Talk:Pere Marquette (disambiguation)

Requested move 30 January 2014

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: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Pere Marquette → Pere Marquette (disambiguation) – Jacques Marquette is the primary topic for this title. All of the other entries on this dab are named for him and are much less likely to be the subject of a search for "Pere Marquette". Therefore this dab should be moved over the top of Pere Marquette (disambiguation) (which does not have any significant history) and Pere Marquette should be changed to redirect to Jacques Marquette. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Nick Number (talk) 22:47, 30 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, per George Washington (or President Washington). There are few better indications that a person is the primary topic of a name than the fact that all other uses are references to that person. bd2412 T 01:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral, I would also have thought that the priest should be primary, but [Google Books doesn't seem to substantially support. I wonder if people seeing place and railway names even know that "Pere" means priest, Père Marquette however must redirect to the priest. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been bold and redirected Père Marquette to the priest, as suggested. Anyone using the accent mark must know for what they are searching, and it is doubtless the priest. Xoloz (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Without some better evidence, I'm not convinced that in English it is common to refer to the French missionary as "Pere Marquette". Several of the namesakes are independently notable and disambiguation seems the best option. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Evidence? Just look at all the places that are named for the guy! bd2412 T 03:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Most of the names have been in place for a very long time. Where in contemporary English language sources is the missionary commonly known as "Pere Marquette" (apart from parenthetical glosses of the term). And how is derivative use evidence? The article Boston is not about the original Boston. At least in Michigan, the name would easily be taken to refer first to either the river or one of the railways. Yes, people generally realize where the name came from, but without context, the missionary is not necessarily the first thing that comes to mind for the term "Pere Marquette". And by the way, many of the entries are named after the river and thus are at best second-generation deriatives of the missionary. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Interesting case, and the arguments of Bkonrad are not without merit. However, I think there is a didactic purpose to be served in being redirected first to the priest. Even if a reader comes to WP looking for a derivative usage, he or she will not be confused by being sent to Jacques Marquette; but rather, enlightened. "Oh, wow, the encyclopedia taught me something today!" is the reaction I'd expect from someone who did not know the origin of the name. After learning of the existence of Jacques Marquette, such a reader would naturally grasp why he is a primary topic, and proceed to disambiguation for derivative uses. Xoloz (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. I redid the Google Books search, starting at page 1 (In ictu oculi's link started at page 3 of the results), and AFAICS only 6 of the first 30 results refer to the priest. However, most of the hits for the railway are primary sources (their annual report, inhouse mag, etc) so although it appears to score well, it's not primary either.
  Where so many topics derive so closely from another topic, I would usually be inclined the original as primary, but in this case I think that the sheer number and notability of the derivatives probably makes that approach inappropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 17 February 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.