Talk:Charles Kirk (architect)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Dekimasu in topic Requested move 26 December 2018
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 26 December 2018 edit
- 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: moved as requested. Dekimasuよ! 16:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Charles Kirk (senior) → Charles Kirk (architect) – Subject's prime claim to notability was as an architect, not as a senior. His same-named son does not have a Wikipedia entry and the father's vital dates in lead sentence resolve any confusion. The son is, in fact, mentioned under section header "Career" in the article's first full paragraph, but the entire article concerns the father, not the son. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Question: does the name need to be disambiguated at all? Charles E. Kirk is disambiguated naturally by his initial and the other two are both known as Charlie Kirk, so there is no other use of this exact title. Why not move this article to Charles Kirk and move the disambiguation page to Charles Kirk (disambiguation)? PC78 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion within the above question, "Why not move this article to Charlie Kirk…" The article under discussion in this RM concerns a 19th-century English architect and builder named Charles Kirk who, as far as can be determined, was never referenced as "Charlie Kirk". The Charles Kirk disambiguation page lists two men named "Charles Kirk" and two men named "Charlie Kirk", with none of the four men claimed as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the other three men, thus there would be no need for addition of the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" to the main header. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a typo (which I have now corrected). I was suggesting that we move the article to Charles Kirk and the dab page to Charles Kirk (disambiguation). PC78 (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but there is still the matter of the primary topic. A concurrently active RM at Talk:Charlie Kirk#Requested move 24 December 2018 posits the absence of a primary topic. This should be also applicable to all four men listed at the Charles Kirk dab page. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that the other discussion does apply here, though it would have been helpful to link to it in your nomination. Regarding the proposed change, I do think it's an improvement though obviously it would need to be changed again if the son ever gets his own article. PC78 (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but there is still the matter of the primary topic. A concurrently active RM at Talk:Charlie Kirk#Requested move 24 December 2018 posits the absence of a primary topic. This should be also applicable to all four men listed at the Charles Kirk dab page. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a typo (which I have now corrected). I was suggesting that we move the article to Charles Kirk and the dab page to Charles Kirk (disambiguation). PC78 (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion within the above question, "Why not move this article to Charlie Kirk…" The article under discussion in this RM concerns a 19th-century English architect and builder named Charles Kirk who, as far as can be determined, was never referenced as "Charlie Kirk". The Charles Kirk disambiguation page lists two men named "Charles Kirk" and two men named "Charlie Kirk", with none of the four men claimed as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the other three men, thus there would be no need for addition of the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" to the main header. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 December 2018 (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.