Talk:Charles Fredericks

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Requested move 27 February 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: Move. We have clear consensus that this is the primary topic of the base name Charles Fredericks, and that a hat note will be preferable for distinguishing the photographer. The dab page will be deleted. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fredericks (actor) → Charles Fredericks – Sole subject of Wikipedia biographical entry who bears this specific name, thus obviating the need for the parenthetical qualifier "(actor)". Any confusion between Charles Fredericks and Charles D. Fredricks can be resolved with a hatnote. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the name of the article pagename is not an indication that that is the other name isn't also the same primary topic. For Example Just because the primary topic of Bill Clinton is the POTUS, and the common name of that POTUS is Bill Clinton doesn't mean that hte primary topic of William Jefferson Clinton isn't also the POTUS. ; Please show that the actor is the primary topic of "Charles Fredericks", because I don't see any such dominance in Google -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding seems to have arisen here. There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim. As previously stated, Charles Fredericks is the sole such entry in Wikipedia, therefore there is no need for a qualifier. The entire Charles Fredericks disambiguation page is based on a false premise, since the two names on that page are not the same. Even if one insisted on retaining that misguided dab page, the problem could be solved simply by moving its title to the Charles Fredricks redirect and displaying its two entries as Charles D. Fredricks and Charles Fredericks. It may be helpful to note that the 22:49, 18 September 2011‎ edit summary for Charles Fredericks states: "moved Charles Fredericks to Charles DeForest Fredricks over redirect: The current page has the subject's name spelled incorrectly. His name is not Charles Fredericks but rather, Charles DeForest Fredricks". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my statement, thanks for pointing that out -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is no evidence to suggest that this Charles Fredericks is primary topic over the other Charles Fredericks. As to the suggestion of the 2011 editor that the other Charles Fredericks is not named Charles Fredericks because he has a middle name, I am inclined to believe that that editor was mistaken. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the same misunderstanding as above is continuing. As already stated, there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim made for Charles Fredericks (actor), because he is, in fact, the sole Charles Fredericks listed in Wikipedia. In the same manner as actor Fredric March who was/is occasionally referenced as Frederic March or Frederick March, the photographer's surname has been occasionally misspelled as "Fredericks", with your cite being one of the examples of such a misspelling.

It should be emphasized, however, that "Charles Fredericks" or "Charles D. Fredericks" were not alternative names for the photographer Charles D. Fredricks, whose only other alternative names were his full name, Charles DeForest Fredricks and his business name, C. D. Fredricks. In all cases, the spelling of his surname remained "Fredricks", never "Fredericks".

Here is a photo (from Find a Grave) of the gravestone of the photographer Charles D. Fredricks, here is his listing at the Historic Camera History Librarium and here is a link to the "CHARLES D. FREDRICKS COLLECTION, 1860 - 1870 | MANUSCRIPTS". Not the same name as the actor — no disambiguating qualifier needed for the actor. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A disambiguation page for one article is not needed. A hatnote with links to similar spellings (Charles Frederick and Charles D. Fredricks) would be more useful and less confusing to the reader.--Trystan (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although Charles D. Fredricks might be confused with Charles Fredericks, and as noted above a hatnote is appropriate to relieve any such confusion, that possible confusion does not make the latter title "ambiguous." The title Charles Fredericks unambiguously refers to one and only one Wikipedia article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: no need for disambiguation. PamD 23:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support; hatnotes should suffice in this case. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.