Talk:McKinsey (disambiguation)

Requested move 26 January 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

---

McKinsey → McKinsey (surname) – McKinsey should redirect to McKinsey & Company per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Page views show that the company is viewed far more than other topics combined. DuckDuckGo and Google Books results are mostly about the company. In fact, the second most-viewed article also involves the company. Long-term significance should not be an issue because the company was founded in 1926, comparable to people with the surname McKinsey. Note that Mckinsey already redirects to the company, so if this RM is closed as "not moved" it should point to this surname article. feminist 02:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense. Nohomersryan (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose we could probably do this for every surname, but it's not beneficial to the encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What? Nohomersryan (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support the page views don't lie, Primary topic.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Page views often do lie, see User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views#Examples. But not always. Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure why I didn't do that in the first place. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Surname page

@Feminist: @Xezbeth: @Leschnei: to continue the discussion which was started at User_talk:Feminist#McKinsey: Feminist moved the page McKinsey (surname) to McKinsey (disambiguation), per that request at their talk page. Since then, Xezbeth has decided to split just the surname entries back to the old surname page. Given that this is a short list of people, and contains no other detail on the surname whatsoever (which might make a separate surname article useful) I don't see the value of doing this. Standard practice, as evidenced by the large number of pages at Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists, is to list people with a given surname on the disambiguation page, and to splitting them out when there's no other useful content simply inconveniences readers for no good reason. I reverted Xezbeth's split, but they have reinstated it again, so bringing the conversation here now in the hope we can come to a consensus. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not standard practice. I have had this argument before, please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 33#Question regarding Oppenheimer_page and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 42#Is Dewulf a disambiguation page?. I have split thousands of these out from dab pages, many of them with much fewer name-holders than this one. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

See also MOS:DABNAME and WP:APONOTE, which I probably should have linked to first since they are more important. –Xezbeth (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Actually though, according to MOS:DABNAME:

• There are two options for listing name holders (people whom the encyclopedia reader wouldn't expect to find under the single-name title). For short lists of name holders, new sections of People with the surname Xxxx or People with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, and as an alternative for a short list, create an anthroponymy list article and link to it from the disambiguation page. If it isn't clear that the article includes a list, consider mentioning that in the description.

This seems fairly clearly to be a "short list of name holders". And, interestingly enough, you have yourself previously reverted a change to enforce exactly that section of MOS:DABNAME, so I'm not sure what's different about this one? Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That was someone outright removing names while citing a page that they clearly hadn't bothered reading. I can and will split that name out at some point, it's not exactly a high priority task. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry to be blunt but that is a split that you should never carry out, because the current version already conforms to the guideline mentioned. And your "improvement" actually makes life more difficult for readers by adding an extra click for no benefit. Similarly with this page here. I appreciate that you're acting in good faith for the encyclopedia, but spending time on this is not productive at all IMHO. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in your approval. Kindly do not revert me in future. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If you make changes that don't have consensus, then you will get reverted. And contrary to what you say there's no community consensus for the disruptive changes you are making. You linked yourself to the guideline which says there are two ways to do this. Leschnei wisely concedes that point, and you would do well to do the same instead of rudely dismissing the issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but the thing that really drives me crazy is titles with '(disambiguation)' being redirected to surname/given name pages. In an effort to improve both pages, I have added a (very) short lead to McKinsey (surname), along with an infobox and references, and a few more entries. And a couple of entries to McKinsey (disambiguation) as well. Feel free to edit/delete/merge. Leschnei (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru, Xezbeth, and Feminist: As soon as I hit 'Publish changes', I realized that I should have waited for a consensus. My apologies. If the consensus is to have only one page, I will happily change it back. Leschnei (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There is long-standing consensus to do what you just did, and you couldn't have done that if it was baked into a dab page. That's precisely why they should be separate, since a dab cannot have references. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I still prefer to wait for consensus when a discussion has already started. Leschnei (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way. I prefer having a single page that lists both people with the surname and other topics, but if the current setup is to be used, the hatnote on McKinsey & Company should probably link to both the disambiguation page and the surname page. feminist (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)