Talk:William McFarland (Tennessee politician)

Requested move 26 January 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, leaning no move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

– Obscure historical figure whose entire political career, more than 140 years ago, lasted only two years. Cannot rise to the level of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Note: Since it has been pointed out that the disambiguation page's other "William McFarland", William M. McFarland, was also a politician (of equally minor notability, based in Iowa), I am revising the first part of the nomination to William McFarland → William McFarland (Tennessee politician). Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * William McFarland → William McFarland (politician)
 * William McFarland (disambiguation) → William McFarland
 * Support. This one seems rather obvious. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are no other candidates for primacy, and a disambiguation page should not be put in place in such a situation, even when there are other objects under different names that it is possible one meant when they searched for the name. --  No COBOL  (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A further explanation would appear to be needed as to what is meant by "…" Are we to assume that if a disambiguation page has no intuitive candidates for primacy, then the choice of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be left to the personal preference of individual editors?
 * Currently, most dab pages have no primary topics --- should every dab page have one of its entries selected to serve as the primary topic or is the main/only reason for William McFarland (politician) being specifically bolstered for retention as the primary topic is because his name has no middle initial, while the dab page's other William McFarland had been known under the form William M. McFarland and two additional men named William are best known as Billy?   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All I am saying that in cases where the dispute for primacy is between two topics, one which holds the exact name under dispute and one which holds a similar name, then it is my position that one must present an argument stronger than one must present if they both held the name to establish that the similar name holds primacy or establish that neither name holds primacy. Let me know if what I have said is not clear, I feel it could be phrased better --  No COBOL  (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argument is quite clear and a variation upon this topic was discussed last month at Talk:Alan Kaufman (writer). This nomination, however, posits that there is no dispute for primacy here since neither William McFarland nor William M. McFarland is sufficiently notable to serve as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Furthermore, for Wikipedia disambiguation purposes, middle names or middle initials cannot differentiate between disambiguation page entries.
 * Thus, William McFarland, William Aaron McFarland, William Basil McFarland, William Cecil McFarland, William D. McFarland or William M. McFarland are all considered to be named "William McFarland" for purposes of equal consideration and placement within the dab page. If one of these individuals is deemed to be the primary topic, it would not matter whether his WP:COMMONNAME had a middle name, a middle initial or neither.
 * In the specific case of this dab page's entries, however, since there are only two listed men who are known to the public as "William McFarland", both are equally eligible to be considered for primary topic, but the nomination posits that, in view of the fact that the great majority of dab pages have no primary topics, neither man is notable enough to be selected.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "" Are you referring to a guideline, or is this just opinion? I may have missed it but I don't see anything at WP:NCP that prohibits this, and the spirit of WP:SMALLDETAILS, though it does not refer to people, suggests that it's fine. But for the sake of argument let's say you're right and the initial is irrelevant: William McFarland (politician) therefore remains ambiguous because it can refer to either man, both of them being politicians. PC78 (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:NCP nor WP:SMALLDETAILS are really applicable here because the case at hand solely concerns WP:DAB and the likely guideline would thus be WP:NOPRIMARY. Basically, the only consideration in selecting a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is notability, not the WP:SMALLDETAILS of middle name or initial.
 * To present some very obvious examples, there are many men named simply "John Kennedy", but John Fitzgerald Kennedy is the unquestioned primary topic of the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page or, as far as middle initials are concerned, even if there were several notable men whose names were simply "Harry Truman", Harry S. Truman would still be the primary topic of the Harry Truman (disambiguation) page.
 * As far as the names under consideration are concerned, I am grateful for your reminder that William M. McFarland was also a politician, thus requiring that the first of the above two nominations be revised to William McFarland → William McFarland (Tennessee politician). The addition of the state within the qualifier would provide sufficient differentiation since the constituency of the other politician, William M. McFarland, was in Iowa.
 * There are various examples of disambiguation pages which depict some politicians needing disambiguation via extended qualifiers while other same-named politicians are disambiguated via middle names or middle initials.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would consider that to fall under the position I described above; the cases where these differences are ignored are always because the individual they are ignored in favour of is so notable that they meet the higher standards. --  No COBOL  (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The basic understanding is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be only bestowed upon individuals who have attained overwhelmingly high notability or enduring historical standing (MOS:DABPRIMARY), otherwise every {hndis} would have a primary topic. In the present case, both politicians named "William McFarland" are of equally low notability, with no standing to aspire to primary topic.
 * Ultimately, the level of one's notability should never be judged by the presence or absence of a middle name or initial --- as another example, the John Mill dab page has no primary topic and, even with his unquestioned historical eminence, John Stuart Mill is simply listed as one of the page's six entries. It would be unencyclopedic to exclude him from the dab page since that is his name but, in terms of referencing, he is not known to history as simply "John Mill" and is virtually unrecognizable under that short name.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view, since the two men are distinguished by their common names, the primary topic argument is simply irrelevant. There is no other article titled "William McFarland" hence there is no need to disambiguate. The present arrangement seems perfectly fine to me. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, Wikipedia disambiguation pages do not make a distinction between individuals with middle names or initials and individuals who do not use middle names or initials. Thus, if William M. McFarland was a historically renowned statesman, he would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the William McFarland (disambiguation) page, rather than the minor public figure, William McFarland/William McFarland (Tennessee politician).
 * However, both William M. McFarland and William McFarland/William McFarland (Tennessee politician) were minor public figures and, as a result, there is no primary topic and the dab page's main header should be William McFarland, rather than William McFarland (disambiguation).
 * Furthermore, even if William M. McFarland didn't exist, the dab page also lists Northern Irish loyalist paramilitary William "Billy" McFarland and entrepreneur fraudster William "Billy" McFarland, thus still preventing William McFarland/William McFarland (Tennessee politician) from being the sole blue-linked entry on the William McFarland (disambiguation) page.
 * The previously-discussed manner of becoming a disambiguation page's default primary topic is, indeed, to be that dab page's sole blue-linked entry, such as in the case of Talk:David Zimmer or the currently-discussed Talk:John Nesbitt (announcer).   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a matter of opinion, and I respectfully disagree. :) Let hatnotes and dab pages do their job without adding unnecessary disambiguation to article titles. PC78 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If it were merely a matter of opinion, rather than of standard Wikipedia practice, there would be no need for this discussion.
 * The sole hatnote among entries listed upon the William McFarland (disambiguation) page is atop Billy McFarland, which states, "For the American entreprenuer and convicted felon, see Billy McFarland (fraudster)." If Billy McFarland were to be successfully nominated for move to Billy McFarland (loyalist), the hatnote would be unnecessary per WP:NAMB and Billy McFarland would become a redirect to the William McFarland (disambiguation) page.
 * As for "unnecessary disambiguation", this nomination aims to dispose of the unnecessary qualifier "(disambiguation)" at the William McFarland (disambiguation) page which, if the nomination succeeds, would be titled simply "William McFarland". Again, if this discussion appeared to be merely about a matter of opinion, almost all {hndis} pages would have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
 * In reality, however, most {hndis} pages have no primary topics and if any {hndis} dab page has a primary topic for the sole reason that the person in question is the only one without a middle name or initial, then the entry for such a person has no claim to primacy. As IJBall's initial vote above, 16:36, 27 January 2019, stated, "Support. This one seems rather obvious".   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Just because something is "obvious" to one user it doesn't make it obvious to others, nor does it make it right (or wrong). Clearly, or the other two users in this discussion wouldn't be taking a different view. And since you don't (can't?) refer to a specific guideline or naming convention that supports your argument I'm afraid this is very much a matter of opinion, and so I will call this as I see it. Your point has been well made and I disagree . Please don't attempt to bludgeon the process. I will not participate further in this discussion merely to reiterate what has already been said, and I hope you are able to do the same. PC78 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I regret that my replies have given the impression of bludgeoning the process, but surely statements such as "Let hatnotes and dab pages do their job without adding unnecessary disambiguation to article titles" could not go unanswered.
 * If there was no dab page, then a hatnote at William McFarland, informing about the existence of William M. McFarland, would indeed have been sufficient. But since a dab page does exist, the addition of "(disambiguation)" to its main header has to be well grounded with a clearly notable WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY).
 * Wikipedia {hndis} pages are rife with grandfathered low notability primary topics which were created as the first entries bearing that particular name. Subsequent editors who created other same-named entries may not have wished to take the time for correcting incoming links and created a "John Doe (disambiguation)" page, leaving the first "John Doe" as the default primary topic, while other editors may have taken a WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT approach.
 * This nomination is aimed at establishing consensus that while William McFarland has sufficient historical standing to merit a Wikipedia entry, his notability is at a level insufficient for elevation to primary topic. Obviously, there may be differing views, but those should be based upon notability, not upon the presence or absence of nicknames, middle names or initials.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Inclined to oppose per NoCOBOL, other dab page entries are not "William McFarland". Nom is incorrect in saying that his political career lasted only two years; he was a member of Congress for two years, but politically active for much longer, and the fact it was 140 years ago does not preclude him from being a primary topic. Also an element of recentism with regard to Billy McFarland (fraudster)? PC78 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, I think there may be case for disambiguating Billy McFarland. PC78 (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, neither of the politicians is primary and there is no benefit to giving one precedence. older ≠ wiser 12:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Looking at it I would say he is the primary topic, as a serving US congresssman. Just because it was 140 years ago doesn't reduce his long-term significance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2019 (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.

Requested move 7 September 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: (non-admin closure) MOVED without opposition. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 19:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

– There are 11 men listed upon the William McFarland (disambiguation) page and the Tennessee politician, whose single two-year term in Congress ended 144 years ago, certainly does not possess such renown that it exceeds the combined notability of the other 10 men. The reason for enhanced qualifier "(Tennessee politician)" is that William Hamilton MacFarland from Virginia and William M. McFarland from Iowa were also politicians. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 September 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.
 * William McFarland → William McFarland (Tennessee politician)
 * William McFarland (disambiguation) → William McFarland
 * Strong support the fraudster is William to and has 35,330 views compared with only 38 for this one and the loyalist has 324 views so even if the others were known as William rather than Billy 0.1% of the time the primacy would be similar. Google results for William McFarland only appear to show the fraudster.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. No clear primary topic, it seems. The safest bet is to have the disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move per nom. Not sure why it failed last time, but it doesn't appear there's a primary topic.  O.N.R.  (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. No clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)