Talk:Franco

redir v dab

Is this quite necessary? Maybe we could move this to Franco (disambiguation) and make this page a redirect to Francisco Franco, whom people normally refer to as "Franco". Twinxor t 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. "Franco" by a million miles is most likely to refer to Francisco Franco.--Mais oui! 10:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Have you looked at the incoming links?
2. Have you googled "Franco" to see that maybe half of the hits refer to Francisco Franco?
3. Have you considered that Franco is the surname of many real people who do not wish to be equated with that man?
4. Does your surname redirect to someone you abhor?

— Pekinensis 16:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth? It's completely irrelevant who wishes "to be equated with that man". With regard to the other comments, Franco is a pretty common name, but the idea is that "Franco" used alone usually refers to the Spanish gentleman. Twinxor t 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I do not find my wishes to be "completely irrelevant".
2. Have you in fact looked at the incoming links? I can summarize by saying that eight of ten are now incorrectly redirected. If nothing else, this is poor form on the part of Mais oui!.
3. He was no gentleman.

— Pekinensis 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The moral character of the article's subject is not relevant. Sorry. Twinxor t

I would just like to point out that "Franco" is also Francois Luambo Makiadi, one of the most influential people in the modern musical history of Africa. So for at least one continent, making Franco the redirect is quite odd. My first mental image when someone says "Franco" is certainly the Congolese musician. - BanyanTree 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BanyanTree, Franco means that famous Congolese musician to many people. For them the other Franco is most probably known as General Franco, or something else. --moyogo 10:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I returned to see what the status of this was and found that the only change was that the link to the disambiguation at the top of Francisco Franco has been missing for a week. Given that nobody has responded to either moyogo's or my post about Franco Luambo, and that those who are eager to turn this into a redirect seem to be not entirely eager to ensure that people can get to the other meanings, I have moved this back to Franco. Also, I did a spot check of the incoming links and, while a majority are for Francisco Franco, it is certainly not "by a million miles". - BanyanTree 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am for Francisco Franco pointing here. The Congolese musician will not be regarded with the same emphasis in history as the Dictator. Also, the fact that a lot of incoming links point here just means that editors are being lazy--No incoming links should link to a disambiguation page! If we create a disambig, at least bots can correct the problem or notify those who can.

I am eager to ensure people can get to the other meanings and will create the disambig as neccessary.

A lot of it seems to be NPOV unease, but no violations. Redirecting and creating links.Yeago 07:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dictator?

Why the historical inaccuracy of calling Franco a dictator? He was formally head of state. If you don't like his politics, create a blog.

Because his ruling conformed to the definition of dictatorship. If you do not like it, I propose you write to Merriam-Webster and demand they publish a new definition for "dictatorship" (or you build a time-machine, go back to the 30s and demand he proceeds otherwise). — isilanes (talk|contribs) 11:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

history restored

I have merged the history and extensive discussion from Franco. Please do not change the redirect for this article without moving this disambiguation page, rather than cut-and-pasting. Some odd revision diffs in the history have resulted. - BanyanTree 13:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: The Franco disambiguation page does not list Francisco Franco

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As this is a WP:SNOW it really didnt need closing, but it was listed at WP:ANRFC. There is super clear consensus that Francisco Franco should be listed on the Franco disambiguation page. AlbinoFerret 18:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Should Francisco Franco be listed on the Franco disambiguation page?Vrac (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes: Like Stalin or Mussolini, General Francisco Franco is an individual who is commonly known by just his last name. For example, the very first result of a Google search for Franco is the Wikipedia article on Francisco Franco. MOS:DABNAME has a recommendation for this type of situation: Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should be listed in the body of the disambiguation page if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare). The presence of an anthroponymy article does not obviate the fact that Franco is a common search term for one of the most important political figures of the 20th century, as such Franco should be prominently listed on the Franco disambiguation page. Nothing prevents him from being listed in both places, since the purpose of DAB pages is to make things easier to find, this is a perfect place to assist users typing in this search term to find what they are looking for. Even if there was a guideline that explicitly said not to include an entry if there is an anthroponymy page, this would be a good example of using common sense to help Wikipedia users in their searches. I think it is telling that his name has been added to this page many times, only to be consistently removed in what appears to be a case of focusing on rules and not improvements. At one time Franco was a redirect to Francisco Franco, I wouldn't recommend going that far but I do think his presence on the Franco disambiguation page is an improvement to the encyclopedia. Vrac (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, as a person frequently referred to by surname ("Franco's Spain", "under Franco", etc). PamD 11:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. The dictator is commonly known by mononym. In fact a case could be made for him being the primary topic.older ≠ wiser 12:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Not compliant, as we having been discussing on my talk page before, you're only interpreting the part of MOS:DABNAME which suits you. The guideline says name holders should be moved to the anthroponymy article if there is one. As I advised you, if you wish that rule to be clarified (by adding clear criteria by which name holders could be added to the dab page for instance), that discussion should be taken up on the WP:Mosdab talk page so that it could lead to further benefit of all. Not by some guerilla RFC calling for a violation of the guidelines. --Midas02 (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think you might also be selectively reading only those parts of the guidelines that suit you. The guideline clearly states Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should be listed in the body of the disambiguation page if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare).. The claim here is that the dictator is commonly known as simply "Franco". This is completely consistent with how other persons known momonymically are treated. 12:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Then give me the criteria for determining what "frequently referred to" means. Because I see none. In the absence of those, you're suggesting that personal bias should be the criterion, which is completely unacceptable. --Midas02 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have been using some interesting language in this matter. "Completely unacceptable" is rather strong for a collaborative, consensus-built encyclopedia. Guidelines cannot be "violated", otherwise they would not be called guidelines. There is a prominently displayed shaded box at the top of MOS:DAB that explains the weight given to guidelines, but that is actually moot in this case because the guideline does not say no people can be added to a disambiguation page if there is an anthroponymy list. Finally, RFCs are the antithesis of "guerrilla", they get spammed all over the place as they are intended to attract comment from the wider community. As for whether or not Francisco Franco is frequently referred to as Franco, I invite you to use the search engine of your choice to find out. I gave an example at the start of this RFC. I doubt anyone wants to get into trying to rigidly quantify what "frequently referred to" represents. Vrac (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Same criteria as anything else on Wikipedia that is not defined in black and white terms in guidelines: discussion and consensus. older ≠ wiser 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the point exactly. Because of a messy guideline, you end up with futile discussions and wasted energy. One will add something, another will remove it again, and you keep on going round in circles because everyone uses his personal bias to judge what/who he considers to be "Franco" (note it will be an actor or a painter for many people). That's why I'm saying, fix the guideline first, and then it should become clear under which conditions something could be considered for listing, very similar to the guidelines for defining a primary topic I would imagine. --Midas02 (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And what criteria would you propose? Discussion and consensus is the normal way to handle such matter. Futile discussions only result when editors block consensus, relying on an idiosyncratically selective reading of guidelines. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion stops when courtesy leaves the room, so I'll leave it to you to amend that last statement.

The criteria need to be set at the level of the guideline, as the constant messing about with it (as has happened again for this particular guideline) results in a guideline which suggest nothing else than to move name holders to the anthroponymy article. The first suggestion made makes it very clear how flawed this all is. Running a Google search does not show links to the singular use of Franco, but returns a list of people bearing that name, so full names. And in my case (Google Search yields different results for every individual), six out of ten on the first page are about James Franco. So that's not even an argument for adding the general. --Midas02 (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Since the person almost universally known mononymously as Franco, then yes. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As commented in the discussion above, how do you define 'universally known', other than using one's personal interpretation. --Midas02 (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who has learned about European 20th-century history, which is a sizeable amount of general population and certainly a non-negligible part of the population reading encyclopedias. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• No There is a link to Franco (name) as the very first item. All of these names have the potential to be what one first thinks of when searching for Franco. For example, my first thought for the name was James Franco, the popular U.S. actor. This relates to Not "what first comes to (your) mind". By looking at the trends, you can easily see that James Franco outpaces Fransico Franco as the search subject, [1]. Inomyabcs (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, they don't. You've introduced the "what one first thinks of" fallacy yourself and then claimed that others are violating it. Not every holder of a surname is mononymously known under the surname; if James Franco was universally referred to more commonly as "Franco" than as "James Franco", you would have a point, but that doesn't appear to be the case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, notice that section of Google Trends report that shows regional interest. Based on that distribution, mainly in Romance-speaking countries, I would sooner claim that Franco (name) is the primary topic for "Franco" than make any claims about any individual holders of the name. (And that, in turn, would still be orthogonal to the mononymity argument.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning. You are trying to make Franco into a mononysitic name when there isn't widespread support for it, the same as what you are trying to claim when overriding the "what one first thinks of" argument. Looking over the Spanish Wikipedia, his page does not have any short names in the lead that suggest that Spanish speakers refer to him purely as Franco. Whereas, his short names are El Caudillo (the Chief) and El Generalisimo (the General). I can kind of see it when searching just on non-fiction books, but usually the name Franco is accompanied by a subtitle or other references to Spain. However, I will support the original question, since looking over Elvis and Shakespeare disambiguation pages they have a similar setup of what the original editor proposes. Inomyabcs (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, we're only concerned with English language usage. Spanish language usage is mostly irrelevant except to the extent that it has influenced English usage. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I do believe there's widespread support for it, based on the relevant literature. For example, I did a Google Books search for the words "Franco instituted" and almost all of the first 20 results talked about this Franco, yet none of them mentioned the word "Francisco", and only three used the prefix General. That in itself isn't conclusive, but seems sufficiently indicative. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You did a search on "Franco instituted"... Guess what comes up when I search on "Franco film"? --Midas02 (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• A resounding yes, per Joy, Vrac & Bkonrad. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Franco (name) into Franco - there really is no point keeping them separate in first place. Also even if there was some reason to keep them separate, then people would be a primary topic over other usages.--Staberinde (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Staberinde -- Franco (name) is not a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Bkonrad Maybe not in theory, but it totally does look like one in practice, so I have hard time seeing why it should be separate article. That said, moving Franco (name)->Franco and Franco->Franco (disambiguation) would be also fine for me if majority prefers to preserve separation. Current arrangement is just a disservice to readers, large majority of people who write "Franco" to search bar will try to reach some person and not one of the few other usages.--Staberinde (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Well someone came along a few days ago, most likely blissfully unaware of the RFC, and re-added Francisco Franco to the disambiguation page. Since no one has objected to that change, can we close this RFC and move on? Vrac (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Midas02: are you still contesting this? I could list it for closure at Wikipedia:AN/RFC but it seems like overkill given the clear consensus. Vrac (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2015 (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.