Talk:Churchill (disambiguation)

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: Churchill (disambiguation)
Churchill

Discussions:

RM, Churchill (disambiguation) → Churchill, Not moved, 10 October 2009, discussion
RM, Churchill (disambiguation) → Churchill, Not moved, 12 November 2012, discussion
RM, Churchill (disambiguation) → Churchill, Not moved, 6 February 2021, discussion

Opening comment

Only recently did I become aware that there was a second author named Winston Churchill, and that he was American.

I believe that the list entry for him should be clearly separate not only from the British Churchill family on this page, but also all the others, and that the inclusion of birth & death dates for the two similarly named contemporaries, both born in the same decade, both of whom had military conections, both of whom entered politics (though the British Winston was enormously successful, the American Winston was quite unsuccessful), both of whom published multiple best-selling books (also admitting the disparity in success rates in this endeavor), will help readers understand why and how the American Winston's works are so frequently and easily mis-attributed to Sir Winston). I fully realize that it is not customary to have added space in the middle of a list. I don't think it looks very nice, either, but it does set the other Winston apart in a way that makes him noticeable - which is the whole point.

I am too much involved with other activities at this time to participate in a discussion here, so I hope, by providing my rationale, to avoid debate. I have no personal interest in the issue; I've never read anything by the American Churchill (although his novels that I've checked at Amazon have high ratings). My interest is merely in providing accurate and complete content for those who seek it. --Tygerbryght 23:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing entries

There seem to be some entries missing. In normal circumstances I'd just add them, but since I don't like having my work immediately reformatted, and I'm pretty sure that that is what would happen in this case, I'll just flag them up here.

Churchill theatre

The family:

Anyone descended from any Duke of Marlborough is part of the family.
Anyone called "Spencer-Churchill" (search "intitle:Spencer-Churchill") is part of the family.
Some of the family are listed at Viscount Churchill
Lord Charles Spencer-Churchill (soldier) (given in the article under "Others") is part of the family.

Of the numerous missing members, some immediate ones are Sir Winston's children

Diana Churchill
Sarah Churchill that is, Sarah Tuchet-Jesson, Baroness Audley
Mary Churchill

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these should be added. The case for John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough, in particular seems very strong, but probably the others as well. (For comparison, the Wellesley disambiguation page points to all the dukes of Wellington.) David Bofinger (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbofinger: No they shouldn't. They are covered by Churchill (surname) and Churchill (family). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 October 2009

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill (disambiguation) → Churchill — The name "Churchill" has a large number of possible uses, as placename, surname of a distinguished family, common surname, name of a Cambridge college, and so on. Examination of the inward links (now corrected) to the existing Churchill page showed many to be references to Sir Winston, but a significant minority to be to places called Churchill, or other uses, such as the tank or the insurance company. It seems more generally useful to have no primary topic here, and to format the disambiguation page in a way which keeps the famous family in chronological order. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 naming conventions.

Oppose. Traffic stats for August show 10K+ hits through "Churchill" and only 1600 hits to the disambiguation page. This indicates that the large majority of the readers who hit Churchill were not looking for any of the other topic but reached the correct primary topic, the target of the redirect. Moving the dab page will add one extra click for over 8000 readers in order to save a click for 1600. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 99.999% of readers will be looking for the British politician who lead the country to victory over the Nazis. Obviously. Jubilee♫clipman 03:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, over 80% anyway. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per the above comment. LunarLander // talk // 14:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments: SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Origin of surname

What is the origin of this surname? Badagnani (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 November 2012

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: not moved. I see no evidence of systemic bias either way: as Zarcadia said, "it's to do with what other articles have a claim to the name Lincoln and Churchill. Lincoln, England and Lincoln, Nebraska are notable enough to prevent Lincoln directing to the president but there is no Churchill article that does". DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill (disambiguation) → Churchill – I thought I'd try a little systemic bias experiment, as a similar move discussion is taking place at Talk:Lincoln#Requested move 2. In North America, "Churchill" is never used to refer to Winston Churchill. In Canada, it is most associated with the arctic town of Churchill, Manitoba. There are many American, Australian and other places around the world named Churchill. It has several dozen cultural connections, many surname that certainly predate Winston. Really, it is only logical that both these great leaders get the same equal treatment with regards to the target of their surname. Otherstuffexists is for deletion discussions, by the way, so I will personally ignore all the poor appeals to it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what part of NA you're from, but the claim that in North America, "Churchill" is never used to refer to Winston Churchill is laughably false. So far as I'm aware -- for nearly everyone (at least those with some post-secondary education) "Churchill" is the WWII British leader. older ≠ wiser 17:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Toronto, Ontario, and unless you are taking a history degree, any high school graduate has just as much history knowledge as the average post-secondary graduate. I've never in my life heard Winston Churchill initially referred to as simply "Churchill". Perhaps after an initial mention of "Winston Churchill". In fact, it's about as laughably false as the idea that Lincoln isn't used anywhere in Europe to refer to "Abraham Lincoln". - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV, but in my experience, without any other qualification, if someone mentioned "Churchill", the assumption would be they are referring to the WWII leader. Regarding Lincoln, the sand in the ointment there is that there are several other well-known things prominently known as simply Lincoln. I doubt that the sum of traffic for all the entries on the Churchill dab page even comes close to approaching the traffic for the WWII leader. older ≠ wiser 17:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timewaste - Sorry, but when there's a Churchill (automobile), and a town that doesn't itself always carry "comma Manitoba" in texts (e.g. "open forest succession at Churchill, Manitoba." "Viewing of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from tundra vehicles has been offered at Churchill, Manitoba since the early 1980s." "the tree line near Churchill, Manitoba" ""over 5 summers in Churchill, Manitoba." etc) then it'll be worth discussing this. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A term this ambiguous shouldn't support a primarytopic claim. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - In the U.S. he is sometimes referred to as Churchill. It does help his notability claim that he was at the forefront of probably the most known event in history, a world war, which Lincoln never was. I agree with in ictu's automobile point as well.Hoops gza (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is borderline disruptive. The only other Churchill most people would think of is Churchill Downs, and no one would look up Churchill to find that one. Hot Stop (Edits) 05:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we have several other Churchill's that are notable enough to garner articles. I think this represents a geographically skewed view of the world. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence, please? p b p 15:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: If Lincoln ain't a primary topic, Churchill shouldn't be either. Churchill is essentially the British Lincoln. it's about fairness, and resolving the persistent UK-centrism in article naming. Also, we're forgetting that there were a lot of other dudes named Churchill, i.e., John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough p b p 15:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. It's not about Winston Churchill being more famous than Abraham Lincoln. It's about the other uses of Lincoln (especially a very famous city in England) being more notable than the other uses of Churchill (primarily, it seems, a fairly obscure town in Canada with a population of 813). John Churchill is usually known as Marlborough, not Churchill, and the other Churchills were nowhere near as well-known as these two. And as for UK-centrism, don't make me laugh! Wikipedia has had a problem with US-centrism from the word go. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In some ares perhaps, but in others the pendulum swings the opposite way. The abundance of UK places claiming a primary topic is one of those in my opinion. I think both bias are wrong, and should be corrected. Note also the Australian town of 4500 in Australia, far more populated than the Canadian one (which I simply mentioned because it is known to me; my geographical bias perhaps). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: for the same reasons as I gave three years ago, as seen above. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This request seems little more than making a point. Having Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill direct to their articles is nothing to do with one versus the other, it's to do with what other articles have a claim to the name Lincoln and Churchill. Lincoln, England and Lincoln, Nebraska are notable enough to prevent Lincoln directing to the president but there is no Churchill article that does. It's a shame the requester had chosen to go down this route, it looks silly and amateurish. Zarcadia (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to discussing the points, not the person making the points, thank you. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whether or not I am "making a point" is irrelevant here, as I have provided plenty of evidence here. This is a case of systemic bias towards Europe, and especially Great Britain in my view; one of many examples. It is a fair point to be discussed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Please don't persist with this "point". I am from Great Britain and still support this proposal, for which there are many good arguments. Posing it as a battle between Europe and America is sterile, distasteful and only serves to undermine the spirit of WP:AGF which wikipedia needs to survive and prosper. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a battle of us vs them. It's simply a battle of inappropriate primary topics. I'm sure there are many American examples that should receive the same treatment. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No bias towards Britain here, any more than Stalin being a redirect shows bias towards Russia. bd2412 T 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an oppose rationale, because the bias is simply my perception of the situation with primary topics in general, not my rationale for this particular move. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Zarcadia makes the points that I wanted to make really well, so it's pointless me repeating them! Jeni ^(talk) 08:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 6 February 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Early close per WP:SNOW but would reopen upon request. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill (disambiguation) → Churchill – No clear primary topic for "Churchill" alone, the WW2 leader has 555,081 but the tank has 17,870[[1]]. When I Google Churchill although there are more results for Winston the 1st result is the insurance company which to many people in England will also mean. There is also John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and Winston Churchill (novelist) though these are probably known as plain "Churchill" less often and get less views[[2]]. There are also a large number of places (of which in England the surname derives from) as well as Churchill, Manitoba which is known for bears. I think listing Winston at the top is sufficient for readers using only his last name since although he is sometimes called "Churchill" alone he is usually referred to by his full name except where the context is clear (such as wars/politics) while the company is always called "Churchill". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in Wikipedia). Winston is the Man. "Sometimes" called Churchill alone? In which alternate universe? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. Winston seems the obvious primary topic. O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Winston is the primary redirect for "Churchill". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per all the above. BD2412 T 06:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it's clear that everyone pretty much knows his first name, he's still universally mononymously known under the surname. It's amusing to see mass views for the surname and see that he's actually more viewed than England. If we exclude generic terms from that analysis, he's overwhelmingly more well known than any other Churchill, and there's probably no other condender for the phrase 'the Churchill', hence it makes sense to keep the navigation short-circuited, as that seems most likely to best serve the preponderance of readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Winston is the clear primary redirect here. Say "Churchill" without further context and you can pretty much guarantee that you'll be understood to be referring to him. He is most certainly not "usually referred to by his full name". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wouldn't go so far to say the latter, as any text describing him will probably spell out Winston. But, it's immaterial, as it's quite likely to also see text not introducing him at all or introducing him simply as 'Prime Minister Churchill' or similar, both of which strongly supports the status of primary topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The tank of comparable importance to the Prime Minister? You're joking. Also the C17/C18 general is almost invariably known as Marlborough, many people who have heard of him might not know his surname. PatGallacher (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the one and only Winston has the case made for primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly when I was a child I wondered why some people called "Hitler" "Adolf Hitler" since I'd only heard him called "Hitler" for a while, I assumed that was his first name, on the other hand Winston Churchill to my awareness is usually called by his full name. I also remember having a conversation with someone around a year ago about what "Churchill" usually meant and I said the insurance company while they said the politician, they then mentioned about what "Windows" meant and said the thing you look out of rather than the computing meaning but they did say it could be partly due to age. I'd note that Windows does go to the OS not the building part. I'd weakly say that neither "Churchill" nor "Windows" have a primary topic but I don't feel strongly either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Winston Churchill is the primary topic. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.