Talk:Job von Witzleben (historian)

Latest comment: 11 years ago by In ictu oculi in topic Requested move

Requested move edit

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There don't seem to be overwhelmingly compelling arguments or consensus here that either subject is the primary topic for the term. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply


– The historian has 181 views while the Prussian minister has 76 views. Therefore, the historian should be the primary topic. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Hoops gza (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose there is a third Job that needs an article. Pageviews in all cases are a little on the low side, so an assesssent of a primary topic is difficult. In this case I feel that leaving the main page as a disambiguation will serve as a honeypot for careless links wich can be disambiguated as and when they arrise. Then revisit the issue looking at the stats. Agathoclea (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. The "third Job" is a non-notable "son of". The historian got 576 views in the last 90 days, the Prussian minister 259. I assume this is because the historian has a better written article. The minister is certainly the more notable figure off-Wiki, see "Job von Witzleben" -wikipedia. The disambiguator "historian" is misleading. The subject's notably relates to the July 20 plot against Hitler. He was a nephew of conspirator Erwin von Witzleben and had gossip to tell after the war. Kauffner (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Job von Witzleben should lead to the Prussian war minister, who is far more historically notable. Bahavd Gita (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note: Following closure of this RM a new RM was placed at

with no mention of this RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Reply