Talk:Gorsuch (surname)

Requested move 7 April 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: Page Moved (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Gorsuch → Gorsuch (surname) – It is implausible at this point that the primary topic of this term will be anything other than the United States Supreme Court Justice. Other names on the page (and the surname as a topic) fall far by the wayside in comparison. Move this page so that this title can redirect to Neil Gorsuch. bd2412 T 22:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Though it is implausible the primary topic will be something else, that doesn't necessarily mean Neil himself will be the long-term primary topic. How does this differ from the multiple attempts to redirect Trump to Donald Trump?  ONR  (talk)  23:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Trump is also a common noun (the kind of card), with numerous other meanings, including things like place names. Gorsuch has a much smaller universe of meanings, all surnames of specific people of comparatively minor notability. bd2412 T 02:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

:Oppose. The primary topic for a surname is nearly always the surname itself. --Srleffler (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but not always - see Scalia, Alito, Rehnquist, Blackmun, Fortas. bd2412 T 02:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• ​"The primary topic for a surname is nearly always the surname itself." Hardly. Of the top ten most common surnames in the UK, only two (i.e., 20%) are the primary topic for that name. As only the 11,778^th and 24,100^th (sic) most common surnames in the US and England respectively, the surname Gorsuch can hardly be said a very notable topic. —  AjaxSmack  16:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• I like the list you referenced, as it actually supports my case. None of the top ten UK names points to a single individual of that name. All but one point to either a dab page, or an article on the surname itself. The one exception is Brown, which of course points to the colour. To refine what I am trying to say: if a word is only a surname (no other notable meanings) and there is an article about that surname, the name should be the article title and there should be a hatnote to a dab page listing notable individuals by that name, if there is more than one. If there is not yet an article about the surname, the name should usually point to the disambiguation page that lists all notable individuals by that name. I'm open to discussion on the case where there is not yet an article on the surname itself, and one individual is significantly more notable than all the others.--Srleffler (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• @BD2412: I withdraw my opposition. You and others here have made a good case.--Srleffler (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. With his confirmation, this should obviously be moved. People are clearly searching Gorsuch to get to Neil Gorsuch's article, and they likely will for a long time, SCOTUS justices are hardly fleeting. And, come on, what other challengers for the long-term primary topic status are there? Dick Gorsuch and Harry Gorsuch are barely notable, and Anne Gorsuch Burford was a low-ranking cabinet member for less than two years. Clearly the primary topic is Neil here. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, in concurrence with User:Srleffler. "Gorsuch" should link to all people of that name, not just the SCOTUS justice. RM2KX (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This will lead to a lot of errors, as people attempt to link to the Justice by surname in every article created for every notable case or court development going forward. bd2412 T 03:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • (Sorry, I linked the wrong user.) I am sure you are right, but we are here to fix mistakes when we see them. Is that something a bot could do via "what links here"? I don't know.
      • Bots are not good with context - we have projects to do this manually, and we already have tens of thousands of links like this to fix. bd2412 T 12:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ​"Gorsuch" should link to all people of that name...". Not according to WP:PTM. —  AjaxSmack  16:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. With virtually no competition, the judge is, indeed, primary. Such a move would not even be setting a Supreme Court precedent as confirmed by the above-mentioned names of five recent justices, one of whom is still on the Court. Such redirects are nothing new — four of the five above-linked judicial surnames have existed since 2003 – 04. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Much more prominent than the other name-holders. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It's hard to believe that a three-sentence "article" with one questionable source about a rather obscure surname is all that notable of a topic. —  AjaxSmack  16:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Neil Gorsuch is the primary topic. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support (change of vote). Per Wp:Redirects, bullet #5, and Wp:Undue weight. RM2KX (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support If someone enters "Gorsuch" and clicks on GO, of course they're almost certainly looking for the justice. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in spades. --В²C ☎ 23:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Most people will not arrive via a Wikipedia search, but via an external search, a wiki link, or a direct external link. For all these people, is it really worth forcing a hatnote on each of them? --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, what do you mean by, "forcing a hatnote on each of them"? They will be taken directly to their article and you don't want them to see a hatnote link to Gorsuch dab or surname page? --В²C ☎ 16:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Currently, the jurist's article has a clean header. This redirect, relevant to few, will necessitate adding a hatnote to the article. Hatnotes are a pain, especially for downstream use, particularly when they don't relate to ambiguity of the actual title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 15 April 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.