Talk:Romeo (disambiguation)

Primary usage

In cases like this, where there is one clear meaning that 99% of Wikipedia readers are looking for, a Romeo (disambiguation) page should carry this present information, while Romeo should redirect to Romeo and Juliet. Just my opinion. --Wetman 07:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, so I've moved it. sjorford →•← 11:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Player

"... a term for a man who goes after a great deal of women"

Is this correct? I never seen the play but as far as I understand, Romeo loves only Juliet - so dearly in fact that he dies for her. I think you might be mistaking Romeo with Casanova? --213.237.94.61 03:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

in the beginning he's pining after some other chick.

It is correct as is casanova. 172.143.135.185 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the character from whom this usage derives its colloquial meaning was not a womaniser, that is its current definition. Information yes (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus for move. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Romeo → Romeo (disambiguation) — Shakespeare's character is surely the primary meaning, whatever title we might give his article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Seems logical. Powers ^T 01:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• oppose the trope "Romeo" is the primary and common meaning; some sort of boyfriend. An article should be created for this class of character/personality, in lieu of such an article already existing, the disambiguation page should remain until such time it is created. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd to claim that the primary meaning is a hypothetical article which nobody has created yet. PatGallacher (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is merely an unsubstantiated assumption that Shakespeare's character is the main meaning. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. P199 rightly asks for evidence that the Shakespeare character is in fact the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Romeo". Here's what I found. A Google Books search for "Romeo" gives 1,160,000 results. A search for "Romeo" -juliet -shakespeare -montague -capulet gives 522,000 results. Subtract the one from the other, and you get 638,000 results that presumably refer to Shakespeare's Romeo. Since well more than half of the references are for that Romeo, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would indicate that this Romeo is the primary topic. Dohn joe (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • WP's reliance on Google stats to determine notability is misleading. Wikipedia article traffic statistics is a better indication. For instance, Romeo_Miller was viewed 259430 times in March 2011. That is slightly less than Romeo_and_Juliet (266873 times), but many times more than Romeo_Montague (only 17765 times). Some of the other "Romeo" articles are attracting many tens of thousands of views as well. Why redirect Romeo to Romeo Montague, forcing hundreds of thousands of readers to go back to the disambig page? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • You're making the assumption that people get to those other "Romeo" pages by searching for "Romeo". Powers ^T 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Seemed logical to begin with and Dohn joe's evidence merely reinforces the point. Jenks24 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The “trope” Romeo is at best a dictionary definition, and at worst a jargon entry (prove me wrong by writing a decent, sourced, article on it). Thus Romeo is clearly the primary usage. --Xover (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The Shakespeare character is clearly the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support, primary topic for an encyclopedia, dictionary definitions take lower priority.--Kotniski (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Project disagreement

As far as the anthroponymy project is concerned, I've never see it used on any similar disambiguation page (i.e. with links to surname and given name lists), and I've worked on hundreds of them.

Regarding Shakespeare, you, User:Xover, seem to be the only one who seems to think it appropriate in these situations. You've added the same project to other dab pages (Juliet (disambiguation), Shakespeare (disambiguation)), but no one has followed your example as far as I can see. See Hamlet (disambiguation), Othello (disambiguation), Iago (disambiguation), Shylock (disambiguation), The Merchant of Venice (disambiguation), etc.

I also don't know that Juliet is the primary topic, but that's another can of worms. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: On the anthroponymy project banner I have no strong opinions, so you would need to check with that project on whether they consider dabs in scope. For WP:BARD, I'm pretty much the only one active in tagging and rating for the project, so it's no great surprise that the dabs within the project scope were tagged by me (you'll find the same to be the case for most of the regular articles as well). And what is within the scope for a given project is up to that project: unlike things like WP:MOS, WP:MEDRS, or WP:N, there are no global concerns or policies that take priority of the project's local consensus. Case in point, WP:WikiProject Disambiguation and WP:WikiProject Redirect are just WikiProjects like any other, but have defined their scope to include dabs and redirects. WP:BARD also tags categories and files that are of relevance to Wikipedia's coverage of Shakespeare, and the Wikiproject banner system explicitly supports |class= values for all these types of pages. --Xover (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wherefore are thou Romeo's project? None of the entries (not sure about the songs) seems to have a direct connection to Shakespeare or the character. Stratford-upon-Avon should, but doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was more obvious when the tag was first placed: at the time the dab was at "Romeo" and the article at "Romeo Montague" (iirc). WP:BARD cares not so much about the content (as you say, most isn't currently related) of the dab as about the name of the (dab) article. Let's say, for example, that someone starts a move discussion on the dab (wanting to swap dab and character article): that's something the project will want to know about, and, conversely, that's something the project can help out with if Shakespeare expertise is needed. With the Wikiproject banner on there it's clear for other editors in either of those situations. --Xover (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)