Talk:John Cruickshank

U-Boat
Which U-boat did they sink? Online sources differ, some have it as U-347 and others U-742. Drutt (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on John Cruickshank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121082552/http://www.rafweb.org/VC_holders2.htm to http://www.rafweb.org/VC_holders2.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 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. There is consensus that the RAF officer is the WP:PTOPIC among the namesakes. No such user (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

John Cruickshank → John Cruickshank (Royal Air Force) – This move is necessary per WP:NOPRIMARY. See John Cruickshank (disambiguation) for other uses. Further, John Cruickshank (French scholar) has entries in many other published reference works (such as Britannica, French Studies) where he is the only subject in those publications; so if a primary assertion were to be made I would argue for the French scholar. That said, I don't think a primary assertion should be made, and that the dab page itself should be located at John Cruickshank. 4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and move DAB to base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and Ortizesp. The renown devolving to the Scottish banker who received the Victoria Cross does not overwhelm the combined notability of the other three men listed under John Cruickshank (disambiguation), which should be moved to John Cruickshank. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I don't believe an article that was literally created today about an academic who does not show up anywhere in my Google results displaces a Victoria Cross winner. 162 etc. (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He shows up in my google results, but then google caters its search engine hits to each user based on your search habits. Further, when an article was created on Wikipedia has no bearing on disambiguation practice in our policies. Lastly, the scholar has an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Victoria Cross winner doesn’t. So there’s merits to both men (and the mathematician and publisher for that matter), which is why no primary makes sense in this case.4meter4 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify that the scholar is a contributor to Britannica; he does not have an entry. The link you provided to French Studies is an obituary, not a published article.


 * While the age of the article is not itself determinative, it does mean that we have to consider its pageviews as zero. John Cruickshank's article was first published on Wikipedia in 2004, and it has been read hundreds of thousands of times since. He is the last living recipient of a Victoria Cross awarded in the Second World War, an achievement which gives him a higher long-term notability than the others at John Cruickshank (disambiguation).  Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, John Cruickshank meets both key criteria and should remain the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * French Studies is a journal published by Oxford University Press, and the obituary was authored by a scholar independent of the subject and published in that journal through a peer reviewed editorial process. That's pretty clear from the url I provided which provides the name of the journal, its publishing details, the name of the author, and its doi tag. How you could claim it's "unpublished" is mystifying. Regardless, in the article itself there's wider coverage from articles in The Guardian and The Independent outside academia. But really this isn't about sourcing, as much as demonstrating that this is someone others may be looking for in a search. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Being the subject of an obituary is not the same thing as "hav(ing) an entry in a published reference work", which is how you presented this link in your original post. 162 etc. (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok.4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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.
 * Support per nomination and other supporters. JDAWiseman (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Usage and reader interest when we only had two articles of this name showed a clear primary. With less than a day since the scholar's page was created, I'd like to see at least a bit more time before we make this assessment.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is now a fourth article on John D. Cruickshank who is referred to as John Cruickshank in secondary sources; although he publishes sometimes using his middle initial.4meter4 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clear primary topic. And the disambiguator should be John Cruickshank (VC) (or at a pinch John Cruickshank (RAF officer)) in any case per our standard disambiguation used on hundreds of articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Did support, which has been struck-through. Have been persuaded of primariness of the WW2 VC. (First time that I have changed my vote on wikipedia: if mis-formatted please advise how to improve.) JDAWiseman (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)