Talk:Michael Armitage (politician)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Australia: Adelaide / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Michael Armitage (politician) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 5 June 2017[edit]

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. No support has been shown. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Armitage (politician) → Michael Armitage – There are 2 articles on a Michael Armitage: this one Michael Armitage (politician), and Michael Armitage (RAF officer). I assess this one to be the primary topic based on WP mentions. A simple Google search is inconclusive between the 2 candidates. Move this article over the unnecessary disambiguation page at Michael Armitage and place a distinguish hatnote pointing to the other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The readers seem to look at both equally:https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Michael_Armitage_(RAF_officer)%7CMichael_Armitage_(politician)%7CMichael_Armitage so I'm not sure why you rank one significantly over the other Alex Sims (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Sims: It's just a question of choosing one, because if we can identify one of them as the primary topic, we can do away with the 2-dabs disambiguation page, which impedes navigation for 100% of people who land on Michael Armitage now, but only (let's say) 50% of users if it were to be the article for one person or the other. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is no rationale to move given above. "A simple Google search is inconclusive" - would that not tend to suggest that there is no primary topic? As to the above rationale about removing the need for a dab page with only two items, while I am sympathetic to the aim, it is not proper to manufacture a primary topic where one does not exist. Frickeg (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Page views do not support the claim that the politician is the primary topic; in fact, the RAF officer receives more page views.[1]--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:30, 16 June 2017 (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.