Talk:Wagner (disambiguation)

Requested move 27 June 2023

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: No consensus. Strong arguments on both sides. But the idea to try it to see the navigation outcomes doesn’t address the RECENTISM and long-term significance objections. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 05:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'

Wagner (disambiguation) → Wagner – WP:NOPRIMARY. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Richard Wagner is no longer the primary meaning of Wagner, the latter of which should be a dab page. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Richard Wagner is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Wagner (disambiguation) page in the same manner as Bach, Beethoven and Brahms are the primary topics of the Bach (disambiguation), Beethoven (disambiguation) and Brahms (disambiguation) pages. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are different in that there isn't another common meaning of those surnames. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close as a waste of time. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't aware that Wagner more often refers to Wagner Group? That page received 3.7 million views this month, compared to 122,000 for Richard Wagner. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose quintessential WP:RECENTISM. Richard Wagner has much longer term significance. Walrasiad (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nobody is proposing to move Richard Wagner. This is just a WP:PTM. Red Slash 21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last time we had this discussion was at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_9#Wagner and I stand by what I said then - we should do this as an experiment to see if it improves navigation outcomes. It's easy enough to revert back to a primary redirect if we measure that it makes sense. Right now, we can't do the measurement. --Joy (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RECENTISM. Now if the Wagner Group managed to topple Putin rather than just running away ... Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To be clear, it's not just the past week, but a year and a half, in which Wagner Group has had a very clear lead in page views ([1]). And it's not as though Wagner Group has any shortage of "enduring notability and educational value"; its historical significance would not suddenly evaporate, even if hypothetically the group were disbanded or the war somehow ended. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Adumbrativus, Richard isn't primary by usage for just "Wagner". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He absolutely is. He has his own adjective, Wagnerian. Srnec (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the group is probably more likely to be called just "Wagner" in a generic context and it could reasonably be titled just "Wagner" unlike Richard, see WP:TITLEPTM and the Raleigh example above. While Walter may be more important the city is a full match even if titled differently. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlike Richard"? The composer wouldn't be known as just Wagner??? Is that what you're claiming? Obviously the Strauss of this disagreement is getting to you. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard is probably sometimes called just "Wagner" but normally when the context is clear similar to Lincoln being a DAB and listing Abraham Lincoln but most of the time Abraham would be known (and searched for) by his full name while the capitals of Lincolnshire and Nebraska and car are probably searched with just "Lincoln" much more often. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish, I'm afraid. He's far more likely to be referred to just by his surname. Many people would probably struggle to rememember what his first name was, it's so rarely used. On a par with Beethoven and Tchaikovsky and other such composers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know less about classical music than most, but even I know Ludwig Beethoven and Wolfgang Mozart. (Tchaikovsky? You got me.)

Of course he's commonly referred to as "Wagner" in the context of classical music/opera. But outside that context, it's confusing and ambiguous. Red Slash 21:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as textbook WP:RECENTISM – current news item vs. hugely (for better or for worse) notable composer. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pure WP:RECENTISM. The composer is still the clear primary redirect by long-term significance and always will be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current group aside, there are well over a hundred notable people surnamed "Wagner", far and away more than Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, not to mention place names and other uses. BD2412 T 01:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- When the term "Wagner" is used unqualified, it will invariably refer to the composer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unlikely to normally be the case, the company unqualified is probably more common similar to how Apple Inc. is commonly called just "Apple" and Ford Motor Company is commonly just "Ford". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - You misunderstand what I said. If someone says "Wagner" with no further context they will usually be referring to the composer. Just as when someone says "apple" with no further context they will usually be referring to the fruit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – we can always do it as a trial run, like how Joy suggested. The last month Richard Wagner had more views than Wagner Group was December 2021, and we're aiming to aid readers as well here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wagner is such a common name, it should be a disambig page. Heart ^(talk) 06:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Couldn't be more obvious WP:RECENTISM if you tried. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, notwithstanding the Wagner Group, Wagner is already an extremely common name. DAB should be PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The composer's article is properly titled Richard Wagner and there are enough other articles titled just "Wagner" that a dab page at the title makes sense. Keep Richard near the top of the dab page, though. Station1 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that there is Otto Wagner and the German Wikipedia, de:Wagner has the DAB page at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German dab page doesn't list Richard Wagner, so I'm not sure it is a good example to follow. Srnec (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a massive fan of Otto Wagner, but he really does not come anywhere near the composer in terms of being primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No PTOPIC between the composer, the paramilitary, and all the other things listed at the dab. Also per Joy. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support no PRIMARYTOPIC for this, especially when you consider it's a WP:PTM Red Slash 21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wagner unqualified pretty much always refers to the composer. No evidence people call the Wagner Group simply "Wagner". Even if that were the case, this would be an instance of WP:SMALLDETAILS. :3 F4U (they /it) 02:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite commonly called "Wagner" without the "group" Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only when it's quite clear what's being referred to. If someone just said Wagner with no context whatsoever then 9 times out of 10 they'd be referring to the composer. There's a reason there's an adjective formed from his name! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about Wagner's law which doesn't come from Richard. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats quite subjective, IMO. I think if someone is searching for "Wagner" on the internet they probably mean the mercs, not the composer. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anything SMALLDETAILS could support the company having the unqualified term as companies as I noted above are commonly called without a suffix. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No PTOPIC. While "long term significance" can be argued to be somewhat higher for the composer, the number of people looking for Wagner, the mercenaries, will be much higher than wagner, the composer, for a substantial and indefinite amount of time. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And you know that for a fact, do you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  No, but things like long term significance, and expected page views are both speculative in nature. The current views clearly show Wagner (merc) isnt insignificant. It is my opinion that there is no PTOPIC, as I expect the views to stay as the war is unlikely to end abruptly, and Wagner is unlikely to disband even if it does. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2023 (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.