- 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Elliot Smith (American football) → Elliot Smith – The footballer is Wikipedia's only topic called "Elliot Smith". The proposed title currently redirects to a musician with a similar but different name. Certes (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- As the misspelling "Elliot" was used on the musician's death certificate, alternatives are to replace redirect Elliot Smith by a dab, or to retarget it to an expanded Elliott Smith (disambiguation). Mentioned at Talk:Elliott Smith. Certes (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- This may be one of those less common situations where readers searching the name are overwhelmingly more likely to have used a misspelling of the incredibly well known musician than they are to have intended to end up at the stub football player. I'm torn, because I also get the argument that those readers would then just click the hatnote, but ultimately the purpose of disambiguation is to aid readers in getting where they intend to be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- It's unlikely that most people typing "Elliot" into the search bar intend to review the football player and the redirect is handy because of that. It's the same reason why the death certificate has a misspelling, because it's a common one. This stub page has almost nothing to read, and I am curious to know if it's even eligible to remain notable. One source by the NFL, is a primary source and not useful for notability. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose. Given that the musician gets 2.5k daily views and the football player gets 2, I'm inclined to think that most searching for this name are not looking for the football player. I am more open to the alternative of redirecting the base name to the dab page (Grafton Elliot Smith is also a minor consideration here - it's sort of a partial match, but a reader might come across a context where he's referred to as just "Elliot Smith" as a short form). But overall I'm still leaning toward the status quo being the best thing for readers. Colin M (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, pageviews for the musician are orders of magnitude greater than those for other relevant articles. However, pageviews for the redirect "Eliot Smith" aren't, and we don't know how many of those are seeking other topics. A dab might be the best compromise. Grafton (referred to as "G. Elliot Smith" in multiple places) probably deserves a dab entry, as may Elliot Smith House. Certes (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- I understand, but all it takes is for 1 out of every 1,000 readers looking for the musician to misspell his name "Elliot Smith" for the majority of searches for that name to be intended for him, and I think the actual rate at which that spelling error occurs is probably significantly higher than 1 in 1k. (There's also the fact that 2 page views per day is so low it's probably very close to the baseline that every single article gets via people hitting the "Random article" button.) BTW, for comparison, a very similar situation can be found in Rachel Ray, which is a primary redirect to the celebrity chef Rachael Ray rather than the Trollope novel Rachel Ray (novel). In that case, the daily page views are 1.1k to 6, and the novel has the long-term significance edge. (I happen to think that situation is kind of outrageous, but never tried to open an RM to change it because I imagine it would not succeed). Colin M (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose, but make Elliot Smith a dab page. Just because it's the only exact title match doesn't make it the primary topic, especially seeing as the football player had an unexceptional career. See Lamberghini for a similar example. 162 etc. (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose as nom. The lack of a route from Elliot Smith to the footballer was a genuine problem, but the arguments above convince me that adding him to Elliott Smith (disambiguation) was a better solution. Before the snow falls, can we reach a consensus on whether to retarget Elliot Smith to the dab? I think we're 2:2 as to whether the misspelling of the singer is its primary topic. Certes (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- I don't hate either outcome, although if pushed I'd probably say that if our reason for not directing to the page of this name is because we see it as overwhelmingly likely the reader intended to find the singer, it might be silly not to just send it to the singer. Also, very much appreciate your push to find a consensus solution here!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:02, 19 February 2022 (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.
