Talk:Roland (disambiguation)

Requested move

 * 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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

– The existing article Roland is about the historical military figure, but does not appear to be the primary topic. For example, in the last 90 days, that article has been viewed 23,805 times but the musical instrument manufacturer Roland Corporation, whose logo and branding simply says "Roland", has been viewed 22,243 times, which is not much less. Since "Roland" is a person's name, it would be more natural for the disambiguation page to take preference as per Anne or Elizabeth. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Roland (disambiguation) → Roland
 * Roland → Roland (soldier)
 * Support per nom. The existing article "Roland" will also have to be renamed, so this needs to be a multimove. I suggest Roland (Francia) or Roland (Carloginian) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Roland (soldier) is acceptable to me. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) (My IP address has rolled over) 07:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In addition to being the most popular target that's just called "Roland" in page views, among the other items just called "Roland" this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in sources. For example, a Google Books search for Roland Charlemagne gets 341,000 hits, compared to 9670 for Roland Corporation, 142,000 for Bremen Roland (many of which are sources for Roland mentioning there's a statue of him in Bremen) and far fewer for any other topic named just "Roland". The 1200-year-old historical/literary figure is also the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of long-term significance: "it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Additionally, this really should be a multi-move RM; it needs to include Roland and a proposed new title to be discussed.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with that search is it introduces qualifiers. A straight Google Books search for Roland with no other qualifiers returns the musical instrument manufacturer's website as a first hit. Subsequent main hits are for Roland Barthes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, the first book in that search result (which is localized in the UK) is "The Song of Roland: Done Into English, in the Original Measure". The returns that concern us are those speaking to subjects called just "Roland", not partial title matches like Roland Barthes, and that are covered by Wikipedia articles. Barring a way to weed out irrelevant results, more specific search terms are necessary; in my estimation they suggest Roland is the primary topic in Google Books results. And that's besides the argument that he's also the primary topic for "Roland" in terms of long term significance.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose Primary topic or not, there are other uses of the name Roland which the disambig page lists quite well. *Support After explaination from Red Slash.  ArcAngel    (talk) ) 02:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, ArcAngel, do you think someone typing in Roland should land on this page or not? Red Slash 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I just don't understand how primary topics and searches work together. Searching Roland here brings up the article, with a hatnote to the disambig page.  If I understand the move proposal, the disambig page will be replaced with the article?     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that you would think that, but no, you are incorrect. The proposal is to move the disambiguation page to Roland, so that when you type in "Roland", you immediately arrive at the disambiguation page.
 * Take cheese. The word "cheese" means many possible things, but mostly it means processed milk that is tasty. The concept of processed milk is the primary topic for the word "cheese". Therefore, when you type in cheese, you get processed milk.
 * But look at bush. There are many things that the word "bush" can mean; it's the last name of a couple of U.S. presidents and some other influential people, it's the Australian Outback's nickname, etc. The thing it probably mostly means is a shrub, right? But those other meanings are also really important. The concept of shrubbery is not the primary topic for the word "bush". In fact, there is no concept that has primary topic for the word "bush". Therefore, when you type in bush, what you get is a disambiguation page. (Bush (disambiguation) actually redirects you straight back to bush.)
 * Here, when you type in Roland you currently get an article about the man from France-ish-land who was Charlemagne's buddy. That's because, as of right now, we've thought that this man has primary topic for the name "Roland". If you want to find any other topic named "Roland", you have to click on the hatnote to go to Roland (disambiguation), as you've noticed. But now someone has proposed a move, saying that maybe the character is not the primary topic.
 * So it depends on what you think (mostly--we do take advantage of outside sources, too). Do you think that most people think about the man when they hear Roland? Do you think that most readers who search for Roland want to read about this man? Is the man far more significant on a global, long-term scale than the other topics combined? If so, then you want to oppose, because the man has primary topic for the word "Roland".
 * But if you disagree, and you think that the answer to those questions is "no", then you actually support the move. The move proposal, if you're willing to accept my metaphor, is like an attempt to dethrone the man from his title as king of the word "Roland". If the proposal fails, we still have a king over the word "Roland". If it succeeds, then the man's article will be exiled to Roland (character) or some other title and the page Roland will instead dissolve into anarchy (a disambiguation page listing all the possible meanings for "Roland").
 * Does this make sense, ArcAngel? If it does, I'll add one little point. The move requester made a mistake when he wrote this; it's his job to say where the article on the man Roland should be moved to. That's why they're calling it a "malformed move request". Red Slash 20:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I wasn't sure what the historical character Roland should be moved to, and if consensus comes back as Oppose, it's moot anyway. I was hoping we could work it out as we went along with the move request. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense now, thanks for explaining. Based on that, I have changed my position since you've made it clear exactly how Roland is moving.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 02:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, no primary topic. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also note that this is a malformed move request. The man's article should be moved to Roland (soldier). Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 20:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. After eliminating partial title matches from consideration, the current occupant of the title is by far the topic with the greatest historical importance, on par with similar mytho-historic figures like King Arthur and Robin Hood. bd2412  T 15:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would consider the historical/legendary Frankish Roland currently at Roland to be the primary topic under the "long-term significance" aspect for the reasons already explained by Cúchullain and bd2412.  No other Roland has been put forward as having a primary claim under the usage aspect, only doubts that this Roland meets the usage aspect. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose No valid primary topic candidates presented. No proof presented that Roland is just as as much a primary topic as a modernish harpischord or some hamlet in N. America. The "long term significance and enduring notability" criteria were added exactly and expressly for this type of situations. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 18:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted as a multi-move. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cuchullain et al. Dohn joe (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose on historical importance grounds, Google Books results, and other arguments already given above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think it's been brought up enough, but I'll expand on the original nomination - when I think of the primary use of "Roland", it's the name. One could make a reasoned argument for Queen Victoria to be the primary topic of Victoria or Alfred the Great to be the primary topic of Alfred using all of the (quite reasonable) claims of historical importance, Google Books and JSTOR hits, and page views as stated above, but it does miss the point that a person's name is of equal significance, just one that's harder to prove by a straight sample of reliable sources. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't an article on the name "Roland" to take into consideration here.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. There is now! Interestingly enough, I'm thinking about downgrading my opinion on this debate as the sources I used for the name article all talk about the military figure in the first instance. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:18, 4 August 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.