Talk:Alaric (name)

Requested move 25 July 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: Not moved — JFG ^talk 21:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Alaric (name) → Alaric – The name is clearly the primary topic. Since there is only one non-name entry on the dab (HMS Alaric (P441)), this could be handled by a See also entry. If more non-name meanings were to arise, then a dab could be created at Alaric (disambiguation). Nick Number (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article on the name "Alaric" isn't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over other articles named Alaric, even just people called only Alaric such as Alaric I, Alaric II, and this other Alaric. It receives only a small fraction of the total page views; if anything Alaric I is the primary topic.[1]-Cúchullain ^t/c 17:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cuchallain. The current setup seeems fine, and they are all contenders for "Alaric" so belong on this dab page, not on a see also page.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 1 May 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• Alaric (name) → Alaric
• Alaric → Alaric (disambiguation)

– Only one entry on Alaric is not a given name, and the sub can be moved to a hatnote. The rest are entries also listed in the name page. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: Alaric titles a page with significant content and so is ineligible as a new page title unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment / Oppose - this was already proposed via an RM in 2016 (see above), and as far as I can tell the reasoning of Cuchullain at the time still holds. The name isn't primary topic over other entries. At least this needs a discussion, not an uncontroversial move. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Having what amounts to two dab pages is unnecessary. Srnec (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, I think for people just searching the term "Alaric" this makes the most sense.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The name is clearly the primary topic as the disambiguation page only lists one entry which is not a people or an individual person. JIP | Talk 18:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not sure if there is a primary topic for "Alaric", but if so, I'd imagine it would be due to the long-term significance of Alaric I. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal makes sense if you view name articles as just lists of people, in which case Alaric (name) could easily double as a disambiguation page. However, names are also potential encyclopedic topics of their own, and this article has a fair amount of content that gets in the way of it serving well as a disambiguation page. Also, the most sought after link form the current dab page (according to the clickstream dataset for March) is – unsurprisingly – Alaric I, with 70% of all outgoing link referrals. – Uanfala (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Conventionally people known by a mononym are listed on a disambiguation page even if there is a name page, and whilst there's nothing wrong with the nom's proposal, there's also nothing wrong with the status quo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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.