Talk:Locke

Untitled

Locke needs to redirect to John Locke. 99.9% of people who type Locke are looking for John Locke. Those seeking info on obscure politicians from Nova Scotia should use a disambiguation page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.239.219 (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's likely true. I don't know what the "policy" is on surname redirects are so I'll ask an admin. <<-armon->> 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(Admin summoned by Armon) My feeling is that there are enough different articles called Locke that this should stay as a disambiguation page. If we had statistics that 99.9% of people who came to this article then clicked on the philosopher, that would change my mind, but we don't. How many New Zealanders, or Canadians, or jazz fans, or LOST fans come here? I suspect it's a lot more than 0.1%, but I can't prove it.

Incidentally, admins (ideally) don't make policy, or interpret it, or mediate disputes; we just get to carry the big stick. It's the community who do all the rest. In short, my thoughts are just an opinion, not law. Admins tend to have been around longer than most and have more experience with Wikipedia process, which is probably why you called on me, so I'll give some advice on how to proceed. You could hold a straw poll on what to do. You should advertise the poll; I think that by following Current surveys, you'll find that Requests for comment/Biographies is the place to advertise it.-gadfium 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Like over at Hume, I have to argue in favor of a redirect to John Locke. The reasons mentioned above for a disambiguation page (Lost fans, jazz fans), are all reasons for having a disambiguation page for John Locke, not Locke. --Beaker342 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 01:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Locke → Locke (disambiguation) – John Locke as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Locke was raised in 2006, under Talk:Locke#Untitled above, but never put to a vote. Various surnames of writers, composers or statesmen, such as Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Byron, Churchill, Coleridge, Dickens, Hobbes, Keats, Kipling, Longfellow, Mozart, Orwell, Swinburne, Tolkien, Wagner, Woolf, Wordsworth or Yeats are primary redirects, while many other names (one of the contributors in 2007 mentioned Hume) are not. There were lengthy discussions regarding this general topic at Talk:Shelley#Requested move 25 June 2019, followed by Talk:Shelley#Requested move 26 April 2020. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – John Locke as primarytopic for Locke seems like an odd stretech; not at all like Bach and Beethoven. Why add ambiguity this way? Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Especially with Locke (film) getting 900 views per day, more than a quarter of John Locke's, it's not clear this rises to the level of a PRIMARYREDIRECT. Most of the people listed (except maybe Woolf) are often referred to solely by surname. I don't think that happens quite as often with Locke. Station1 (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - who is John Locke and why would he get primary topic? What a bizarre nomination--clearly not lazily done, but no attempt whatsoever was made to actually explain the primary topic grab. Red Slash 17:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • John Locke is one of the most prominent philosophers in the Western tradition, and even a quick glance at the lede of the article would reveal the rationale for this proposal. – Uanfala (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• The proposal is definitely sensible. If you look at link referrals from the dab page (from the clickstream dataset), there are 589 for John Locke, which is well ahead of Locke (film) with 305, Locke (surname) with 50, and Locke (given name) with 31 (no other article received more than 9 clicks, which is the threshold for inclusion in the dataset). The philosopher, therefore, received between 50 and 60% of the clicks, which is not enough by itself to establish a primary topic, but becomes significant if you consider than its only contender is a relatively recent film, which has a much smaller claim to long-term importance. – Uanfala (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Station1[[1]], my Google search from England returns the film article 1st then John and most of the other results are for the film, Images mainly returns John though Images often returns partial matches though Books does also appear to return John. I'd also note that there is no indication that the film's name is based on John so it seems likely that although John may be primary by long-term significance (he's a level 3 vital article) he probably isn't by usage. Locke may not be as ambiguous as Shelley, commonly used as a given name and surname with people of similar views/importance but I'm not convinced there's a primary topic. In terms of clicks 589 v 305 is not a larger margin in terms of usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, way too many other articles and not a huge enough margin to make him the primary in my opinion. I wouldn't have issue with a couple of those primarys you listed to also PDABs, but what can you do.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS. I didn't count the number of names that I initially listed, but it turns out to be 19. Another 19, such as Berlusconi, Biden, Dostoevsky, Einstein, Eisenhower, Gandhi, Lumumba, Mandela, Merkel, Nixon, Obama, Reagan, Renoir, Sarkozy, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Van Buren, Verdi or Vivaldi could be listed and certainly still more. Ultimately, if 2013's Locke (film), which has nothing to with John Locke, had instead named its title character Coleridge, Hobbes or Swinburne, we might be discussing the re-evaluation of primary redirect for those historical figures. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 April 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.