Talk:Luigi (disambiguation)

Requested moves

 * 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: No consensus. After nearly a month, there is no consensus to move the articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Cúchullain t/ c  20:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

– I think the word "Luigi" isn't universal associated with the Nintendo character. Thoughts? --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Luigi (disambiguation) → Luigi
 * Luigi → Luigi (character)

(fixed the template)
 * Comment. Assuming you are also trying to move Luigi is to be moved to Luigi (Mario Bros.), which of the other "Luigi"s is as notable as the Nintendo character (WP:PTOPIC)? ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 03:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support no primary topic exists for "Luigi", WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires a topic be more common than all other Luigi who have ever existed combined, not pick the most notable. But Prisencolinensinainciusol are you willing to clean up all the broken links? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for lack of a clear primary topic, but there are multiple fictional characters named "Luigi", so I would suggest moving to Luigi (Nintendo character). bd2412  T 15:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Luigi is the primary topic. I believe that the most common use of the word Luigi is for the Nintendo character. However if the move does go through, I feel that it should be moved to Luigi (Nintendo). If we feel the need to distinguish the Nintendo character from other Luigis we should a more specific name. I don't like Luigi (Mario Bros.) because Mario Bros is just one of the many series that he is in. JDDJS (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as much as it pains me to. Luigi (disambiguation) only links to two articles about entities named simply "Luigi", a less-than-one-paragraph article about the name and a very short article about an uninhabited frozen isletin the Arctic.  The other links are either to lists of other fictional characters or partial title matches that might shouldn't be in the list at all.  The Nintendo character does seem to be primary.  To those such User:In ictu oculi and User:BD2412, I wonder what entity called "Luigi" you believe challenges its primacy.   —  AjaxSmack   01:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the biggest challenge would be the given name, Luigi, of which this character is one example. The shortness of the article on the name does not undercut its longstanding importance as a topic. bd2412  T 01:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Luigi is simply Italian for Louis/Lewis. Anything else is a content fork of Louis (given name) article. —  AjaxSmack
 * Then perhaps Louis (given name) is the primary topic of Luigi. Compare Johan, which is really just a variation of John, but is still a disambiguation page despite the existence of a famous character by that name. bd2412  T 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as BD2412 if there were a primary topic of "Luigi" then perhaps Louis (given name) would be the primary topic of Luigi. But as so often, there is no primary topic, primary topics are the exception not the rule for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, the specific fictional character absolutely does not have long-term primary topic status because it's just a common Italian given name. The first page of Google Books hits is instructive in this case - not a single hit for the character. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the first five pages of https://www.google.com/search?q=Luigi&tbm=bks&tbo=1 I only found one single reference to Super Mario on the fourth page, and I noticed two other fictional characters in the list. At https://www.google.com/search?q=Luigi&pws=0 the Super Mario character is clearly more popular, but on the first page, I got a bunch of YouTube videos, followed by link to a local photography shop called Luigi and a GitHub repository called that way. The related searches section started with 'games' but it also mentioned Luigi Pirandello and Luigi Boccherini. It's fairly clear the Nintendo character is very popular, but Wikipedia is nevertheless an encyclopedia, not an index of popular things on the Internet. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The fictional character is clearly the primary topic. Consensus has dictated similarly in current and past discussions regarding Mario, an obviously similar scenario. Sergecross73   msg me  16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Articles on names are not nearly as important as articles on actual topics bearing those names. I also note that pageviews are absolutely phenomenally one-sided in this case. I know that pageviews aren't everything, but... holy cow. Red Slash 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the view stats make it clear what is primary here.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   04:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support or redirect "Luigi" to Louis (given name). There is a broader world of Luigis outside of video games. Also, the long-term significance of the video game character is questionable. (I may be taking a longer-term view of what 'long-term' means here than some people would.) Additionally, since this character is not the title character of the game, it will be far less widely known than the character named Mario. Basically, only the people who actually play the game would likely be aware of its use as a video game character name. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – viewstats can't possibly support the odd choice of primarytopic here; the page that this title links to will of course get more hits, and even if it's more popular it's not so important as to be primary. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, as Mario discussion, Gregkaye (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Luigi remains a relatively common name, to the extent that the character is very debatably not the primary topic. I'd even go so far as to argue the same for Mario, although that case is obviously weaker.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No evidence that this use is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (burden is on those who wish to change a title to show there is a good reason, like the current use is not the primary topic, per WP:TITLECHANGES). --В²C ☎ 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No evidence? You didn't seem to notice the mention of evidence from Google web and book searches, as suggested by the guideline you just linked to? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. I had not noticed that.  But, never-the-less, the WP:GOOGLE search results favor this use, and the Google Books results are skewed by hits for people with given/first name Luigi, but are not subject normally referred to as just Luigi.  This topic is.  So at best that's very weak evidence about this topic not being primary.   For the rare user who is looking for some Luigi but can't remember the family/last name, the "other uses" link to the dab page is more than adequate.  --В²C ☎ 23:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be amenable to the mononymity (sp?) argument, but Google Books hits are still indicative, because when I search for e.g. "Madonna", I still get a lot of material about the singer - there is apparently nothing skewed in the "Luigi" book search, it looks like a simple lack of coverage. Which in turn goes to show that that topic is sorely lacking in the long-term significance department. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Even less a primary topic than Mario. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. To be primary topic the word must be generally associated with one particular item by the anonymous "universal reader". In the case of a forename there is generally a natural disambiguation with a surname, for a second stringer character on a video game (however popular) claims of primary topic are wide of the mark. FWIW Today's Ghits do not establish long-term significance, but can, very easily, confirm lack of long-term significance. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Luigi the Nintendo character does indeed to be the main usage. However, strongly suggest merging Luigi (name) and Luigi (disambiguation) - the differentiation between them is quite arbitrary, we can presume that users interested in a different Luigi don't need to be forced to make two clicks to other pages to see the list.  (Or at least link to both pages from the hatnote at Luigi, but this page is short enough that why bother having it separate.) SnowFire (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As with the Mario proposal, no proof has been presented. The nominator themselves admits they merely "think" the character isn't the primary topic.  Calidum Talk To Me 21:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please read the rest of the discussion for the proof? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias and other reasons not to move
I'm willing to bet that if Luigi was not a name for white people, this move wouldn't have even been proposed. "Luigi" as a name is heavily overrepresented in Europe compared to other places (duh, as it's a name from Italy) - on a worldwide scale the character is far more notable. (Which article are people in India more likely to be looking for? Well, pageviews already have told us, but even so, it's not a difficult mental jump to realize that unless you're of Italian descent or have other connections to Italy, you're far more likely to know Luigi as a video game character than to know any actual person named Luigi.) I'm also just going to throw out the fact that nobody has provided actual evidence that the article on a name (not actual people, mind--a name) has educational significance rivaling the article on a globally recognizable and significant character. There are only two criteria listed for determining primary topic--usage and long-term significance. Neither criterion has prominence over the other; in any case, usage is an absolute blowout. This article receives an absurdly high usage percentage of people looking for "Luigi". And no case has been made for why a name could possibly have more long-term significance than the character. There's no case to move based on what's been presented here. Red Slash 17:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You need someone to explain why a given name that has been attested to since the 15th century (at least) has long-term significance? And you don't see any obvious significance in a name used for (at least) 311 notable people for which we already have biographies here? I'm sorry, but this just doesn't seem like a serious argument. One could easily throw an accusation of bias your way just for failing to notice these trivially obvious facts. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, seriously, I need someone to explain that. What on earth is even remotely significant about a name? If all those people named Luigi were called Luca instead, what would be the difference? Why is a variant form of Louis significant at all? I assure you that boxer underwear has (almost certainly) been worn by many of the people making the most important decisions of the past fifty years, yet boxer still redirects to boxing because the underwear that those men wore does not automatically carry their same level of notability. Just because lots of important real people have borne the name "Luigi" does not mean that the name itself is especially noteworthy. Perhaps a case could be formed to the contrary, but I don't see it. Red Slash 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, let me put it this way - if it was significant enough for the creators of the "character notable on a worldwide scale" to use it, in addition to the hundreds of other people, many of whom are also notable on a worldwide scale, surely it's a stretch to say it was insignificant. The analogy with "boxer" is flawed because you're comparing a somewhat less common surname to an ancient sport. The term "long-term significance" is not supposed to be so hard to interpret, it's like WP:BLUE - if something's been around for hundreds or thousands of years, it's enduring. And as far as names go, it's certainly a notable name. Overall, you're the one advocating for the sheer notion of popularity - I don't see why you wouldn't also say that when a name is popular enough to be used by so many people, on different continents and in different historical eras, then it is indeed popular. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.