Talk:Diomed

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 Aervanath (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This page redirects to a racehorse named after the Greek hero, rather than having the page redirect forthwith to the page of Diomed (or Diomedes), the Greek hero. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diomedes should certainly be mentioned in the lead (and not translated), but it is not clear to me that Diomed primarily means him. Diomede, please note, has three females of that name, not Diomedes at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable writers have referred to Diomedes as Diomed. Particularly, William Shakespeare, Samuel Butler, Alexander Pope, etc. In much of these works he is referred to Diomed throughout, and never as Diomedes. In point of fact, I believe that I more often see him referred to as Diomed than I do Diomedes. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, your texts are dealing very oddly with Elizabethan spelling. The original spelling will be inconsistent, of course, but Diomede should be more common (and the natural modernization) than Diomed for all these authors. (Pope's Iliad, I see, uses both, but he may be avoiding e as a fourth syllable; a problem unlikely to occur to an Elizabethan printer.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is not a redirect it is an article about the horse. Your request makes no sense. The name you want to move this page to is not appropriate for a horse, since it is called a dab page, and this is not a dab page. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to say, 'directs' not 'redirect'. The request was rather to have the page Diomed redirect to the disambiguation page.

• There's no evidence in this article that the horse is named after the Greek hero. The horse can only be named "Diomed" while the Greek hero can be named "Diomed" or "Diomedes". All the links to "Diomed" appear to be meant for the horse and this page gets only about 5% the views of "Diomedes", so for the few people landing here by accident, it's better to have them click on the hatnote directing them to "Diomedes" than to have to put an extra "redirect" hatnote on "Diomedes" for those who want the horse. I don't see a problem with the current situation. Station1 (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily mind, but why even bother with the horse? I imagine that 90% of the people searching Diomed are not searching for the horse, that is all. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea how many people search for the horse compared to the Greek hero, but this I do know. There are quite a few Thoroughbred racehorse fans who use wikipedia to learn more of their sport. It's no doubt very true the Greek hero is the more popular subject...but I'm finding this argument increasingly pointless. There was a horse called Diomed who was extremely important in the development of the modern Thoroughbred. There was a Greek hero who is very important to those interested in Greek myth. What's the problem? Even a dimwit can tell when they've found one or the other. It states very clearly at the top of this article that if you're looking for the hero, click here. It does NOT state at the top of the heroes page that if you're looking for the horse, click here. That should satisfy the complainer and prove the hero is more important than some old horse. Jeeeez. Give it a rest.JiggeryPokery (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't persue the matter any further. However, it is certainly not pointless. For if one were to open a paper encyclopedia, or even search any Internet encyclopedia (aside from Wikipedia), they would find the Greek hero first, and then the more obscure, derivative entities (the horse isn't mentioned in any of the said encyclopedias). It was simply an attempt to make the encyclopedia more encyclopedic (however absurd that may sound), and less like a mere 'fan catalogue'. Thus, I thought an immediate redirect to a disambiguation page the neatest layout possible. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (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.