Jump to content

Talk:Engelbert Humperdinck (composer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why does searching for "Engelbert Humperdinck" return this page first, rather than the singer?

[edit]

Why does searching for "Engelbert Humperdinck" return this page first, rather than the singer? The singer is more widely known and has a larger article. K-UNIT 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a troll. This is the actual Engelbert Humperdick. Arnold Dorsey just uses his name as a stage name. And besides, the composer is far more widely known. -- js

I don't think K-UNIT is being a troll. IMHO, I would have thought more people would be looking for the the pop singer when searching for Engelbert Humperdinck. Certainly, Google turns up more hits for the singer than the composer, it even lists Wikipedia's singer page first! On the other hand, I'm not really sure what policy is on matters such as these, although I doubt mere precedence is enough to warrant the main page. -postglock 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one of those amazing but true facts. Bucketsofg✐ 05:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Which part is amazing but true? Wikipedia policy, or the fact that the pop artist is . . . well . . . more popular? -postglock 06:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I adopted the stage name Paul McCartney and became quite well-known in some circles, the Wikipedia article Paul McCartney should point to me rather than the British musician, whose name it actually is? Or how about Tony Blair or George W. Bush or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? Stealing the identity of another person is a criminal offense in many countries. Wikipedia should not support crime. Engelbert Humperdinck is Engelbert Humperdinck, the only and true Engelbert Humperdinck. Arnold Dorsey is Arnold Dorsey, a person who uses the name of the composer as a stage name, without actually being the real Engelbert Humperdinck. --js

Well, I don't think the pop musician was intending identity theft, to make off with all his belongings unbeknownst to the general public . . . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and what I was suggesting was that if the popular musician was more likely to be the subjects of searches, and if it was in line with Wikipedia policy (which I suspect it is), then the other-way redirect should be considered. Also, few people look up Arnold Dorsey when wanting information about Engelbert the pop musician. -postglock 14:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to the opera and seen Engelbert Humperdinck's famous opera Hänsel und Gretel more than one time. I never knew there was a pop singer who called himself Engelbert Humperdinck as well. Engelbert Humperdinck is a famous opera composer and that's it! Tannaqui (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

Would prefer to suggest a merge here (and on Engelbert Humperdinck (composer)'s talk page) rather than on their article pages for now, as the latter is unsightly :). But a merge in one or the other direction is necessary. Schissel | Sound the Note! 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Information

[edit]

It says in the article that the composer suffered from deafness at the time when he was already dead. Can someone with knowledge please change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.147.217 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed questionable "Princess Bride" content

[edit]

I have removed the following from the article as it is of questionable relevance to this article and the citations seem rather suspicious:

He would later be credited as the inspiration for the character of Prince Humperdinck in William Goldman's 1973 novel, The Princess Bride,[1] though some scholars argue that the fictitious prince was based on the singer of the same name, a contemporary of Goldman's.[2]

I've checked in Ulrich's and Periodical Title Abbreviations: By Abbreviation and cannot find any such journal as J. Rid. Theory. There are also no last names of the authors given for the citation. Thalia is a real publication, but I have been unable to turn up any reference to this article or its author. I don't know if the citations are just sloppy or if this is some kind of prank, but even if someone could verify/correct the citations this information doesn't belong here. It would be better suited for the article on the fictional Prince Humperdink. CKarnstein (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ J. L. and A. V., A tale of two Humperdincks, J. Rid. Theory, 23(1):13–14, 2007
  2. ^ Gulverdashvili, M.N. (2007). Misrepresenting the author's intent: The impact of chronological context on negative archetypes in ruritanian romance. Thalia: studies in literary humor, 19(3): 67–82.

chamber music

[edit]

Also apparently at least three string quartets (only no. 3 from ca. 1905?, seems to have reached CD?) and some other chamber works. Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2011)

[edit]

I think it's a shame that this discussion was closed. However, a number of interesting points were raised, so I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation of two topics to gain clarification on these. Bazonka (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

name ambiguity

[edit]

(Originally posted on 25 July 2012 at WT:D, copying it here now where it's relevant.)

That move discussion alone doesn't seem to indicate who is the primary topic. Someone should go through the entire list of Special:WhatLinksHere/Engelbert Humperdinck and see if there are mismatches - articles linking to the singer while we have composer as the primary topic. If that number is significant (e.g. more than 20%), then the assumption that the composer is the primary topic is gone. The amount of links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) also needs to be assessed. If the numbers are comparable, then that also pretty much does away with the assumption. I sympathise with the argument that the singer named himself after the composer, but the problem of the ambiguous title has arisen in the real world already - if we're going to pretend it's not there, that's only going to be confusing a lot of users arriving at the ambiguous title. I also saw the argument of how we're going to be spending the time of users arriving at a disambiguation page - but these users aren't confused, they are directed to the information they want in a straightforward manner, and they're also quickly informed about the ambiguity. It's an acceptable waste of user time - the purpose of the encyclopedia is to spread knowledge, not to optimize Internet searches or whatever. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last time this was discussed there was disagreement over which Humperdinck should be primary, which kind of indicates that there is no primary topic. This page really should be a simple disambiguation page with all incoming links fixed to point to the correct Hump (per WP:DPL - I'll happily work through this). We will need consensus before moving the page and unfortunately last time this was not reached, IMO largely due to people not understanding how disambiguation works (the argument that the composer came first was frequently raised, but this should not be a factor). Worth re-proposing the move though. Bazonka (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (revisited)

[edit]
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: The criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are usage and long-term significance. With respect to usage, it is clear that there is no primary topic here (or if there is, that it is the singer, who garners roughly four times the page views and is slightly more prominent in Google Books, 5180 to 4280). With respect to long-term significance, it is apparent that both topics are significant and that recentism is not the only reason to be drawn to the singer's article. The fact that the singer's name is drawn from the composer's in not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to posit that the composer is a primary topic under the guideline or the article titling policy. While the composer may have more long-term significance, there is disagreement on this. Even granting the point to the composer, it is not clear that this is sufficient to establish the composer as the primary topic for the title in this case. The results of the survey here are themselves good evidence that there is not clear support for the idea that the composer is the primary topic for the base title. Under WP:DAB, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria... there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term." Thus, per the discussion below, the result of the request is to move the page to Engelbert Humperdinck (composer) and to create a disambiguation page at the base title. Please help redirect the ambiguous links created by the move to the correct page. Dekimasuよ! 04:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engelbert Humperdinck → Engelbert Humperdinck (composer) – (NB This has been discussed before and closed inconclusively. I think enough time has now passed for the subject to be revisited.) As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this page should be a disambiguation page, with links to both Engelbert Humperdinck (composer) (containing the current content of this article), and Engelbert Humperdinck (singer). The previous discussion resulted in a lot of discussion as to whether the composer, or the singer, or neither, is the Primary Topic, with advocates on all sides. An oft-used argument that "the composer had the name first" is not a valid reason for primacy - it should be about usage and long-term significance. Here, I think that both the composer and singer are roughly equal in both of those criteria. (A quick and dirty Google search for "Engelbert Humperdinck composer" gives 262k hits, and "Engelbert Humperdinck singer" gives 276k hits.) To me, all of the above indicates that neither is Primary, and so per WP:TWODABS a disambiguation page is required. Bazonka (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor to consider is the potential number of incorrect links pointing to the composer's article, intended for the singer's article. I haven't checked how many there are, but there could be quite a lot - I fixed loads when I looked at it a few years back and I'm sure more will have crept in since then. The WP:DPL processes will ensure that these are fixed if they incorrectly point to a disambiguation page, but they won't be so easily picked up if they point to the wrong article. Bazonka (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very fact that an intensive discussion took place with advocates on all sides is an indication there is no primary topic here. If you have to think hard which subject is "more primary", it means that it probably is neither. And if you have to have "a lot of discussion" about it, then it is surely neither. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 5, 2014; 20:02 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Google Books, not vanilla Google. The composer is massively more notable in hardback books over the 1970s singer who took the composer's name. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fact check @In ictu oculi: how did you determine that the composer is massively more notable? I look at Google books and the results do not show any clear bias for one or the other. older ≠ wiser 12:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For me, a Google Books search for "Engelbert Humperdinck singer" returns 56 results, and "Engelbert Humperdinck composer" returns 232 results. Yes, the composer has more, but it's not "massively more notable". More tellingly, Wikipedia article traffic statistics (for November) shows 5994 views of "Engelbert Humperdinck" (the composer) and 21821 views of the "Engelbert Humperdinck (singer)" article - and some of the hits for the composer may have been people looking for the singer. I still assert that both are of equal importance and notability though. Bazonka (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the very same reason given the last time around. If there is a primary topic, it is the singer. And it is worth noting that WP:TWODABS only explicitly applies if there is a primary topic, although it is sometimes (mis)read to apply in all cases where there are exactly two ambiguous terms. The fact that the composer is a significant figure in his own right (in addition to being the source of the singer's name) argues in favor of disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 01:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support clearly there is no primary topic, per Google Results -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflicted support clearly there are arguments both ways but I think that the proposal will make the article more accessible. Agree that there is no primary. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of pop-culture. Telling readers that "Engelbert Humperdinck" is the name of a notable composer is what an encyclopedia should do. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure how a singer from the 70s can be described as "pop-culture". The nub of this discussion is whether the composer, the singer, or neither, is the Primary Topic, and arguments should be based on the policy at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not on personal preferences or interests. Bazonka (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per User:In ictu oculi. The current situation (with a hatnote) is appropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Michael Bednarek: Do you still oppose even if the statement upon which is is based has no foundation? older ≠ wiser 12:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Michael Bednarek: I notice that you have fixed lots of links that incorrectly pointed to the basename composer's article to now point to the singer's article. Thank you. However, this is indicative of the problem that I'm trying to resolve - some people obviously assume that the Engelbert Humperdinck article is for the singer. If this basename article is changed to a disambiguation page, then future errors like this will be: a) not wholly correct, but not wrong; and b) picked up and fixed by WP:DPL. Without the change, these links will just be wrong, and less likely to be fixed. Bazonka (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the search results for books supports In ictu oculi's and my stance on this page move. More importantly, before the requested move is implemented, occurrences of Engelbert Humperdinck anywhere in Wikipedia must be changed to Engelbert Humperdinck (composer), so we will be no better off than we are now regarding the avoidance of links to the wrong subject. And this doesn't even address links from outside Wikipedia. In short: we have the necessary REDIRECTs and hatnotes to point readers to the intended article with one click. The requested move provides no advantages at considerable cost. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to @Michael Bednarek's statement that "The requested move provides no advantages at considerable cost", here are a list of advantages:
  1. The proposal is a proper implementation of the WP:TWODABS policy, assuming neither the composer nor the singer are primary (and there is no evidence to support that this is the case; the Google Books statistics show a slight preference for the composer whereas the article traffic statistics show a stronger preference for the singer).
  2. All wikilinks pointing to the basename Engelbert Humperdinck article will be fixed (per WP:DPL processes) to correctly point to either Engelbert Humperdinck (composer) or to Engelbert Humperdinck (singer), and any new erroneous links introduced after the move will be more easily identifiable (because nothing should point to the basename). Under the status quo, links intended for the singer that actually point to the composer's article are not readily identifiable and are likely to remain as errors.
  3. People who search for Engelbert Humperdinck expecting to get the singer will be taken to a simple disambiguation page signposting them to the right place. Only one more click will be needed. The status quo of a hatnote on the composer's article is essentially the same, but less obvious and potentially more confusing to readers (see Stacey's comment below).
  4. Also, the people who intend to get the singer's article, but find themselves on the composer's article will have to download the full unwanted article including pictures. Not a problem for many users, but some people have limited download capacity (e.g. those on mobile phones) or slow bandwidth (consider users in the developing world). A move to a disambiguation page will significantly reduce unnecessary downloading.
The disadvantages are:
  1. People who land on the Engelbert Humperdinck disambiguation page expecting to get the composer will have to make an extra click from a simple signpost page.
Unless I'm missing something, I really struggle to see the validity of the "no advantages at considerable cost" statement. Bazonka (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines and the usage & reference information provided above. There is no criterion for being or not being pop-culture. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - just because I'm more interested in the composer than the singer doesn't mean that the composer is more "encyclopedic" than the singer. As JHunterJ says, "There is no criterion for being or not being pop-culture." Based on frequency of mentions, there appears to be no primary topic, and the fact that doing this would lead to fewer misdirected links is also a good argument in favour, imo. --Stfg (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
Comment in response to @Gerda Arendt. I'll answer your three points below:
  1. The proposal is not needless because it will help people to find the correct article more efficently (many people are, of course, looking for the singer not the composer). Leaving no redirect is not a problem: per WP:DPL all incoming links (from other Wikipedia articles) will be fixed, so no redirection would be required. You say that external websites may point to the composer's article. There may be some of these, but any change would not significantly disadvantage them (only one additional click needed) and there would be benefits to external articles that point to Engelbert Humperdinck that are actually intended for the singer's article. In any case, external incoming links are outside our control and cannot really be taken into account otherwise nothing would ever change.
  2. The who-had-it-first reasoning is really not a valid argument in disambiguation discussions. Here, WP:PRIMARYNAME is the only thing that matters, and that focuses on contemporary use, not on the history of names.
  3. Regarding the use of hatnotes, these are less efficient and effective than disambiguation pages for a number of reasons. See my comments above directed to Michael Bednarek regarding article size, user psychology, etc. Bazonka (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read what I wrote and meant, sorry for shouting: incoming links from OUTSIDE Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had read what you said. My point 1 addresses both internal and external incoming links. Bazonka (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look: If I run a website and inform readers by a link to Engelbert Humperdinck, and they suddenly land on a disamb page, they must think I'm not doing my job right. - Next argument: With a bit of reading the article histories you will know that we had Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (chorale), while the page with no disamb was the cantata. Nonsense, and fixed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you run the website then it's within your power to change it. In any case, a risk of introducing a minor inconvenience on a non-Wikipedia website is not a reason to disregard Wikipedia's policies. Bazonka (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be in my power, but how would I notice that Wikipedia changed an established article without a redirect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't know, but if that's something that we take into account then we may as well abolish the whole of WP:RM and leave everything as it is for ever. Anyway, a disambiguation page is a redirect, albeit a soft one that requires an additional click. It wouldn't really cause a problem for anyone who finds themself landing on it. Bazonka (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Neither appear to be the primary topic as they are both popular articles. I don't think hatnotes always have the desired effect as many readers of the encyclopaedia are just searching for quick info; they will look elsewhere when they find that Wiki has taken them to a different person than they were expecting (I've done this myself before becoming an editor). A disambiguation page seems to resolve the issue and ensure people are able to get to the desired page quickly. ツStacey (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support: A simple google search (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Engelbert+Humperdinck&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 ) clearly brings up far more hits referring to the pop singer. There is sufficient ambiguity per WP:PRIMARY to justify the dab. The composer may have inspired the singer, but in terms of likely searches, if Google is any indication, more people are apt to be seeking the singer. Normally I'd hesitate to support a derivative use, and normally I discourage recentism, but here the pop singer is so very well known. See, e.g. Tom Jones Montanabw(talk) 20:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd rather listen to music by the composer than the singer, any day; but the latter is clearly the primary topic based on Google search results, Google Books search results and Google News results 9and yes, other composers still score highly in Google News searches for their names). If anything, "Engelbert Humperdinck" should be the page name for the singer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The WP:DPL "process", invoked here several times, relies completely on manual work. There is currently nothing on their WP:DPL#To do list that comes close to the number of links involved here. IMO, the only practical way to implement the proposal is to replace all links to Engelbert Humperdinck anywhere in Wikipedia to Engelbert Humperdinck (composer) before the move, which doesn't seem a great improvement to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:DPL is manual but it's also (probably due to the competition element) very efficient. From time to time disambiguation pages with vast numbers of incoming links will appear on its list, but these tend to be fixed first. After the move, there will be a lag before incoming links are fixed. We could anticipate this, as you say, by changing them now, but for technical reasons this may actually be more difficult (tools like Dabsolver only work when there's an actual disambiguation page). In the meantime, the worst that will happen is people will be asked whether they are looking for the composer or the singer - one click needed, no great hardship. Bazonka (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently only one click is needed, and that only some of the time, so no improvement either. Srnec (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In Ictu Oculi has presented good evidence that the stage name is not the primary meaning in the sources we value most highly. Srnec (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Srnec:, no one is seriously suggesting that the singer should become the primary topic and In ictu oculi has not presented very convincing evidence that the composer is the primary topic. In fact, In ictu oculi hasn't presented any evidence whatsoever -- only an unsupported claim. older ≠ wiser 01:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking of Bazonka's Google Books hits. In any case, we should not have a two-item dab page in this instance. If the guidelines says otherwise, we should ignore it. How hard can primary meaning be to ascertain in a case of only two meanings? The composer is prima facie the primary topic because he came first and it's his real name. This Ngram shows that the existence of the singer has not increased the number of references to a Humperdinck beyond the levels reached by the operatist in his heyday. At Google Scholar the composer predominates. Srnec (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The composer is not prima facie the primary topic, because the reasons you list are not relevant to the primary topic criteria. If we were editing Wikipedia in the operatist's heyday, then the operatist would be primary. Since we are not, the evidence for our day instead indicates no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Srnec: So you were thinking of the Google Books hits that I quoted, but what about the normal Google hits and page view statistics that I also quoted? Did you conveniently forget those? WP:IAR should only apply where there is a very strong case to disregard other Wikipedia policies, and I haven't seen any evidence that that argument applies here. Also, if we are to say that the composer is primary because he had the name first, should we make Barack Obama, Sr. or Boston, Lincolnshire primary as well? Bazonka (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since nobody is even arguing that the singer is the primary topic, comparing this case to that of the Bostons or Baracks is silly.
          • The singer's stage name is derivative of the operatist's real name. That's why the presumption should be in favour of the operatist (and the longstanding status quo). Nothing as yet shown changes anything. I also suspect that the opera Hänsel und Gretel is more notable and famous than any of the singer's songs/covers. And the composer is certainly more notable in many languages than the singer. The presumption is in his favour (and the status quo) and the evidence brought to bear to contest his primacy is weak. Srnec (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I respectfully disagree with you about the fame of Hänsel und Gretel versus (for example) Please Release Me. Especially in the UK, the singer's songs are considerably more well known. Notability in other languages is irrelevant; this is English Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Under WP:TWODABS, one of the two articles should be primary with a hatnote to the other. The trend in computing over the last twenty years has been to try to anticipate what the user wants. Making him work through a decision tree is not a step forward. This proposal would make the title of the composer's article look uglier with no discernible upside. The singer got 70,000 views in the last 90 days, the composer 17,000. So I can certainly see a case for making the singer primary. Confabulationist (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Confabulationist: TWODABS specifically states "where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name". In this discussion, some people claim that the composer is primary and others claim that the singer is primary; having arguments on both sides is a very good indication that actually neither is primary.
Once all links to the Engelbert Humperdinck basename article have been fixed to point to either the singer's or the composer's article (which will take place not long after the move, either per WP:DPL or if not, I'll do it myself), then the only people who'll see the disambiguation page are those who type "Engelbert Humperdinck" into the search box, and of course we have no idea which Engelbert they're looking for. This is exactly what disambiguation pages are for, reduces unnecessary downloading, and at the very worst requires just one more click. Nobody will arrive at the dab page via a wikilink. Bazonka (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as for "no discernable upside", see my reply to Michael Bednarek above. Bazonka (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the way Wikipedia works. The primary topic is currently the composer. If you want to change that, you have to give a reason and convince people. I do not have to have an opinion about which topic should be primary to oppose what you are doing. If you don't expect don't anyone to actually use the DAB, that's yet another argument against this parenthetical. Confabulationist (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
  • Confabulationist, I think you might misunderstand TWODABS. Basically, it's saying that if there are only 2 topics and one is primary, there is no need for a disambiguation page as well as a hat note. If there is no primary topic, then a disambiguation page can be used. There may have been consensus that the composer was the primary topic in the past, but that can change. Reading the arguments above and below, I believe it has. WormTT(talk) 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. One or the other should be at the base name. With only two uses it's silly to have a dab page here. That said, the singer gets more views so ideally the singer should be at the base name, not the composer. However, the composer at the base name is still better than a stupid dab page with just two entries! --В²C ☎ 01:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stupid? Why stupid? As I said above, all incoming links will be fixed so the only people who'll see it are those people whose intention is unknown. This is exactly what disambiguation pages are for. Bazonka (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said above, that is only true for links within Wikipedia. This established composer will be linked to from websites announcing his works. Let's try to not look too ridiculous, arriving at a dab with two entries instead of the person. We have already critics enough for sheer cluelessness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, then let's abolish page moves. Sigh... WP:LINKROT happens and we cope with it. This is the other way round but it's essentially the same thing. Both Wikipedia and other websites need to keep adapting. The Internet is not static and nor should it be. We cannot be beholden to the fallibilities of non-Wikipedia websites. Bazonka (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing admin, please note that Born2cycle's rationale is not the consensus view for two-entry dabs in general. Where there is no primary topic, a two-entry dab is perfectly acceptable. WP:TWODABS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure that TWODABS currently accurately represents the consensus view and at any rate we have consensus that consensus can change. Furthermore, regardless of consensus, the fact that two articles each with a hatnote link to the other, and one of which is at the base name, serves users better than a two link dab page at the base name, in terms of average number of clicks required to get to the desired article by anyone entering the base name in the search box and clicking GO, is indisputable. --В²C ☎ 17:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I agree with Born2cycle that (a) the current guideline does not accurately represent consensus and that (b) the proposed move will not make anybody's life easier. Srnec (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal google searches on the matter have turned up very similar statistics for each person, slightly more for the singer. The problem with the searches suggested by others is that it looks for an exact phrase, and it's a lot more likely that "Englebert Humperdinck composer" will come up as a single phrase (ie. Englebert Humperdink, composer of Hansel and Gretel). The phrase "Englebert Humperdinck singer" is not likely to be written. If you reorganise the searches to singer vs composer the numbers are very similar, almost identical. Doing the same search on vanilla google returned 3x the results for the singer. Page view stats are very telling - over the last 90 days, the singer has had 70k views, whilst the composer has had 17.5k including those people who are going to the wrong place. I'd say that there's a good case that the primary topic is the singer - and if that's not acceptable, at the very minimum it should go to the disambiguation page. That only leaves the argument that the composer came first, well, they did but that doesn't make it a primary topic - a primary topic is the one that the most readers would be looking for. The composer may be more "high brow", but again we don't dictate what people should be looking for, but rather helping people find what they are looking for. I absolutely Support moving to disambiguation and would further support moving the article to the singer's page. WormTT(talk) 19:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per WP:TWODABS. There are two very famous musicians who both go by the name of "Engelbert Humperdinck". Neither are the outright WP:PRIMARYTOPIC therefore a Disambiguation page is required at "Engelbert Humperdinck" so that our readers/ audiences can find the correct article they're looking for. IJA (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, very much because the singer's names is derivative of the composers. Also because the composer is better well known. Even in historic cases, we shouldn't reward pretentious or commercially motivated use of existing names. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2014 (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.

Move Review?

[edit]

Dekimasu, sorry to say this I've never started a Move Review and barely participated in any (other than say uphold I think) but sorry in this case I would support one, there's clearly no consensus for a move above (as you agree?), and the reasoning above "I think that both the composer and singer are roughly equal in both of those criteria." sounds like a supervote. I would urge you to reverse the close and relist it. (and strike comments by socks of community banned users).

Also "(A quick and dirty Google search for "Engelbert Humperdinck composer" gives 262k hits, and "Engelbert Humperdinck singer" gives 276k hits.)" doesn't seem to be a good yardstick. The composer will generally appear without any need to state the obvious, the singer is less the case because he is named after the composer. In any case as to "are usage and long-term significance" - I really don't think the "long-term significance" of the 1970s singer has been demonstrated in the above. Many of the Engelbert Humperdinck: 216 links now pointing to a TWODAB are template generated, but all the same, off-Wikipedia links will certainly be disrupted by the move of the composer of Hänsel und Gretel to accomodate a singer of cover versions of other songwriters' song. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's not as bad as you describe, but bad enough. The links (I stopped counting at 200) don't go to the singer, but to a disambiguation page. - If a move seems necessary at all (which I doubt), there was the option to create Engelbert Humperdinck (disambiguation) and leave the name as a redirect. For the move as performed now, all links should have been fixed before moving. I suggest to revert the move as leading to unwanted results, and then take one of the three options: don't move - move to disambiguation - move AFTER fixing links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a day or two. All links will be fixed. You could of course always start another RM to move it back. Bazonka (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The links offsite won't be fixed. But I think more here is issue that the 8-10 was considered consensus. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote - consensus is based upon the strength of the arguments. WormTT(talk) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I - as a closer - would have accepted the last argument by SmokeyJoe as sufficient reason not to move. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the last argument by SmokeyJoe has no foundation in the guidelines. Being named after something or taking a name of something is irrelevant to Wikipedia primary topic-ness. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "irrelevant" part is overstatement and incorrect. Wikipedia is a scholarly work, and in scholarship, derivative use is important. There are examples where derivative naming has been influential in RM discussion, the guidelines are not everything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The examples where derivative naming has been used to move an article to the base name when that article is not the one most sought by the readership (usage) or the one that would not surprise readers by being at the base name (historical significance) are examples of RMs that didn't improve Wikipedia. The guidelines that reflect the broader consensus are just that, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes shouldn't be held up at examples to be followed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we disagree about title choices preferring the topic most likely to be sought versus a logical structure respecting historical precedence. And whether a result personally disagreed with must be a mere WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I consider that a very dubious line of argument. However, I feel a need to note somewhere that the second sentence of my !vote appears to be in error. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be of no consequence to you, but I believe in decency and respect more than in Wikipedia guidelines. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects from plain titles to titles with (disambiguation) in them are deprecated (WP:MALPLACED), but at any rate, the links are now fixed. Dekimasuよ! 13:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Just a couple of things here: I was not the one who said "I think that both the composer and singer are roughly equal in both of those criteria." That was the editor who proposed the move (as was the reference to vanilla Google hits). Second, I do not think that the disruption of off-Wiki links is a valid criterion for whether or not to move a Wikipedia page; I have never heard the argument that off-Wiki uses of our text necessitate us to change our adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Two hundred on-Wiki links to a disambiguation page is not at all rare after a move. Third, I am not sure where you got 8-10 (I did not simply count), but I now count 11-7 if we strike the possible sock (who actually opposed the move), and I did not strike the one I think you are referring to, as the SPI has not yet been endorsed and the editor is not currently blocked. In general, the arguments of the supporters appeared to be more grounded in Wikipedia guidelines than the arguments of the opposers, although this was not always the case and I of course respect the opinions of those who opposed. Overall, the discussion clearly shows that consensus is not in favor of retaining the composer is the primary topic. Finally, as always I do not mind being taken to move review. In this case I do not think relisting would help the discussion progress further, but other editors are always free to disagree and I invite you to take whatever measures you think are appropriate; I would not hold it against you and I hope that the feeling is mutual. Dekimasuよ! 12:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(EC, again) :Extended rationale: In ictu oculi opposed "per Google Books, not vanilla Google. The composer is massively more notable in hardback books over the 1970s singer who took the composer's name." This is a valid oppose rationale. However, it is not self-evident that the composer is "massively more notable in hardback books," and little further evidence was presented to show this. Johnuniq's oppose stated, "Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of pop-culture. Telling readers that 'Engelbert Humperdinck' is the name of a notable composer is what an encyclopedia should do." This opinion is not based on Wikipedia guidelines or policy, unless it is WP:NOT, but seems to underestimate the overall notability of the singer, who is not really "pop culture" in the 2010s. Confabulationist's oppose was refuted by two editors based on the standard reading of WP:TWODABS, and arguably could have been struck anyway, as you noted. Born2cycle's oppose was based on the opinion that current guidelines for WP:TWODABS do not reflect consensus, but this is not really a strong argument to fall back on in individual move discussions and is not clear from the preponderance of other references to the dab guideline here. SmokeyJoe stated that the singer's name was derivative (this was also part of Gerda Arendt's position); this is clearly the case, but not clearly relevant under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gerda Arendt also mentioned off-Wiki links; again, I do not think this is a standard oppose rationale as mentioned above. However, Gerda Arendt's reference to the stability of article titles is a valid oppose rationale, and I weighed it in the close. On the whole, the rationales of those who opposed the move were not generally based on unified concerns; on the other hand, the general and unified position of the supporters was that the composer does not sufficiently fulfill both criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to make him the primary topic of "Engelbert Humperdinck." Have I missed anything? Should I go through the supports individually as well? I am reminded once again that less is often more when closing discussions, but this one seemed to warrant a paragraph, so I wrote it; this may also be on the list of discussions that get taken to move review either way, as seemed probable in the recent case of Talk:Worcester. Dekimasuよ! 12:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With some help, I have changed as many of the links as I can, if anyone can have a look at the rest to see if they need moving I would appreciate it. I'm glad that job is done! ツStacey (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Dekimasuよ! 12:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you did it, Stacey, even if I believe the whole thing didn't need to be done. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the close was based on a guideline the current wording of which is contrary to actual consensus. The current setup makes it more difficult for more people to get to the right topic. It makes things easier for precisely nobody. There is no gain at all for readers. This is why TWODABS as worded incorrectly. In such cases there is almost always a primary topic. I would rather the singer be the primary topic than the current setup, but even the supporters of this move weren't that bold. Srnec (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bazonka listed the benefits. While some share your anti-disambiguation sentiments, many others would prefer a disambiguation page as the default position whenever there is any substantive question about whether there is a primary topic. Difficult to say what the actually consensus is regarding twodabs, but I think the many discussions here are pretty clear that there is no consensus that a primary topic exists. older ≠ wiser 15:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"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." If there are only two topics, then there is a primary topic unless they are equally to be sought when a reader searches for that term. What others like yourself would prefer is beside the point. Since when are pages move owing to a lack of consensus? Isn't that a reason to leave it as is? If there were consensus that no primary topic existed, then you would be correct. But you didn't go as far as to say that. There is no consensus about whether there is a primary topic or not. Thus the status quo should remain until consensus says there is no primary topic. Srnec (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and pageview statistics clearly establish that the singer is much more likely to be sought than the composer (17,687 for composer vs 70,359 for the singer over the last 90 days). So by your own criteria there is a primary topic, only not the composer (and for what it's worth, I'd be fine with the singer being the primary topic -- but I doubt that that would gain a consensus either). When the criteria conflict (historical significance vs popularity) the result is generally a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, Srnec, what others like yourself prefer is beside the point. The consensus for any number of ambiguous topics without a primary topic is for the disambiguation page to go to the base name. There was apparently some push to change that for just two topics (and a mis-application of WP:TWODABS to that effect), but it failed to get consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The composer cannot possibly be the primary topic simply because of the much higher view counts that the singer article is getting, so the result here is consistent with policy. That said, the result is pathetically stupid and an embarrassment to this project - a desolate dab page with two entries (three if you include the prince character) - because having either article at the base name would serve at least some of the users better, and none worse, than are served by the current situation. This foolish decision has made my leaving WP much more likely. --В²C ☎ 22:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish? I respectfully beg to differ. This move has made the two articles more accessible, chiefly by reducing unnecessary downloading (important for people with limited capacity, e.g. mobile phone and dial-up internet), and by ensuring that all erroneous (internal) incoming links are fixed and that future ones can be more easily identified. I do accept that external incoming links could be adversely affected (but at worst they won't go to the wrong article, but to a signpost page with only one click needed; indeed, some erroneous external links may have been improved). I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Moving a page#Breaking incoming links to address this point. Bazonka (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bazonka - that is a reasonable point, e.g. mobile phone and dial-up internet, and is something that under normal circumstances (not a major German composer vs someone with a stage name named after him) would lead to fully favouring the kind of move you have proposed here. As such the move in a technical sense does clearly benefit mobile phone and dial-up internet users and I thank you for that. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was moved due to the strengths of the arguments, not on how many 'oppose' or 'support' comments were cast. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, it is a meritocracy. The oppose arguments in general were rather weak and the majority weren't based on wikipedia guidlines and some that did mention guidlines used them incorrectly. The support arguments overall were a lot stronger and based on wikipedia policies. To be honest, it seems as if the majority of oppose comments were classical music fans who wanted the composer at the article title "Engelbert Humperdinck"; this isn't a rational to oppose the RM. It is clear that there is no Primary Topic therefore this article was appropriately moved and the article title "Engelbert Humperdinck" is now a disambiguation page as it should be. The argument that off site links are now broken is laughable, you could use that argument to oppose any RM. Off site links are not any of our concerns here at wikipedia. Any on wikipedia maintenance will be fixed if it isn't already. Overall this RM was appropriately closed. IJA (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TWODABS was written specifically to deal with this situation. You can evade this rule by arguing that this case represents a very specific sweet spot, a place where the arguments for both topics balance off in perfect equipoise. But I think it’s clear that the real issue is that the supporters of this move just don’t like the guideline. This move makes it harder for those seeking the composer’s article, and does nothing for those seeking the singer’s article. So what’s the upside? I gather that putting the DAB at the base name reflects a desire to avoid imposing a judgment. I consider this an abdication of our responsibility as editors, which is to guide the reader. Confabulationist (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner‎[reply]
@Confabulationist: WP:TWODABS is very clear on the matter: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term". I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "the supporters of this move just don't like the guideline" because this is exactly the guideline on which the whole RM discussion was predicated. It seems to me that actually the opposite applies — the opposers of the move don't like the guideline, or rather are refusing to acknowlegdge that it exists or applies in this case. Evidence here has shown that the composer (whether you like it or not) is not the primary topic, and there is no strong evidence to show that the singer is primary. This is not due to a "desire to avoid imposing a judgment", but is in fact a judgement that things are about equal.
Also, I have set out the advantages of this move at least twice before, and no-one has disputed them. But still we get the same old arguments from the opposers saying that there aren't any advantages. Either acknowledge that these advantages are valid or argue against them, but stop pretending that they don't exist. For clarity, here they are again so you have no excuse to pretend that you didn't see them:
  1. The move was a proper implementation of the WP:TWODABS policy, assuming neither the composer nor the singer are primary.
  2. All wikilinks pointing to the basename Engelbert Humperdinck article have now been fixed to correctly point to either Engelbert Humperdinck (composer) or to Engelbert Humperdinck (singer), and any new erroneous links that are introduced will be more easily identifiable (because nothing should point to the basename). Under the previous page structure, links intended for the singer that actually pointed to the composer's article were not readily identifiable and were likely to remain as errors.
  3. People who search for Engelbert Humperdinck expecting to get the singer are now taken to a simple disambiguation page signposting them to the right place. Only one more click will be needed. The previous situation of having a hatnote on the composer's article was essentially the same, but less obvious and potentially more confusing to readers (as User:Staceydolxx so eloquently explained).
  4. Previously, the people who intended to get the singer's article, but found themselves on the composer's article would have had to download the full unwanted article including pictures. Not a problem for many users, but some people have limited download capacity (e.g. those on mobile phones) or slow bandwidth (consider users in the developing world). The move to a disambiguation page has significantly reduced unnecessary downloading.
And for balance, here are the disadvantages following the move:
  1. People who land on the Engelbert Humperdinck disambiguation page expecting to get the composer (either by typing Engelbert Humperdinck into the search box, or via an external link) now have to make an extra click from a simple signpost page, which to be fair, is no great hardship. And note that now the internal links have been fixed, this situation isn't going to occur too often.
Bazonka (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have only two topics and apply the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, one or the other would normally come up primary. That is to say, if you follow the usage criteria, one topic is obviously "more likely" as a search destination than the other. If you follow the long term significance criteria, one topic is normally be more educational or whatever than the other. We can check the page view numbers in a week or two, but I can tell what's going to happen. The move won't affect views for the singer. However, there will be a modest decline in readership for the composer's article. I ask you, would a Web designer add an element to a page that drives away? Confabulationist (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner[reply]
Normally, yes you're right. But normally does not mean always, and in this case there is absolutely no convincing evidence to show that the composer is "obviously" primary, and no-one is arguing that the singer should be primary (although he may actually have a stronger case). I ask you, would a librarian, when asked to provide someone with information about an ambiguous topic, make a guess and potentially direct the requester to information on the wrong thing, or would they first ask for clarification? Bazonka (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the "modest decline in readership for the composer's article" will be because people who are looking for the singer's article will be less likely to look in the wrong place. How is that a bad thing? Bazonka (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

disambig hatnote

[edit]

It's not obvious the singer Humpderdinck is different than the composer, so it's appropriate to give folks looking for the singer a link to his article. NE Ent 17:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that the page named "Engelbert Humperdinck (composer)" is for the composer, not for the singer. Per WP:NAMB, a hatnote is unnecessary. I suggest you remove it -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NE Ent. Why? Well Engelbert Humperdinck (singer), while mostly known as a singer (mostly of other people's songs, but if that's common knowledge, it's news to me) is also a composer.allmusic Both being musicians can cause confusion-on the Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) page there is a disambig hatnote which probably gets some traffic. It would seem mutually useful to do the same for Engelbert Humperdinck (composer). Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous doesn't hold, in my opinion, in this case. I suggest my hatnote edit is reinstated. DadaNeem (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st sentence at Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) says: "… is an English pop singer." The infobox gives:: "Occupation(s) Singer". The article doesn't mention any composition except 1 (obscure) song. There are no composer-related categories or project banners on the talk page. I have no interest in that article and don't care what hatnotes its editors deem necessary. NE Ent. offered no argument to support the hatnote here, and this article has been without it since February 2015 after it was moved to its current name in December 2014, except for the period from October to December 2016 after NE Ent. added it. This tells me that there is no significant confusion or doubt in readers' minds about the subject. Maybe you could invite some interested editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music or similar to broaden this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After the disambiguation in 2015, there's clearly no need for a hatnote. Anybody looking for singer will know by the picture that he is at the wrong article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Engelbert_Humperdinck_(composer)&oldid=1207667799"