Talk:Romer (disambiguation)

Requested move 17 December 2024

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Romer (disambiguation) → Romer
Romer → Romer (tool)

– No primary topic. Based on pageview data, the top three are Rømer scale, Romer vs. Evans, and Römer; the current base article Romer comes in sixth. Duckmather (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, all-time mass views for the main list and all-time mass views for the surname list indicate it's most likely this term would be associated with a human name by the average reader.

All-time page views for top 10 items have to be viewed in logarithmic scale to see trends because of the consistently huge amount of interest in a single person (the actress), and we can see there's been multiple times that there was a spike of interest that corresponded better with a spike in interest in another topic than the currently presumed primary topic.

WikiNav indicates this article to be a bit of a dead end for navigation, too, so disambiguation seems like a no-brainer with regard to usage. (Support) --Joy (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:PTM unless you can argue that one of the people with the name "Romer" is referred to on a surname-only basis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the tool is named after a person's surname, so the idea that the association between the term and the surname is too weak does not really make sense.

This is especially dubious when we consider that the tool was named so in the last 100-odd years and we have notable surname holders documented for the last 300 or so years, so the long-term significance argument in favor of the status quo is moot at best. --Joy (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would make sense if the surname had an article. It doesn't, only a list of names. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of examining what would improve reader navigation, we can't just look at a possibility of interest in people's names as in trying to read an etymology that isn't documented as such, but the potential of navigating readers to biographies under the same name. We know from other examples that there's a contingent of readers who do this. At the same time, having the disambiguation in the base name would be helpful for the etymology, too, as it could provide a wikt:romer link at the top, which doesn't happen when the tool hogs the primary topic position - everything is hidden behind the extra hatnote click. --Joy (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the tool has 223 views but Römer has 958, the surname has 64 and the crater has 16[[1]]. SMALLDETAILS probably doesn't work here since English readers are unlikely to know to search with the diacritics. Thus it doesn't "indicate a distinct topic" since the title without diacritics is the simpler form and the title with them is a spelling variant. See Talk:George Puscas (sports writer)#Requested move 1 December 2019 and Talk:Nelson Oliveira (cyclist)#Requested move 4 May 2020 for similar examples. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]