Talk:Meese

Requested move 13 February 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 17:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Meese → Meese (disambiguation) – So Meese can redirect to Edwin Meese which is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for "Meese" per page views. В²C ☎ 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the former US Attorney General 1985–1988 is not known as just "Meese" in serious WP:RS sources. Also suspect is not widely known in India, Africa, Australia or UK. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • First, I note that there is no basis in policy, guidelines or conventions in your opposition - the closer should weigh it accordingly. Second, to your WP:JDLI point, WP:RS are riddled with examples of referring to him as "Meese" (for example: [1]). Anyway, for policy, guidelines and conventions on WP, the issue is not what a subject is known as, but what someone looking for that subject is likely to type when searching for that subject. For a subject with such an uncommon surname, surely you're not questioning the assertion that someone will be looking for him by using that surname? You can also look at Google Trends for "Meese" and see how the popularity of its use in WP:RS follows Edwin Meese's career perfectly[2]. --В²C ☎ 17:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, the much older River Meese beats him on long term significance. I'll bet that Edwin's surname derives from the river or something closely connected to the river, and Edwin has negligible international significance. Were it not for the river, I would agree, although with a little hesitation due to the massively common notion that meese is, or should be, the plural of moose. I like to do a qucik check of both ghits and google images, and both a heavily polluted by meese/moose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Edwin's surname and the river's name probably both derive from Pixie and Dixie.[3] 50.0.136.56 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You had me there for a bit, having looked hard for the etymology. I don't believe wiktionary's. The river, although small, is old, older than reliable English spelling. The Mease River too, tantalising. I'm interested in this historical stuff. Meese, the plural of moose, or of mouse, I think is very mid 20 century, reflecting earlier decades when basic grammar teaching was becoming widespread, and basic grammar teaching leads to hypercorrections, like these. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can confirm that Edwin Meese is not widely known in UK. I follow politics; the name is vaguely familiar, but only as Edwin Meese and not as Meese. I don't think that any topic is WP:PRIMARY - but that River Meese has the best case to be so, I imagine that its name goes back centuries. Narky Blert (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Historical significance is a consideration, of course. And I don't doubt Edwin Meese is not widely known in the UK, but the ratio of page view counts between Edwin Meese and River Meese are hundreds to one[4]. So folks in the UK and elsewhere are not looking up the river much at all, by "Meese" or any other means. Even the dab page is getting many times more hits than the river (and the band, too, by the way), indicating those who are getting to the dab page are moving on to Edwin more than the River or the band. This is the quintessential example of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. --В²C ☎ 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not a believer in view counts (they shouldn't be disclosed) but can attest that Edwin Meese is well known in the US, because of the Meese Commission, the Meese report, and his (cough) moral rectitude that couldn't be tempted even by devils.[5] I'm ok with either Edwin or the dab page being the primary target. I don't think it should be the river, which is a stub article and which doesn't sound well known. I think we all agree that it shouldn't be the now-defunct rock band. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I very much agree. Page views are for optimisation purposes for search engines, not for titling decisions. Also, definitely, Edwin Meese is highly significant, nationally, with derived notable topics. This is a classic situation that can lead to astonishment for two camps. English rural people will know only of the river, the only thing they have every heard of called Meese, and American jurists will only know of Edwin as the river is small and very far away. These situations call for the base term to lead to a disambiguation page. And the band, a recent commercial thing, is definitely not the primarytopic, not even a close third. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's rare for us to redirect surnames to a single person when there are other topics to disambiguate, and we wouldn't do it in this case, as the proposed target is not very well known internationally, and isn't even the main thing that comes up when you search for the term (the humorous plural of moose is at least as much, and the river is in there too).  — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 20 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.