The "little brother" is not notable in his own right (this is definitely NOT what's being disputed here!) but does occur prominently in his (very) notable brother's article, if mainly for sentimental reasons. In this context readers have been from time to time been interested in finding out more about him (incidentally, far MORE people than, one suspects, would ever be interested in the racially obsessed archaeologist!). That confusion has been caused has been shown by edits to the "Manfred" article. In the absence of a short article on this "Bolko" we do still need some sort of disambiguation. This page may not be the only, or even the best, means of providing this, but ... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I can see a compromise. As the archaeologist is the only one of the two deemed notable, then he should be at the primary page. I'll add a hatnote to the archaeologist's article linking to the brother's page, therfore if people are interested, they can still find it. What do yo think? Boleyn2 (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In a way the little brother is more "notable" than the archaeologist - in the sense that information about him is actually very much more likely to be sought by an English-speaking reader. The sense in which he is NOT notable is that apart from his being the little brother of Manfred (and Lothar) there is after all little to say about him - he seems to have simply lived a normal quiet life, like you and me in fact. Hence he really does not rate an article of his own. (Although if someone were to write one it would, presumably, resolve the dilemma!).

If we take out the disambiguation page, then the only way a reader can discover that the brother and the archaeologist are two different people is to go to the latter's article. This was in fact the situation before the disambiguation page went in, and it did cause a good deal of confusion. We have always had a note at the beginning of the archaeologist's article pointing out that he is NOT the "little brother" Bolko - in fact this was repeatedly (well, at least twice) deleted or changed by "helpful" editors, who somehow felt that the two Bolkos MUST be the same person. I can't see that a hatnote would add much to this, especially since, in the absence of an article about "little brother" Bolko there is nowhere for the hatnote to refer one to! Several articles on my watchlist have hatnotes that ought to forestall ignorant edits but DON'T. The problem that this disambiguation page resolves is a very specific and special one - the kind that is likely to look a little odd when all one is looking at is the strict application of a set of rules. I don't think that allowing this one rather unusual disambiguation page - created to resolve a rather unusual quandry, would release any anarchic floodgates, however. Note that the MOS page for disambiguation pages itself points out that commonsense exceptions to the rules will occur. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote would be to the brother's page, just as the link on here is. I think I'll request a move and see what others think. Boleyn2 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion started at Talk:Bolko von Richthofen (archaeologist), with another option on the table. Boleyn2 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)