Talk:Jack Short (betrayer of William Wallace)

Requested move 1 November 2018

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 section.

Moved. First nomination will be moved to Jack Short (betrayer of William Wallace). See general agreement below to include a disambiguator, and this one was suggested more than once. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

---

• Jack Short → ?
• Jack Short (disambiguation) → Jack Short

– I'm pretty sure there is no primary topic. However I have no idea what disambiguator this article should have, hence the RM. I suspect the reason why this is still primary is because nobody else could think of one either. Xezbeth (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 09:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and, per description in lead sentence, would suggest Jack Short (betrayer of William Wallace), but would also support Jack Short (servant of William Wallace) as well as the one-word qualifiers Jack Short (betrayer) or Jack Short (servant).    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reason to believe this is not the WP:primary topic or that there's any problem with the current setup.[1] - Station1 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Are you serious? How does this article demonstrate primacy in any way? The page views are negligible. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  I would never joke about so momentous an issue! It's primary because the betrayer of William Wallace is of more long-term significance than a footballer and a cricketer, and because it gets 4-5 times more pageviews than all (two) other uses combined. Since the pageviews are low for all articles, and since there is admittedly no obvious good qualifier for this Jack Short, I don't see how a move could benefit anyone (which is the bottom line). A move might make this Jack Short slightly harder to find while doing nothing to make the others easier to find. If we want to make the other two easier to find, the best way would be to add them directly to the hatnote. Station1 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

All disambiguation pages contain entries which have more views than other entries. If page views were to be the determining factor, all dab pages would have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and, going a step further, the entries would be ranked in order of page views and periodically rearranged depending upon varying proportions of such views. Obviously, other factors must be taken into account. The three of us participated in another recent RM — Talk:Harold Abbott (rugby union)#Requested move 29 September 2018 — where a seven-sentence stub for a one-season player from 110 years ago was the primary topic. Here, the stub is only three sentences. As User:Kevin McE commented in that previous discussion, "[T]his is almost definitive in the implicit possibility that the answer is "No" when we have a guideline that asks Is there a primary topic."    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The state of the article has no bearing on the primacy of the topic. And I didn't say pageviews are the determining factor. I also pointed to long-term significance, the lack of a good qualifier, and the absence of any problem with the current setup. Station1 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If other Wikipedians concur that the subject of a three-sentence stub has sufficient notability to serve as a dab page primary topic, then we may consider that the state of the article has no bearing. As for long-term significance, over 700 years later, the name of Wallace's betrayer is still relegated to an obscure corner of history. Finally, the lack of a good qualifier is not a pathway to primacy, otherwise Sarah Jane Brown would be the primary topic Sarah Brown, thus obviating the need for that entire lengthy discussion, which leads us to an obvious comparison with the contention that all is fine here.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support, no primary topic. Also, pointless to send readers to a three sentence-stub. Flooded with them hundreds 08:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Jack Short (betrayer of William Wallace). Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.