Talk:Vossius

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vossius (disambiguation) → Vossius – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC) --Rago (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: originating editor Rago didn't give a rationale, so here's an analysis. It appears that Vossius has been a long-standing redirect to Gerardus Vossius (since June 2005, with various version of the target article title), with a hatnote there pointing to the moderately long-established (2010) dab page at Vossius (disambiguation). After Rago's recent edits, the redirect now goes to the dab page, and there's an inappropriate hatnote on Gerardus' page. The question is whether or not Gerardus Vossius is the "Primary topic" of the word "Vossius".

If he is the primary topic, then we need:

Vossius points to Gerardus, "Redirect" hatnote there points to dab page; dab page starts off with a "Vossius commonly refers to Gerardus Vossius, Dutch philosopher; Vossius may also refer to ...

If he is not the primary topic, which is implied by this move request, then we need:

Dab page at Vossius. No hatnotes needed anywhere else. Dab page starts "Vossius may refer to..." (As at present).

Hoping this clarifies. I have no views on which of the two scenarios we want, but we need one or the other. PamD 14:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and the redirect of Vossius to the Vossius restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I do not take part in the discussions, anyway this discussion sounds me strange. After opening just opening it by PamD - thanks for it! - which ask if Gerardus Vossius is the main topic, In ictu oculi says "no", without answering the question, and rollbacks my edits. Is my opinion needed? if so, I think that also Isaac Vossius is enough important because, as the article says, he "formed what was accounted the best private library in the world ". Rago (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until/unless someone presents a case for it, at which time we can reconsider. Rago, if you want to do this, look at WP:RM for some examples of how people make a case for such things, and present your evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should present an evidence and someone (who?) maybe would be reconsider it? is this a tribunal? ;-) no, thanks, Your Honor! I'm not interested in such complicated bureacry process just to move a disambiguation. Have a good wikipedia!Rago (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is no evidence that there IS a primary topic. Looking at both page views and Google, I see nothing to indicate a clear primary topic. The burden of proof should lie with those claiming that there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 10:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Vossius as a dab page, per bkonrad. No clear evidence the elder Vossius "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", per wp:primarytopic. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Do nay of the editors who support treating one of these topics as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have any evidence to justify that assertion? So far, I see no policy-based reason to treat any of the topics as primary.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think the most relevant guideline here is WP:SINGLENAME - "Using the last name as the page title for a person, when the first name is also known and used, is discouraged". Even if it was clear what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was here, Vossius should probably still be a disambig page. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re BHG's comment while relisting: if none of the topics is a primary topic, then the Move needs to be made as suggested. The current scenario implies that Gerardus is the primary topic for "Vossius" although it is not the title of his article - I don't think WP:SINGLENAME is relevant, is it? The argument needs to be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: that this man is the primary topic for his surname, just as Albert is for Einstein. True or false here? PamD 14:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support By usage, I do not see any primary topic:

All of the articles on the dab page have 1000±250 views in the past 90 days; Vossius Gymnasium has the most, while Gerardus is #2 [1][2][3][4]
On Google Books, my top 2 results are about Isaac, while the other 8 are about Gerardus.
On Google Scholar, I get 1 book by Adolf Vossius (for whom Vossius' ring is named, I believe), 1 book by Gerardus, and 8 papers by other people.
On regular Google -wikipedia, I get the Gymnasium, a law firm, dozens of travel websites about Hotel Vossius Vondelpark, and no mention of Gerardus.

So does anyone have a concrete argument that Gerardus' accomplishments give him "substantially greater enduring notability" than his son? In the absence of such an argument, Vossius should be a dab page. quant18 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Quant18's research. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.