Talk:William Jameson (botanist, born 1796)

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about a botanist or someone who contributed to the field of botany.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Requested move 19 November 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: all the pages moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

– I am not convinced that the 19th Century Scottish botanist is the primary topic for this term. Of the three most likely targets (including another 19th Century Scottish botanist!), all get very little traffic, with the current holder of the title getting less than 50% of the pageviews. I would move both botanist articles to more distinguishing titles, and make the disambiguation page primary. bd2412 T 03:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Support. Anything else would guarantee confusion, even if one was more prominent than the other. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support per nomination (there may be a guideline that counsels whether a comma should be placed between "botanist" and "born" within the qualifiers for the two Scottish botanists). No indication that the older Scottish botanist's prominence was such that he should be positioned above all others bearing that name. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support as above. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support good call In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support, but to William Jameson (botanist, born 1796) and William Jameson (botanist, born 1815), with the usual comma. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- No objection to the commas, although I think they are generally superfluous throughout occupation/birthdate disambiguators using them. bd2412 T 16:35, 22 November 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add topic