Wikipedia

Talk:Frank Burns

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Darkwind in topic Requested move
Learn more about this page

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago58 comments16 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived 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. With plenty of discussion, there is no need to relist; it is clear that there is no consensus as to which article is the primary topic in relation to this dab page. —Darkwind (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Clarification of my close comment: There is no evident consensus as to whether or not there even is a primary topic for this name and its associated redirects; nor is there any consensus as to which topic would be primary if one were selected. —Darkwind (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Frank Burns (disambiguation) → Frank Burns – does not meet requirements for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Fictional character who has a supporting role in well-known part of pop culture, but does not rise to the level of even having his own article---a very rare, if not unique, situation for a primary topic. Furthermore, in addition to pre-empting the name of real people named "Frank Burns", this placement prevents access to the disambiguation page, thus making it appear as if it is the only entry bearing this title. Unlike articles such as Charles Kane (business executive) (not be to be confused with the celebrated, though fictional, Charles Foster Kane) which wears the (unnecessary) hatnote, "For other persons with this name, see Charles Kane (disambiguation)", or even an article for one of the other "Franks named Burns", Frank R. Burns, whose (again unnecessary) hatnote states, "For other people named Frank Burns, see Frank Burns (disambiguation)", the putative primary topic, Frank Burns, which does not even have its own dedicated article, is missing [as of this writing] such a hatnote which would need to be awkwardly placed below the mid-page sub-header "Frank Burns" at the List of M*A*S*H characters article, otherwise users searching for direct access to Frank Burns (politician), Frank Burns (rugby league) and Frank R. Burns would not know that the Frank Burns (disambiguation) page even exists, thus making it unnecessarily difficult to access those articles. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
  • Comment it's not very rare or unique to have a section of another article be the primary topic, with a disambiguation page also existing. It's not common, but it's not very rare either. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Disambigution pages in which the primary topic represents "things and ideas" which are sections of larger articles representing larger dimensions, are, indeed, not unusually rare, but disambiguation pages in which a human name, without its own article, becomes the primary topic, are rare, because these are quickly revised. A quick search did not turn up a single currently existing one. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
The article history for "Frank Burns" must, of course, be kept, as is already indicated at Talk:Frank Burns#Possible move, along with the indication that if it is not recreated as a separate article, the history should be kept at Frank Burns (character) [an earlier redirect, Frank Burns (M*A*S*H character), also exists]. Although there had already been a vote on the merge of these characters into a single article, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in thousands of separate articles devoted to fictional characters (Category:Fictional characters by year of introduction), thus permitting a strong argument, in a separate discussion, for the recreation/restoration of articles delineating the M*A*S*H characters. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Then this is a multimove missing the second component. I don't see any discussion on the merge of non-minor characters. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
A point well taken. The natural assumption (that such a wide-ranging removal, severe condensation of text, and placement into a single article of eleven lengthy fictional "biographies" of M*A*S*H characters could only have legitimacy in the aftermath of well-reasoned discussion and a subsequent vote) has turned out to be incorrect. As a matter of fact, the entire process was, indeed, boldly done without any discussion by a single editor on July 13, 2011 as seen here, along with similar removal and condensation of dozens/scores of articles describing characters and episodes of a number of other TV shows. Since all these actions were taken without discussions and have no consensus, editors may act accordingly and restore all such material up to the point of someone objecting and initiating appropriate votes to obtain respective consensus on these matters. Having said all that, however, the ultimate thrust of this specific discussion is still unchanged, since even if the Frank Burns/Frank Burns (M*A*S*H character) entry still existed as a stand-alone article, it should, nevertheless, not usurp the name from real-life individuals by being submitted as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a step which has not been taken with any of the other ten M*A*S*H characters, although, in practical terms, only Lt. Col. Henry Blake has a non-nickname character name common enough to appear within a disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I didn't mean to imply that was good editing behavior–indeed it's not, but may have been good faith. What I meant was disambiguating links to the proposed move topic from other articles (see my link above). Note that neither editor has yet participated in this discussion. Regarding primary topic, I don't think the long-term significance criterion is supported as memories of the TV series are likely to fade with time and there is minimal educational value. That leaves usage, where I'm inclined to put more weight on what-links-here and article traffic than analysis of external web links. I'd like to see significantly more than the modest number of hits to Frank Burns to deem a primary topic. What-links-here would give me good reason to oppose if there were so many as to make fixing them a burden and no move supporters took up the task of fixing them. We don't have that problem here. In contrast the page hits to Brand New (band) are huge and come close to matching hits to Brand New. I can only conclude that consensus is that long-term significance of the marketing term brand new has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value (even though Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the topic), and that criteria carries more weight that the usage criteria. If that band can't get suppport for primary topic, it's hard to see how the M*A*S*H character can. You make a good point on (character). But I still lean towards Frank Burns (M*A*S*H character) as I find the additional precision useful rather than excess. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Primary topic is not about whether the subject is real, fictional, human, or non-human, but about what readers are likely to be searching for. If you google "Frank Burns" -wikipedia, seven of the top ten results relate to the M*A*S*H character. A title should be the name of the subject with only as much disambiguation as necessary. So the best title is "Frank Burns". Second best is "Frank Burns (character)". I don't see any need for a title that is longer or more awkward than that. Kauffner (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
The standard form, applied in hundreds of instances, has been to disambiguate specifically TV series characters, not all fictional characters in general, by the title of the TV series. The examples go on and on: Tommy Solomon (3rd Rock from the Sun), Lurch (The Addams Family), Stephanie Mills (All in the Family), Steve Smith (American Dad!), Andy Taylor (The Andy Griffith Show), Penny (The Big Bang Theory), Richard IV of England (Blackadder), Manuel (Fawlty Towers), Mr. Haney (Green Acres), Karen Walker (Will & Grace) and scores of other sitcom characters. This practice extends to non-sitcoms also: Adam Ross (CSI: NY), Mike Logan (Law & Order), John Kelly (NYPD Blue) (each of these shows has a number of characters disambiguated by the show title). Then, of course, as previously mentioned, there are commonly-named soap opera characters, starting with Mike Baldwin (Coronation Street) and Frank Barlow (Coronation Street). In fact, a visit to Category:Coronation Street characters will illustrate the situation, and there are many other soaps. To be sure, a handful of TV series characters are, indeed, disambiguated as "(character)", but these are a tiny minority among all the previously described. There are even a few TV show characters who have been disambiguated by various editors on their own terms, such as "(bartender)" or "(detective)", but, again, these can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If we were to follow established practice, in the event Frank Burns does not pass the bar of primary topics, the disambiguating qualifier would be Frank Burns (M*A*S*H). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you're suggesting that any of these meets the primary topic criteria but is never-the-less disambiguated, please identify them. None seem to meet the criteria anywhere close to how well the Frank Burns character does; if so, they're not really relevant here, are they? --B2C 21:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Since it has been put forth that if Frank Burns were to have a disambiguating qualifier, the preferred one would be "(character)", my primary purpose in presenting the above names of arbitrarily chosen TV characters, was not to highlight these as the most prominent, nor was it to suggest this method for all fictional characters, but, specifically, to illustrate the most-frequently-used mode of disambiguating fictional characters who are associated solely with TV series, thus making them relevant for that purpose. However, since the point has been raised, a list of putative WP:PRIMARYTOPICs composed of TV characters, can be compiled below, under existing sub-header "Discussion". Suffice it to say, that even among the hastily assembled characters above, Andy Taylor (The Andy Griffith Show) was, for nearly a decade, the central character on a show which always rated among the top ten and John Kelly (NYPD Blue), the David Caruso character, became a top TV star, with his show rising to become one of TV's highest rated. Finally, at the Henry Blake disambiguation page, Henry Blake (M*A*S*H) could certainly lay as strong, if not stronger, claim to primacy as Frank Burns (M*A*S*H), since the episode dealing with Blake's departure and death was TV's highest rated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - The fictional character is not primary topic. Since the character is discussed as part of a list, it must be disambiguated into Frank Burns (M*A*S*H). --George Ho (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Although I am certain that a fictional character can be the primary topic of a term (see John Rambo, which trumps two real people), I do not think that this particular supporting character is clearly the primary topic of this particular name. bd2412 T 20:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. I'm disappointed by the number of unsubstantiated declarations above about whether the fictional character is or is not the primary topic. The only evidence I've seen on the matter at hand has been submitted by Kauffner, and it strongly suggests that the fictional character is the primary topic. No evidence has been submitted to the contrary. So, the only objective choice here appears to be to oppose. --B2C 21:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • I don't consider "seven of the top ten results" in a Google search to be particularly compelling evidence of anything. In any case, Google results are inconstant. I did the same search and got four hits for the character, three for the Pennsylvania politician (including his Wikipedia page), an ophthalmologist, the Rutgers football coach, and a LinkedIn directory. bd2412 T 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. A fictional character should never be allow consideration of primacy over notable biographies. Where it challenges, the title should be a disambiguation. the fictional character should not be given the prominance it has at the top of the disambiguation page. Human products, especially fiction and other commercial products, should be disambiguated in their titles if there is just the slightest other reason. That the character is not even a standalone article is particularly poor that it should trump a disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
What definition of "primacy" are you using? It's not based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as far as I can tell. --B2C 05:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
wikt:primacy #1. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't contain useful definitions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, that's the problem. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has nothing to do with "the state or condition of being prime or first, as in time, place, rank, etc., hence, excellency; supremacy." WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is defined in terms how likely a given topic is to be sought when someone searches for the term in question. In this case the term is "Frank Burns", and the only relevant question is whether this topic is much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics to which "Frank Burns" may refer, to be the one being sought by someone searching for "Frank Burns". Unless there is good reason (which I haven't seen) to apply WP:IAR to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that's what we're supposed to do.

The notion that a "A fictional character should never be allowed consideration of primacy over notable biographies." has no basis in WP policy or guidelines. --B2C 22:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well it should. Someone expecting to find a biography should never find themselves straight on a fictional character page, certainly not an old, thin, supporting humour relief character, and more certainly not a redirect to a list item. Just because very many Internet browsers have browsed this old TV character, it is no reason to bewilder the many users not culturally connected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Readers click on a result expecting an article of some kind to appear. A DAB is likely to bewilder them as well. Many will back out and try something else. Kauffner (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Someone going to Frank Burns looking for the character from MASH finding the DAB page with a list of Frank Burnses including the character is not going to become bewildered. That's absurd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Someone going to Frank Burns looking for some obscure biography finding the section on the MASH character with
"Frank Burns" redirects here. For other uses, see Frank Burns (disambiguation).
is not going to become bewildered. That's absurd. --B2C 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's not absurd, becuase the redirect takes you to the middle of a very large page, it takes a long time to load, the picture flicks around during loading, as the many pictures load, Finally, the page is dominated by a image ofthe character and the link you mention is surround by huge amounts of fiction information above and below. This is what I call slow, painful and bewildering. I have used the net in many places in the world; this experience is not normal in the US or major cities, but is normal elsewhere. It is normal on a smartphone using free wi-fi. Maybe you have a good computer and fast access? Try an old computer in a small library on dialup speed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Are you still connecting to the internet with dial up modem? --B2C 17:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • We running an experiment to get some data on this point over at Brand New, where there was a recent page move. The redirects from the DAB are getting 670 + 20 views a day out of 870 views for the DAB itself. That suggests that over 20 percent of readers can't be bothered to figure out a DAB, not even one that is extremely simple. Kauffner (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Interesting. Can I read more somewhere. Is a possible alternative explanation that the DAB page itself has answered the need of the reader? This is certainly happened many times for me as a reader-user, I have got what I wanted from the DAB page. DAB pages have very nicely compiled summary information, and I have learned that they are usually leaning comprehensive. My experience is that being sent to a specific subject on going to a generic title is more annoying than helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • all that suggests is that none of our choices is what people are looking for. Did you check the usage stats for wiktionary as well? Do not assume that just because we have articles means we have every single choice people are looking for. Wikipedia does not contain every single use for "brand new". -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. The fictional character is not even notable, it shouldn't be the target of the base name when there are so many other notable articles sharing the title. Diego (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    If the character is not notable, the redirects should be deleted and the non-notable information should be removed from the list article. I doubt you'll find consensus for that, therefore the character is notable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    That is explicitly not true. WP:N applies only to a whole topic and the question of whether it should be a stand alone article, among other reasons why it may not. WP:N does not apply to content. WP:N does not apply to redirects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    I didn't say "Apply WP:N". I said "non-notable information should be removed". See Wikipedia:Handling trivia. Also see MOS:DABMENTION, which covers disambiguating topics that are mentioned in other articles, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which covers selecting which topic (not article) is the primary topic for a title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    In the interests of containing confusion with respect to the Wikipedia term-of-art "notability", which is not Wikt:notability, for the benfit of other readers of this, please do not confuse "wikipedia-notability" with "triviality". (In real usage world, "non-notable" is synonymous with "trivial", but unfortunately not here.) Another aside: It would be very challenging to demonstrate that Frank Burns the MASH character meets WP:N, and as it stands the section List_of_M*A*S*H_characters#Frank_Burns is a poor example of Wikipedia content, being unsourced, including several in-universe paragraphs and containing an excessive plot-to-commentary ratio. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    In the interests of containing the confusion, please ask Diego to stick to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria for determining primary topic, and also avoid your asides. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    No, I don't support the notion that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has well defined criteria or that those written have consensual support. No, if challenged, I'll support the relevance of the aside. Not only are we sending some unsuspecting arrivals "Frank Burns" (including multiple real people BLPS) to an old chacter section buried deep in a long article, but the content there is is bad example content. This is further reason to support the proposed change. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit

1. A very high bar is expected from the selection of a human-name (and, as a subject for another discussion, non-human-name) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, otherwise every such disambiguation page would field a primary topic [those interested in related matters of this nature may wish to examine the lengthy discussion (not a vote) at Talk:Bob Brown#Recent move wherein Australian Wikipedians decided that the former leader of the Australian Green Party, Bob Brown, should remain the primary topic among 17 others named "Bob Brown"]. As for the matter at hand, supporting character Frank Burns is not the best candidate for the first fictional character who becomes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a disambiguation page containing more than one real-life individual. The most familiar fictional characters have unique names and, in the manner of Jean Valjean or Luke Skywalker, face no name competition from the real world. Soap opera characters, on the other hand, bear common names and, if incoming links were the prime consideration, most of them would become disambiguation page primary topics, rather than being listed under the sub-header "Fictional characters". In fact, every name disambiguation page can then, theoretically, field a primary topic based on the number of incoming links.

2. Even the above-mentioned, very-high-recognition Stephen Colbert (character) or, especially, Harry Potter (character), are immediately identifiable as non-primary topics simply by the fact of having parenthetical qualifiers ("Harry Potter", despite having a rather ordinary-sounding appellation, has [as of this writing] no real-world name competition within Wikipedia and the main topic is the book/franchise). Does the Frank Burns character became the primary topic by default, as a result of his common name, which receives more incoming links than the names of the other three individuals named "Frank Burns", and if he were to be listed by his full (fictional) name, Franklin Delano Marion Burns, thus obviating the need for a parenthetical qualifier, then would such need no longer arise? The primary topic of the disambiguation page would have to be different if the Federal Reserve Chairman, Arthur Frank Burns, had used the name A. Frank Burns, instead of being known as, simply, Arthur Burns or Arthur F. Burns. Another renowned fictional name, Charles Foster Kane, is not the primary topic of the Charles Kane disambiguation page, unlike (to take an extreme example) John Fitzgerald Kennedy/John F. Kennedy, who, despite the middle initial "F."/middle name "Fitzgerald" disambiguator, is the primary topic of the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page, which lists 55 individuals with that name.

3. As was previously mentioned, the eleven lengthy biographies (written within the context of their fictional universe) of M*A*S*H characters were not fully deleted, but exist within their article histories and can be easily restored. The natural presumption had been that it was only the page name "Frank Burns" that was being deleted so that Frank Burns (disambiguation) could be moved to Frank Burns, while the original lengthy "Frank Burns" article would still be kept safe under a redirect, such as Frank Burns (M*A*S*H character), or within the article history of the Frank Burns [no primary topic] disambiguation page. If, in the process, the page history or the original lengthy article had been inadvertently deleted, that is regrettable, but it can be handled simply, whether Frank Burns (M*A*S*H character) is restored as a stand-alone article, or not, by the example of the other M*A*S*H character within a disambiguation page, Henry Blake (M*A*S*H character) who, until the wholesale move of July 13, 2011, was also the primary topic of the Henry Blake disambiguation page, with a hatnote to Henry Arthur Blake. As of this writing the page has four entries, Henry Arthur Blake, Henry Blake (baseball), Henry Blake (lighthouse keeper) and Henry Blake of the Blake baronets, as well as, under "Fictional characters", List of M*A*S*H characters#Henry Blake. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re 2, they were mentioned above specifically because they had qualifiers, as examples of which qualifier to use, not as examples of characters-as-primary topics. For those, see Winston Smith, Jonathan Higgins, Sam Carter, and Richard Webber, for example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
1. A brief perusal among some of the hundreds of human name disambiguation pages which bear the qualifier "(disambiguation)" reveals its widespread misapplication, with scores of marginally-prominent individuals arbitrarily chosen as "primary topics" among three, four or more entries listed on the page. Some users apparently edit under the assumption that each human name disambiguation page (or possibly each disambiguation page, overall) is required to select a primary topic and, accordingly, choose such a topic on the basis of incoming links, personal preference or for no evident reason. Virtually all of these dabs (with some exceptions, such as the above-mentioned discussion at Talk:Bob Brown#Recent move regarding the 18-name Bob Brown (disambiguation) page) contain no debates, arguments or any indications of consensus on their talk pages and remain in this form for years simply for lack of attention, or reluctance of editors, who do not use automated tools, to attend to the revision of incoming links which would need to be reassigned after each such adjustment.
2. In the same manner as the choice of Frank Burns to be the primary topic [but not the analogously-positioned Henry Blake, thus highlighting the arbitrary nature of such primary topic selections], three of the four examples presented above are, unfortunately, emblematic of this trend (the fourth, Jonathan Higgins or, more specifically, Jonathan Quayle Higgins III, is a stand-alone entry with a hatnote to the John Higgins disambiguation page, which has no primary topic [a Wikipedia search turned up an actor as well as a hockey player, each named Jonathan Higgins, thus if anyone decides to create respective biographical entries for them, the fictional character may yet became the primary topic of the Jonathan Higgins (disambiguation) page, instead of being listed as Jonathan Quayle Higgins III on the Jonathan Higgins (no primary topic) disambiguation page]).
3. Among the remaining three, Sam Carter is the least defensible since it is a redirect to the fictional character Samantha Carter, which then, via a hatnote, leads us back to the Sam Carter (disambiguation) page where we see Sam Carter, the already-seen fictional character, listed as the (presumed) primary topic, although the page's current structure indicates that there are three "primary topics" with each given a full-sentence description and end punctuation, the other two being the redlink Sam Carter (musician), who is not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, and Sam Carter, who is mentioned in the article on Architects (British band). Then we come to the two "may also refer to" non-primary topics, the first listed as another fictional character named "Sam Carter", Major Deus Ex characters#Sam Carter and the second listed as novelist Shanna Swendson who uses the pseudonym "Samantha Carter". At the very least, the Sam Carter redirect should be deleted and the Sam Carter (disambiguation) page moved to Sam Carter, along with the appropriate adjustments which need to be made within the contents of that page. Alternatively, Samantha Carter, who is usually addressed as "Sam", could be moved to Samantha Carter (Stargate) and placed within the Sam Carter (no primary topic) disambiguation page.
4. As to Richard Webber and Winston Smith, both are common names, with "Richard Webber", like "Frank Burns", being a supporting physician character on a primetime TV series. Unlike "Winston Smith", the protagonist of a renowned literary work, "Richard Webber" is likely to be referenced for the popular actor portraying the character, rather than for his own common name, and has no more claim to primacy than "Frank Burns", situated among another similarly-named fictional character (daytime soap's Rick Webber) and, particularly, two relatively prominent real-life officials, Air Force General Richard E. Webber and Federal judge E. Richard Webber. Finally, Winston Smith, unlike the previously-mentioned Jean Valjean or Luke Skywalker, was given a deliberately common name to represent the common man of the then-future. There are likely to be few post-1949 Smiths who receive the given name "Winston" due to the renown of Nineteen Eighty-Four and those who are so-named, such as Winston Smith (artist) (born 1952) and Winston Smith (athlete) (born 1982), may carry those appellations in a deliberate manner, thus providing the exceptions that prove the rule. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Roman, much of what you say above appears to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about primary topic. For example, you cite Harry Potter (character) as a supposed relevant example, but then you acknowledge the following about it: "no real-world name competition within Wikipedia and the main topic is the book/franchise". Yes, the "main topic" (a.k.a. "primary topic") for "Harry Potter" is the book/franchise, therefore any other use, including the character, requires disambiguation. That is not the case here, since no other use of "Frank Burns" on WP could even be considered to be the primary topic, compared to this use.

In determining primary topic for any term, we simply look at all uses of that term on WP, and, if any one of them clearly is much more likely than the others to be the one being sought, and more likely than all the others combined, that's our primary topic. Everything else is distracting us from this fundamental point. --B2C 21:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. Most of the best-known fictional characters are referenced by their full name (Jean Valjean, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Nancy Drew, Andy Hardy, Han Solo, Harry Potter or, especially, because of the deliberately ordinary nature of his name, Winston Smith). Others, such as the aforementioned John Rambo are primarily known by a single name (Rambo, rather than the full "John Rambo"). The majority of these names, as has been pointed out, are unique, while the remaining ones are so ingrained in our culture that their primacy can be easily justified. Also, none of these characters was created for television, although some, such as Nancy Drew, found new life on the small screen. Commonly-named TV characters, however, present a particular dilemma as primary topics. With so many stars and supporting characters of top-rated series in the English-speaking world and even beyond, there would be no end to the slippery slope of primacy claims. (the very commonly named "Danny Williams" was, for twelve years, the starring character of The Danny Thomas Show, which remained in the top 10 throughout its 1953–65 run, and then there's Danny "Danno" Williams of the top-rated Hawaii Five-O).
2. There is so much misuse of the qualifier "(disambiguation)", such as former Ontario municipal councillor, Margaret Williams becoming the "primary topic" (apparently because she is the only one among those named "Margaret Williams" who could not be disambiguated by a middle initial or a maiden name), that the elevation of Frank Burns (M*A*S*H) to a primary topic would simply add to such misuse. If the "Frank Burns" character had only appeared in the 1970 film (or the 1968 novel), he and the other M*A*S*H characters would barely rate mention in a group article, rather having lengthy separate articles, as they did for a number of years, for it was the TV series that gave them prominence, but whether enough prominence to become primary topics is still to be decided. The previously-mentioned TV fictional characters Sam Carter and Richard Webber notwithstanding, is Frank Burns so prominent as to become the rare, if not unique, TV character, and a supporting one, at that, to serve as a shining example for other TV characters to follow? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
1. With so many stars and supporting characters of top-rated series in the English-speaking world and even beyond, there would be no end to the slippery slope of primacy claims. Nonsense. It's just like anything else. We simply look at all uses of that term on WP, and, if any one of them clearly is much more likely than the others to be the one being sought, and more likely than all the others combined, that's our primary topic. I see no reason why TV fictional characters should be treated with a standard/criteria different from the one used for every other topic type on WP.
2. Perceptions of "prominence", justified or not, are irrelevant. All that matters is likelihood of being sought relative to other uses. If any one of the uses is clearly much more likely than the others to be the one being sought, and more likely than all the others combined, that's our primary topic, even if it's TV fictional character. Let's not make this complicated or difficult. It really isn't.

Maybe Frank Burns is the only one, maybe he's one of countless. Why does it matter? It is what it is. If there are other TV fictional characters with sufficiently high likelihood of the ones being sought relative to other uses of each respective name, then they are the primary topic. We look at them one at a time. Whether the result is one, a few or many TV characters are the primary topic is irrelevant. --B2C 22:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. My opening words at the start of this discussion were "A very high bar is expected", and so it is, otherwise Frank Burns as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a small step in the direction of becoming "Triviapedia". In a fashion somewhat analogous to Gresham's law ("bad money drives out good money"), pop culture and flavor of the month references will nearly always trump history and civics as well as classical music and literature.
2. A good example may be found in a discussion held six-and-a-half years ago (November 2007) as to whether Jonathan Edwards (a towering figure in 18th century Puritan philosophical thought, whose biography occupies several pages in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and who was previously moved from his position as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among nine others named "Jonathan Edwards") should be moved thusly: Jonathan Edwards (theologian) → Jonathan Edwards. The resulting extensive discussion and vote at Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)#Requested move and a follow-up discussion (April 2008) at Talk:Jonathan Edwards#Discussion explaining why J.Edwards the theologian and J.Edwards the athlete belong at the top of this disambiguaton page, ended with the decision to leave Jonathan Edwards as Jonathan Edwards (theologian), primarily because there is a champion Olympian and TV personality, Jonathan Edwards (athlete) who is "much more likely than the others to be the one being sought, and more likely than all the others combined" who was put forth as the clearly more attractive primary topic (whether that is still the case in 2013 is a separate, but related, question).
3. There is also the example of a rock singer named Paul Young who was restored as a "primary topic" among twelve others named Paul Young, including another same-named rock performer, Paul Young (singer born 1947) and a popular fictional character on a TV series (Paul Young (Desperate Housewives), who has a full-size article devoted to his misdeeds). Various political figures of questionable prominence are reaffirmed as "primary topics", such as the extensive June 2012 discussion, Talk:Bob Brown#Recent move, regarding the previously-mentioned, retired leader of Australian Green Party, Bob Brown, who is number one among seventeen others, including his countryman, Bob Brown (Australian Labor politician) and another TV character, Bob Brown (The Unit).
4. Ultimately, two additional previously-mentioned primary-topic pages, the redirect Sam Carter/Samantha Carter, who has weak competition from other "Sam Carters", but still should not be the primary topic, but simply part of a no-primary-topic disambiguation page and, more-egregiously, a commonly-named fictional TV doctor, Richard Webber who outranks two high-ranking public officials, a federal judge (E. Richard Webber) and an Air Force Major General (Richard E. Webber). No doubt he would more sought-after by those who seek such subjects, but it harms the image of Wikipedia for enabling such trivial primacy. Under the above-offered conditions of "likelihood of being sought relative to other uses", most, if not all, disambiguation pages would have primary topics and those pages which have pop culture characters among the listed names, would invariably have those characters become the primary topics. The concurrently-discussed proposal to eliminate all primary topics is beginning to seem more and more reasonable under such circumstances. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:33, 13 April 2013 (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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Burns&oldid=1248615295"