Talk:Ruth Jones (disambiguation)

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

Anthroponymy

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy

Requested move 5 April 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, so the previous status quo of the actress being primary is restored. — Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Jones (disambiguation) → Ruth Jones – I am leaning towards the view that this is now a case of "no primary topic" following the election of an MP of this name, but this was changed in a confused way without going through a formal move request. PatGallacher (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I still have a lot to learn here. I didn't see how this could be construed as a controversial move, so following the guidance I saw through WP:NOTRM and WP:RMUM – which suggest that uncontroversial moves don't need to go through the move request process. Regarding other aspects of how it was changed in a confused way, please let me know what I need to improve on! Domeditrix (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore actress as primary topic, she was getting an average of 900 page views a day before the move. I'm not sure how a newly created article about a newly elected politician changes anything. It should be shown that the actress is no longer the primary topic, not merely presumed. PC78 (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move I checked that same page referenced by User:PC78 before moving the Ruth Jones to Ruth Jones (actress), it was listed as something to check to see whether a move would be controversial. What we can clearly see is that on the first day of the politician's page having data recorded it received less than 150 fewer page views than the actress's page. With no clear primary article, 'Ruth Jones' should default to the disambiguation page. Domeditrix (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One day's worth of page views doesn't really say anything, clearly there will be a certain amount of interest in a politician who assumed office within the last 24 hours. The question is, will that interest be sustained over the long term? We don't know, and we shouldn't guess. PC78 (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The well-established and well-known actress is the clear primary topic over an MP elected a few days ago who will possibly only last until the next general election. Move back. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm beginning to lean towards the view that the actress is still the primary meaning, but we need to take a clear decision one way or the other, the present situation is an unsatisfactory muddle. PatGallacher (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Support per nomination. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2019 (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.