Talk:Francis Bourgeois (disambiguation)

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 Sceptre (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Francis Bourgeois (disambiguation) → Francis Bourgeois
• Francis Bourgeois → Francis Bourgeois (painter)

– It should be obvious that there is no primary topic for this name right now. If you think an obscure painter from the 1800s is more of a """primary topic""" than someone who has had recent coverage in the news, then I feel that you are not considering the

• Pinging all participants from
  WP:APPNOTE (Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic): Crouch, Swale, Vaticidalprophet, Bookku, Necrothesp, Amakuru, GiantSnowman, Thriley, CaptainEek, Secretlondon. Wizzito performed the above move on 29 January, about three weeks after the RM was closed, and it was reverted today. DanCherek (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - neither individual is the PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 21:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If this isn't moved the DAB page can be deleted per G14. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fine. You make a good case that neither is primary over the other, with the "common usage" and "long-term significance" criteria meeting halfway.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as out of process - there was a CLEAR decision at Talk:Francis_Bourgeois_(trainspotter)#Requested_move_2_January_2022 just 3 weeks ago, & it is far too soon to reopen. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Johnbod. The idea that a trainspotter and student is equal in prominence to a knighted court artist and Royal Academician is bordering on the absurd. As I said before,
  Wikipedia populism at its worst. I dread to think what would happen in this bizarre place if a popular TikTokker emerged called William Shakespeare! Might have more views for a few months than that obscure playwright! Obviously the latter shouldn't be primary topic any more! But seriously, long-term significance for someone still remembered centuries after their death is clearly pre-eminent over pageviews for someone who became known among certain social media fans recently and will doubtless be a nobody once more within a year or two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I should also point out this edit summary by the proposer after his move was thwarted! Calling other editors idiots is not good practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Necrothesp: The painter only had a daily average of 6 VIEWS to his article before the trainspotter became popular. It is NOT populism. It is better serving the reader. wizzito | say hello! 04:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comparing a well-known playwright to an obscure British painter is like comparing apples and peppers. It sounds ridiculous. wizzito | say hello! 04:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being knighted doesn't give someone automatic "primary topic" designation, either; there are plenty of obscure knighted people. wizzito | say hello! 05:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I have already said, most of them were not the court painter and in competition with a young trainspotter who's been "famous" (in the sense that some people on social media like him rather than he's known everywhere) for a few months. Perspective, please! And don't call people who don't agree with you idiots! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're acting like I'm saying that the trainspotter is the primary topic. I'm not. I understand the issue of recentism. And being knighted doesn't give someone automatic "primary topic" status; look at this recent discussion which is similar to this one. wizzito | say hello! 11:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I'm saying he's so far off being the primary topic that it's obvious that the painter is. And I didn't say being knighted did give automatic primary topic status. I said being a knighted court painter still known centuries after his death clearly makes him primary topic over a trainspotter (for crying out loud!) who's been "big" (in very relative terms) on social media for a few months. I'm puzzled as to why your last comment is relevant. Which of those Michael Cusacks has been knighted? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I moved this yesterday following a request at WP:MR/TR which made it clear a preexisting consensus had been formed in an earlier discussion. This seems to attempting a second bite at the same cherry, and it's established custom that repeat nominations may be
  viewed as disruptive. SN54129 12:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per
  WP:GAMING. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose for the obvious reasons. Secretlondon (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @
  WP:READER here. wizzito | say hello! 04:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I reviewed the other RM and I don't see how this is forum shopping. The other RM did not close with a clear consensus that the painter is a primary topic, only that the trainspotter is not. I agree that considering the trainspotter as the primary topic would be recentism, but I think that the pageview disparity here is too large for the painter to be the primary topic. One article gets 35x the pageviews of the other, and that's with said the less-viewed article being at the basename. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose weighing long-term significance vs. Tik Tok ephemeral, I go with the former. Favonian (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]