Talk:Peter May (disambiguation)

RFC: Which should be the primary article?
Should the primary entry for Peter May be Peter May (cricketer) or Peter May (disambiguation)?

Please answer with C for cricketer or D for disambiguation.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * D. A Google search turns up multiple hits on the writer, a Scottish author of crime novels.  It is true that the cricketer is in the International Cricket Hall of Fame, but a Google search turns up the author first.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * C. As mentioned below, Peter May the cricketer is one of the most important cricketers, the writer is nothing special. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D. Per search, traffic etc. See comment below. - nafSadh did say 23:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D. Per search engine results, common sense, and the principal of least surprise. Joseph's reasoning, with all due respect, is a form of undue emphasis. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D - as per above. When I search for peter may at Google, it starts with a long list of hits on the writer.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D: cricketer is not clear primary topic. NB Lots of incoming links will need to be fixed, though a lot can be cleared up in one go in English Test cricket captains. Pam  D  11:26 am, Today (UTC+1)
 * D: I know of the cricketer, and have never heard of the writer. But that said, there is clear evidence that a disam page is more appropriate in this case. Harrias talk 15:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D: It seems to me that the controversy here on this talk page is itself indicative that having "Peter May" redirect to the relatively neutral "Peter May (disambiguation)" would be preferable to singling out any one of the specific targets. A reader can then readily make their own informed selection depending on their own interests and biases and in context to whatever led them to research the name in the first place. However, I'll note that if one were to single out a target, it might be wise to take into account that "...(cricketer)" has considerably more article space wikilinks in use than "...(writer)" and "J. Peter May" (thinking in terms of convenience for editors as to needing to—or not to—make piped wikilinks in articles). But anyway, it seems pragmatic at present to go with the disambiguation page so as to put the controversy to rest and go on with other things. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D : Disambig as per the comment by Kevjonesin above. Flat Out  '' talk to me 00:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D - just going on Google results, it doesn't appear either of these guys really dominates as the primary topic. Searching for Peter May, Google wants to tell me all about Peter Mays, this guy from LA and make sure I hit up Peter May’s House of Kielbasa. I'm not sure if this is because I'm from the United States, but it seems like a sign "Peter May" is not hugely affiliated with either. Once I get to the second page of Google results, I see stuff about the writer. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D : My opinion is that though the last Peter May on the disambiguation page is not significant, the Peter May who is a writer is notable, so that would be confusing to those who would be looking at the writer Peter May. I'd stick with Peter May being a disambiguation page.Nick2crosby (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D per almost everyone else. I generally prefer disambiguation pages as the primary solution for pretty much every set of things that share a name. —烏Γ (kaw), 01:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D. Although I am one of the longest serving members of WP:CRIC and can even remember seeing Peter May the cricketer play when he was captain of England, the page should be disambiguation because I have read The Chess Men by Peter May the writer and I know from researching him that he is a leading contemporary writer. They are both distinguished in their respective fields and to try and compare a noted cricketer with a noted writer is an exercise in futility. There is nothing wrong with having an article called Peter May (cricketer). One of the greatest players of all time was John Small (cricketer), an article I have mostly written, and I'm quite happy to have (cricketer) in the title. Jack | talk page 15:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * C. Because of long-term notability.Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
Comment: Peter May (cricketer) is one of fewer than 100 people to be part of the ICC Hall of Fame, the most prestigious individual award in cricket. On the other hand, Peter May (writer) is a writer who has created a few programmes, and J. Peter May appears only just about notable to have a Wikipedia article. Therefore, it seems clear to me that Peter May (cricketer) is clearly the primary person under this name. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC) In addition, a RfC should have been done before making a controversial move. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree as to J. Peter May. I am not arguing that Peter May (writer) should be primary, but that, given how a Google search is primarily about him, he is approximately as notable as the cricket player.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Why is this an RfC? As an undiscussed controversial move, it should be reverted, and a move discussion should be created via WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Obviously it should be an RM rather than RFC. According to page view stat, writer has way more visits: Peter_May_(writer) has been viewed 3294 times while Peter_May_(cricketer) has been viewed 404 times in the last 30 days. Seems like, being in the cricketers' hall of fame doesn't make someone more important than some other writer, specially when the writer has authored some bestselling books and have received handful of awards. If anything, the the writer would appears to be the primary topic today. May be in a long run (decades), both would seem similarly notable. So, disambiguation page suits better as the primary page. - nafSadh did say 23:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Comment: page can be moved without prior discussion:
 * " If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." [WP:RM]]
 * And discussions can also be informal:
 * "It is not always necessary to use the requested move process in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." WP:RM
 * So, why insist on moving back Peter May (cricketer) to Peter May? So far, it's clear that the cricketer is less read than the writer.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You've posted the same question 3 times now in 3 different places. This was a controversial move, and therefore a discussion should have taken place before moving. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As evident already in this RfC, with overwhelming support for D, there was a clear consensus for the move, hence it was uncontroversial move and per edit summary the move preceded some discussion. So, the question is, why are we not closing the discussion already but still wasting time of other editors. -- nafSadh did say 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The page move was bold, but it has been disputed once already and I dispute it too, so per BRD the move should be reverted, and then we can have this discussion in the context of a proper move request, which might also attract some more attention to this obscure backwater, as might adding notices at the relevant talk page, such as Talk:Peter May (cricketer) and Talk:Peter May (writer), and pages of relevant WikiProjects.

I think we can agree that the mathematician, while no doubt worthy in his own field, is of relatively marginal notability, so that leaves the writer and the cricketer.

Concentrating on Google hits and page views is the worst form of recentism. It is hardly surprising that there are more Google hits or page views for the writer: he is a living person, who is currently active, trying to sell his books on the internet. The cricketer had his peak of activity in the 1950s, and died in 1994, so it is a measure of his long-term lasting notability that his name remains so prominent and recognised, and indeed that hundreds of people are still looking at his page every month. Like others, I have heard of the English cricketer but not of the Scottish writer. I wonder how many Google hits or page views the writer will have 20 years after his death, and how many reference books will discuss his life and works. Will the writer get an entry in the ODNB, like the cricketer has, or obituaries in the broadsheet newspapers? I think not.

As to awards, the cricketer was one of the 55 inaugural members of the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame (out of the many thousands who were eligible, each of whom is notable in their own right as an international cricketer), and he was one of the few selected each year as a Wisden Cricketer of the Year. He was the captain of Surrey during their long purple patch in county cricket in the 1950s, and a successful captain of the England cricket team; he still holds several Test cricket records set in the 1950s; and he was later chairman of the England selectors and President of the MCC. The writer has won a few obscure literary prizes, but nothing of significant prominence, such as the Man Booker Prize or even the Costa Book Awards or the Dagger in the Library.

Are we seriously arguing that the writer is anywhere near as notable as the cricketer?

Even if consensus is against me, we should not have a redirect from Peter May to Peter May (disambiguation), but rather we should move Peter May (disambiguation) to Peter May. -- Ferma (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing you said makes the cricketer WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No one is trying to make the writer primary topic either. BTW, I agree the primary page should be the dab page rather than a redirect to it. -- nafSadh did say 23:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I expressly referred to long-term significance, which is one of the two "major aspects" mentioned at the page to which you link. The other is usage, which includes in-links from other articles (the cricketer wins hands down) and mentions in reliable sources (I'd be interested to see a literature survey, comparing works on the cricketer versus the writer, excluding the writer's own works and newspapers and other online sources: has he been the subject of serious literary criticism? is he one of the world's top 55 leading authors of all time?) and article traffic and Google hits (the last two subject to severe recentism).  But I suppose we can revisit this argument say 20 years after the writer's death, to assess his long-term (in)significance. Ferma (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Can someone who knows about both Peter Mays comment on their relative importance. The impression I get from the comments above is that three or four of the commentators know about the cricketer (I can add myself to them), but nobody had heard about the writer before this page move.

Even within articles on the same topic, google and wiki page views are untrustworthy. For Don Bradman, usually regarded as the greatest cricketer, I get 482K hits in google and 60-100 hits on the wiki page. For an average, contemporary cricketer picked up at random - Umesh Yadav, I get 460K google hits and 150-200 daily page views. Comparing the importance of the two based on these statistics is laughable. Tintin 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment' - I know of both the writer and the cricketer, though I know more of the cricketer. In a choice between the writer and the cricketer, that the cricketer should be the primary topic. I also agree that google hits are not a great indicator. That said, with 3 options available my view is that the disambiguation page should be the primary topic and it gioves the read a clear and easy choice. Flat Out  '' talk to me 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The cricketer is clearly more important, but you vote for disambiguation, because there are other, even less important people with the same name? Does anyone think the writer or indeed any of the others is anywhere near as significant as the cricketer? Ferma (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that the cricketer is clearly more important? I think the writer is more prominent but I voted for disambiguation because in the big picture, from what I can tell, neither are particularly prominent. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment:(summoned by bot), the cricketer appears to be more notable, in having established a permanent 'name' within his field, however comparing cricket and writing is a bit 'chalk and cheese'. Wiki hits are not a very good indicator of 'long-term notability', though they are an indicator of 'recent enquiries'. Weak support for retaining the 'short name' for the cricketer with disambig on his page. (ps I am a UK person who can imagine few afternoons more tedious than watching cricket, but even I have heard of the cricketer).Pincrete (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)