This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Material from Sheridan was split to Sheridan (surname) on 03:54, 25 April 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
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: not moved. Favonian (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sheridan → Sheridan (disambiguation) – move in order to allow Sheridan to become a redirect to what is indisputably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Sheridan. I'd have done it myself, but was unable to due to the existing redirect at the new name. No Google search results or whatever are added in support of this request, as they are neither even remotely reliable nor, in this case, even conceivably required. A hatnote for Sheridan's homonymous grandson is already in place on the article. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disagree on the "undisputable primary topic", I'd wager that the city in Wyoming is more well-known than the person. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you made me laugh - for a moment. But oddly enough, this is actually a serious request, so – out of respect for other editors – could I ask you to treat it as such? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your snark comment accomplishes nothing and you should refrain from such in the future, whether or not it "makes you laugh" is irrelevant and I can assure you I am being completely serious. Sheridan, Wyoming is a well-known city throughout the entire Mountain West region. I'd actually never heard of this person until now, traffic statistics do show his page as being viewed more often than the city, but they are close enough that I can safely vote oppose on this (2104 vs 3106). Another article, Tony Sheridan, has been viewed 4698 times. As well, on a google search for "Sheridan" the first 3 results were all related to the city, though others may get different results on a search. As this isn't even the most popular topic under this category, you can't fairly claim this to be the "indisputable primary topic". --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – where's the evidence that that one Sheridan is primary over the long list of others? Hard to imagine. Philip Sheridan is at least equally important (but still not enough so to be primary for such an ambiguous name); or the M551 Sheridan; or the city; or the other city. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I need to see reliable evidence to support the claim that it is "indisputably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". I do not see an overwhelming difference in page views or google search results either. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that. There is no primary topic for such a widely used name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not citing any evidence means you're effectively telling people that the article should be moved because I say so, and there are certainly several items listed at the disambiguation page that would seem to be as equally recognised as the playwright, if not more so. Furthermore, your response to BigPimpinBrah was obnoxious and rude at best and disruptive and WP:DICKish at worst. IgnorantArmies 10:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support... but in the face of such a lot of opposition, more realistically I think we should include the two really celebrated name-holders and the city (never heard of Philip or the city myself, but I'll take people's word for their importance) at the top, rather than expect people to plough through such a long list because they don't know their target's forenames or state. I've boldly added those entries, per MOS:DABORDER "In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below.". PamD 15:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: 1. Well, it's clear that not everyone has the same idea of who or what Sheridan refers to; to me, if you say "Sheridan", it's the playwright, if you want to refer to any other Sheridan you need to specify. That's just my personal take, but I'm frankly surprised at the response here; perhaps it is in part because I am not, and sadly never have been, in Wyoming. As far as notability goes, I don't think there's much of a question, though I am quite unable to think of a way of distinguishing Richard Brinsley Sheridan from his grandson Richard Brinsley Sheridan in searches. For what it is worth:
Personally, I don't believe that proves very much of anything, which is why I did not adduce such statistics earlier.
2. I believe that Dicklyon's point about the length of the list is well made, and a fully adequate reason for not making the move as proposed; I suggest that others should decide whether to close this straight away, or leave it open for further discussion
3. I think PamD is on the right track; I'd like to suggest, at the very least, splitting off the surnames from this page as I believe is common practice
4. I believe I owe an apology to BigPimpinBrah. Late last night I followed a link to one of the Sheridan's, I'm now not sure which, and found that it had a population of 464; clearly it cannot have been Sheridan, Wyoming, which has more than 17,000 inhabitants. I hope he will forgive me for thinking that he was having a bit of fun, asserting that a little village in the middle of nowhere was more notable than one of the greatest and most celebrated playwrights in the English language; and for my distinctly humourless response. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Closest there is to a primary topic in my mind would be the city. Anyway, we very rarely give people's last names as primary topics, even if they're really famous, unless there is no competition at all (see Bush, Clinton, Lincoln, Blair--counterexamples such as Stalin, Churchill or de Gaulle do exist but only if there's no real competition). Red Slash 23:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I believe the ghits, jstor and scholar numbers are not being appropraitely applied hear. Those numbers would have relevance if we were trying to establish which "Richard Sheridan" was the primary topic, and attempting to remove a disambiguator such as Richard Sheridan (playwright) so it is simply Richard Sheridan. But rather, we are talking about simply the last name. While Richard might be the most published or covered Sheridan, is he the PRIMARY TOPIC of just Sharidan, or rather, when "Sheridan" is used alone, as in Nixon are people overwhelmingly referring to "Richard Sheridan". I don't think we have information to support that. Going back to ghits, jstor and scholar, Richard is not the top hit for any of them. Which, at most goes to substantiated that Richard isn't the intended target of "Sheridan" when left solo. Another way to look at it, would it be appropriate to have the article name simply Sheridan? Even the famous playwrightShakespear has a DAB page, and his actual page has his full name. And I believe (although couldn't substantiate it) that a greater percentage of people refer to William Shakespear as simply Shakespear than do people referring to Richard Sheridan and simply Sharidan...and yet there is a DAB for Shakespear. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:24, 24 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.
