- 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: No consensus, so not moved. There was no consensus on whether or not there is a primary topic here ... but that was largely moot, because the religious figure is not actually a current or former bishop.
A further discussion which proposed a disambiguator reflecting the actual role of the subject might have a different outcome, so feel free to open a new discussion on that basis. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
– Not more primary than David S. Painter, an academic. If stats are necessary, the numbers say that the academic is more known than the religious personality. About disambiguating the figure, I am using WP:BISHOP to use "(bishop)". However, if the proposal for that religious person is not suitable, I can allow alternatives. This proposal makes the dabpage take over the base name. However, if the dabpage is not necessary, then make David S. Painter take over the base name instead and modify a hatnote showing David Panter and David Paynter (disambiguation). George Ho (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- How about David Painter (curate), Jonathan A Jones? I'll clarify or simplify the proposal for you: either make the dabpage or the academic the primary topic. If the latter, what about the dabpage? George Ho (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- He's not a curate either. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- "(priest)" as suggested below would work, but I still see no need whatsoever for this move: the academic is near universally known as "David S. Painter", not "David Painter", and is not particularly notable, as noted by DuncanHill. Leave things as they are. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose, not a bishop and also not convinced of the primacy of the American of whom I've never heard, but who appears to always have a middle initial. FWIW, the top Google result for "David Painter" (with the quotation marks) is the very famous French artist David (The Death of Marat), known for some reason on Wikipedia as Jacques-Louis David. DuncanHill (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I am not certain how the words, "known for some reason on Wikipedia as Jacques-Louis David", are meant to be understood. The entry appears in 63 Wikipedias, all of which, including his native French Wikipedia list him by this exact name, Jacques-Louis David. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- What about "(priest)" per Roman, Duncan? George Ho (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Comment. A glance at Category:Archdeacons of Oakham, demonstrates that while those who held the title of bishop {Lord Alwyne Compton (bishop), Norman Lang (bishop), Frank Partridge (bishop)} are disambiguated with that qualifier, those who did not {Edward Moore (priest, born 1844), Gordon Steele (priest)} are designated with the all-inclusive qualifier "(priest)". Thus, if "(bishop)" is not applicable, "(priest)" should certainly be. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Additional comment. As this nomination currently stands, the academic is actually immaterial to the discussion. The point of the nomination is that the David Painter (disambiguation) page has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that David Painter (priest), David S. Painter and all others should be listed on the David Painter dab page without any indication of primacy. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Support David Painter (priest). David S. Painter is known as "David Painter" in some circumstances as can be seen here. If anything, he's the primary topic over the priest, who returns far fewer Google Books hits despite apparently being known as "David Painter".[1]--Cúchullain t/c 15:22, 25 January 2017 (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.