Talk:Wycliffe

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Wycliffe → Wycliffe (disambiguation) — Then have Wycliffe redirect to John Wycliffe, per primary usage Patstuart^talk|edits 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support as nom. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support This is the original. The Bible Translators should get a dab header; very rarely will they be linked to as Wycliffe. The TV series would be a problem if it were notable enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose. A quick check of some of the links presently linking to this disambig page showed one to the proposed primary meaning, one to the Bible translators, two to the TV show and one to the TV character. It is far easier to check and fix broken links to dab pages than broken links to primary topics. My survey shows it should remain a dab page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I'm not convinced that there is a primary use here. Leaving the dab here does the not hurt anyone and it does not send any readers to the wrong article. As Scott Davis points out the current links are across the board. That tells me that editors are assuming this page is really one of four, not really an endorsement for a primary use. Vegaswikian 07:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. Naturally there should always be exceptions to the rule, but I don't see this as one of them. PC78 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   Um, could you kindly point out what part of the naming conventions you're talking about? Becuase I thought I was following them, given that this man is the most popular term for the word (see my other arguments). Patstuart^talk|edits 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm talking about the part I linked to, where it says the dab page shouldn't be at Wycliffe (disambiguation) when it could be at Wycliffe. With respect to your arguments, it's not like this guy is Shakespeare or Picasso. The only Wycliffe I know is the TV show. PC78 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose I think it is a fair split for the primary usage but the tippingpoint for me i the fact that anyone wanting to search or link to John Wyclffe are probably going to type John Wycliffe and not need a disambiguation page. On the other hand someone looking for the organization and not quite sure what the full name is, would be more likely to just type in Wycliffe and see where it leads to. 205.157.110.11 06:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Any support for this one use being the primary usage? Vegaswikian 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• gsearch pulls up almost exclusively two types of hits: Wycliffe Bible Translators, which is named in John's honor, and John himself. It pulls up a few other non-notable pages of people without articles (e.g., a lacrosse player). Patstuart^talk|edits 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in mind, too, that this character is 600 years old: the fact that he has more ghits than many contemporary names is quite impressive. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's kind if what I thought. The high number of links for Wycliffe Bible Translators kind of says there are two major uses, so there is no primary use. If that's true no move should be made. The fact that Wycliffe Bible Translators is named after John is not a consideration. Vegaswikian 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You know, I hate to keep arguing, but this is the best example I could think of off the top of my head: George Washington. You'll notice a lot of ghits come up for the university, but it was named after a very famous man (indeed, Wycliffe's work was among the most important of the 14th century). But the fact that we get a lot of ghits for the school only shows that it had a greater internet presence and is a sign of the fact we live in the year 2007. Just IMHO. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One difference is that most people intending to link to George Washington University will expect to have to use that name, not just George Washington, as they know he was a famous person. Not everyone linking to Wycliffe can be expected to have heard of someone who died 600 years ago if they're thinking of the TV show/character or a present-day village or publishing house. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is as close to a line call as I've yet seen. I can argue it both ways. Agree that the sensible options are either to have the disambig at Wycliffe, or have Wycliffe redirect to John Wycliffe. Actually I'd be happy to have it redir to the disambig too. Andrewa 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.