Talk:John Forbes Nash Jr.

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 (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• John Forbes Nash Jr. → John Nash
• John Nash → John Nash (disambiguation)

– I believe the mathematician to be the clear

• Support The mathematician gets several orders of more page views than all the other articles combined—blindlynx 18:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two questions at play here: is the mathematician the primary topic, and is his
  common name John Nash. I don't yet have a stance on either (although it is true that page views seem to show a primary topic, particularly after accounting for the fact that Johnny Nash is genuinely never called just John) but I'd note that we have yet to look at the reasons for or against the latter question.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That is a fair point that I did not initially consider. As I only started this RM because I went to the page John Nash expecting it to take me here, if there is no consensus for "John Nash" being a common name, I would also support a move of John Nash to John Nash (disambiguation) and a new redirect being created from John Nash to John Forbes Nash Jr. eviolite (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. You're joking! If anyone is the primary topic it's John Nash (architect)! One of the foremost architects in British history. But no primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Necrothesp: No, I am not joking and I am a bit offended that you seem to not be taking the proposal seriously. I don't see how in any way the architect is more likely to be a PTOPIC as we have Clickstream data that shows ~20x more people are going to the mathematician's page than the architect from the disambiguation page, besides the "what comes to your mind"-esque argument of being important to British history. eviolite (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "You're joking" is a common British expression of surprise. It is in no way intended to be offensive. The architect is fundamental to the history of architecture, designed a large part of Regency London and has very clear long-term significance. To me he's the clear primary topic, but given he's obviously not to everyone I'm saying there is no primary topic. The mathematician seems to be more commonly referred to as John Forbes Nash in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While the evidence is there to support the idea that the mathematician is the primary topic for the term John Nash, I'm not convinced it is his common name. Without evidence to support the latter, I can't support the move as proposed but would support redirecting John Nash to the professor's page.
  Calidum 14:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Looking at the sources in the article when 'John Forbes Nash Jr.' is used it's typically only once in an given work and 'John Nash" is used throughout the rest of it—blindlynx 15:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose but not strongly. It seems clear enough that most people are looking for Nash the mathematician, but it seems the architect has just as much claim for significance. I'm kind of skeptical that Nash's (purported) work in economics will have as much longevity as the architect, although his mathematical work probably will. Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are many people on the DAB, and there is an equal case for considering the architect as the primary topic. So it's best to say there is no primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]