Talk:Thomas Keightley

Requested move 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{Requested move/dated|Thomas Keightley}}

Thomas Keightley (historian) → Thomas Keightley – Restore to original name without "(historian)" qualifier since WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria of "usage" and "long-term significance" easily met Kiyoweap (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Typographical error on target name corrected--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Technical issues regarding move

• Comment this page move is dependent on the move at Talk:Thomas Keightley, if that one fails, then this will will automatically fail. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment this is a disjointed malformatted mutlimove request. the other half is located at Talk:Thomas Keightley ; someone please fix this. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the IP user's qualms are. Seems there was a {{Multimove}} template but discontinued. Please be more specific. Yes, I do have to cascade two move, and a technical request for deletion at the end of it, etc., but that just has to be dealt with in routine manner, once WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is established, n'est-ce pas? I'd rather you don't bog this discussion down with those technicalities. I will concede it was bad to have discussion open at Talk pages. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at WP:RM on how to actually do a multimove, as it is, you already noticed the problem of why this nomination is malformed, since you already commented on the problem at the other talk page, because there are two discussions going on at once. The proper template is called {{move-multi}} not {{multimove}}. If you followed the instructions at WP:RM it would be readily apparent how to format this so that there aren't two separate discussions going on at once, where if the other discussion fails, this one will become a paradox if it succeeds, because it will try to supplant a newly lodged consensus of another group of editors.

I don't see any {{db-g6}}, all I see is some {{uw-c&p}} moves of the disambiguation page

It doesn't help having only half a discussion at each talk page. So the muddying the waters was accomplished by the disjointed move request. People don't see the other half of the move proposition when they look at each talk page. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make this a clearer discussion, you can close both requests you have open, and then reopen it with the proper move request template. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I see. Thanks. When I glanced at that section, I thought that had to do with a batch process of requesting several non-related moves. I will do it over with the {{move-multi}} as you suggested. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested multimove

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: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

---

• Thomas Keightley (historian) → Thomas Keightley
• Thomas Keightley → Thomas Keightley (disambiguation)

– Thomas Keightley (historian) easily meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria as any cursory Google search will show; "(historian)" qualifier is confusing since many people now identify him more as folklorist. See detailed "rationale" below. Kiyoweap (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. After reviewing the stats and the articles, it is clear that the other Thomas Keightley's are of comparatively minimal importance. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Seems OK to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Solomon7968 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Rationale

1. Thomas Keightley (historian) → Thomas Keightley move is justified if WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is met, and it does:
   • Searched "Thomas Keightley" string in "scholar.google.com", limited to "1900-present" time frame. The time constraint is to answer to the second criterion of "long-term significance".
   • Crude analysis of a sample of 100 hits: 98 related to my primary, and 2 related to the secondary. The Thomas Keightley (official) received passing mention in just two papers (D Hayton (1991) and T Doyle (1997)).
   • If the search had been books.google, the results would be more overwhelmingly close to 100 to 0, since primary is an author of several books still or recently in print. The secondary has no published works in library catalog, except for an archived legal document.
2. "Thomas Keightley (historian)" label is obsolete, since he is more known now as author/commentator of Fairy Mythology and other legend and mythological works.
   • The breakdown of the 98 hits above is roughly: 80 mythology & folklore, 10 literary criticism (usually Milton), 5 Crusades and other history, 3 Secret society.
   • Search turns up two short bios of the primary in recent years, Burton Feldman (1972) and Dorson (1999), both are folklore-related.
3. Current wiki articles on the two figures are a poor basis for assessing equal noteworthiness.
   • They are almost entirely based on DNB (Dictionary of National Biography) from 1892 or earlier. Obsolete sense of relative importance, not reflective of current prevailing interest, which has been addressed above.
   • Even looking at the primary's article in DNB (1892), there is overemphasis on his history book writing, compared to current interest. Some details such as the books appearing in 8vo, or who it is dedicated to are of trivial importance, and not routinely written up in articles of other authors of the 18th century. --Kiyoweap (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.