This disambiguation page is within the scope ofWikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize alldisambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you canedit the page attached to this talk page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project or contribute to thediscussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support sound the alarms, when IIO and I agree that should justify an automatic speedy close in support. LOL. Kudos to Roman for the compelling case he put together. --В²C☎18:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's because we're applying the guidelines to help readers to a topic which for once actually belongs in an encyclopaedia rather than e.g. forcing them at a piece of random passing fancruft.In ictu oculi (talk)23:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on principle because simply listing other cases of mononym primary redirects does NOT give evidence that THIS one is appropriate. No page view stats nor other objective measure have been brought to this discussion, so we have nothing to base this on other than the gut feelings. --Netoholic@21:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The French Wikipedia actuall has it as a DAB because "racine" is French for "root" of whichRacine, Wisconsin was named. PerWP:USENGLISH andWP:FORRED we don't generally take into account words in other languages and the fact that it is a DAB on Fr, rather than the root article being there is good evidence thatJean Racine must be prominent there. Given that Jean Racine is a level 4 vital article he dominates in a Google search for Racine. However as we don't have stats for people using just "Racine" for searching for him, I'llWeak support but recommend that we put a direct link toRacine, Wisconsin.Crouch, Swale (talk)13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course all redirects of this nature havehatnotes, such as —For other uses, see Apollinaire (disambiguation) or"Balzac" redirects here. For other uses, see Balzac (disambiguation). Thus, if the nomination succeeds, there would be —"Racine" redirects here. For other uses, see Racine (disambiguation) and Jean Racine (disambiguation), in a manner similar to the current hatnote at —This article is about the poet and playwright. For other persons of the same name, see William Shakespeare (disambiguation). For other uses of "Shakespeare", see Shakespeare (disambiguation) — but consensus would ultimately decide if a separate hatnote is needed to solely coverRacine, Wisconsin, a city of 79,000 which is not a state capital and has relatively limited status both internationally and nationally. Roman Spinner(talk •contribs)01:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on thistalk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
result: No consensus. See no agreement below to either keep the current title or to rename this page as proposed. Since page views don't tell the wholePTOPIC story, and long-term significance comes into play, the proposed title will be retargeted to once again become a surnamePRIMARYREDIRECT. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments, discover new ones, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyonestay healthy!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there02:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be helpful to quote the final RfD vote: "Procedural close as incorrect forum, and start aWP:RM instead. I would have closed and performed the move myself if it was not for Roman Spinner's !vote (the nom of the original move), even though none of the other participants of that move discussion pitched in here despite being pinged. And any other editors who haveTalk:Racine (disambiguation) on their watchlist may not be aware of this RfD happening. It is only proper to overturn an RM with an RM.", followed by a quote from the RfD close: "There is also here a rough consensus in favour of moving, but this is not the proper venue for that, and for a proper discussion an RM should be advertised as an RM. Anyone is welcome to start a new RM atTalk:Racine (disambiguation)." Thus, although the redirect was moved, both the move and the consensus achieved at the RfD are apparently expected to be confirmed by a full discussion on the merits of the case here at RM. —Roman Spinner(talk •contribs)14:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration with the process and, indeed, many or most of the notable French literary surname examples submitted in the 2018 RM were created unilaterally and thus RfD would be the appropriate forum if any user has issues with those. The surnames that do make it to RM for primary consideration are usually sparsely attended, with the obvious exception being the currentTrump →Trump (disambiguation). Another presidential surname currently under discussion with, needless to say, much smaller attendance, isTaft →Taft (disambiguation).
I agree with Steel1943 here. This was already discussed and consensus determined at the RfD - that Jean Racine is not the PT. If you disagree with the RfD result, you should be contesting it with the closer. I only opened this as a formal RM because I knew someone would reject the RMT (technical move request).Natg 19 (talk)01:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and redirectRacine toJean Racine per the RM above. Very clear primary topic. Since when does an RfD overrule an RM? RM is the correct place for proposed moves like this. It should never have been discussed there. --Necrothesp (talk)13:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Necrothesp and the 2018 RM. Jean Racine remains the primary topic and the redirect should be reverted to that as per the consensus above rather than the out of process RFD. — Amakuru (talk)00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the opposers, does that mean that we just ignore the result of the RFD? I am a bit confused what should happen with this because the RFD already had a result claiming that Jean Racine is not the PT.Natg 19 (talk)01:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes. RMs are generally understood to have greater "authority" than RfDs as there are more people watching them and they affect the actual location of encyclopedic pages rather than just redirects. Normally there isn't a conflict, but in this case the RfD discussion was procedurally incorrect. Retargeting a primary redirect to point to the disambiguation page is a violation ofWP:MALPLACED so that should never have been an option discussed at RfD. The 2018 RM established that the disambiguation page should be atRacine (disambiguation) because the primary topic is Jean Racine, and until a subsequent RM finds consensus to move it back again, that's the status quo. — Amakuru (talk)10:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is no primary topic between Jean Racine,Racine, Wisconsin, and around 40 different topics at the disambiguation page. See page views[1]. The 17th century French playwright isn't an inherently more significant article than the 19th century–present city. Cities aren't excluded just because the city article includes the state name, as it is commonplace to refer to cities by the city name alone. And it would not be proper to artificially discount Racine, Wisconsin, on the basis that most of the worldwide English-speaking readership has no reason to care about Wisconsin, any more that it would be to artificially discount Jean Racine on the basis that most of worldwide English-speaking readership has no reason to care about French writing.When this is closed, I suggest to focus on confirming whether there is a consensus among the sum total of editors who weighed in on the primary topic question, and not to focus on the bureaucracy of whether they chose to weigh in here or at RFD.Adumbrativus (talk)07:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Based on page views fromAdumbrativus,Jean Racine is no longer the PT. However, without a proper notification atTalk:Jean Racine, no decision in an RM about that can be made, and at this point it’s too late. For now, the current MISPLACED redirect must be restored toJean Racine and then we can have a proper discussion. What a mess. —В²C☎15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need for a notification at Jean Racine. That was already done for the RfD, and this move is not directly involved with Jean Racine, but involves the disambiguation page.Natg 19 (talk)04:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure why this had to be a discussion and not just a technical request, but sure, I agree there is no primary topic.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)19:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.Wikipedia:MALPLACED is completely stupid. All disambiguation pages should carry the “(disambiguation)” suffix, so that readers don’t get sucked into a disambiguation page that they didn’t want, or can more easily see that it’s a disambiguation page that they do want.SmokeyJoe (talk)11:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
