Talk:Sean O'Malley (fighter)

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: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Malley (fighter) → Sean O'Malley – No other pages are called Sean O'Malley. However there is a page titled Seán Patrick O'Malley so I'm not sure I can count this as uncontroversial. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Two different names.
  talk 00:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nomination and Cassiopeia. No need for the
  hatnote atop the fighter's entry directing users to the cardinal's page would suffice. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Unless there is evidence that the Catholic Cardinal was regularly referred to as Sean O’Malley I don’t see any issues with this request.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It appears the cardinal is indeed referred to as Seán O'Malley. In fact, a Google search shows that this is actually his common name. Being Seán rather than Sean is completely irrelevant. This move would still be incomplete disambiguation. And there's no way the fighter is the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the case we should change his page to Seán O'Malley (cardinal). ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 14:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, as he is referred to in different publications as both Seán and as Seán Patrick. But that doesn't mean that the fighter is primary for Sean O'Malley. That's not how disambiguation works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Primary topic by google search and page views. DrKay (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, list cardinal as hat note.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The cardinal's common name is Sean O'Malley.
  -- Calidum 21:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Even in a situation which is so easily resolved by a hatnote, doing away with the DAB will lead to needless mislinkings. Far better as is. Andrewa (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a tough one -- the cardinal certainly regularly appears in coverage without the middle name. But given that the fighter both dominates search results, and the cardinal's actual name has a diacritic on the a (Seán), this outcome makes sense. Those who end up at this page but were looking for Seán can get to his page in as many clicks as the current situation, so reader navigation is not harmed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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: Moved

• Article from the Boston Globe calling him Cardinal Sean O'Malley, if he was commonly known as Seán Patrick O'Malley, you'd expect the major newspaper from his hometown would call him that. They don't.

See also these other stories from major publications calling him Sean O'Malley:

• Washington Post
• The Associated Press
• The Los Angeles Times
• The New York Times (NYT uses the "P." because it is their house style, but still uses "Sean". None of the others use the P and the NYT house style doesn't make something common.)

These above sources should be enough to rebut the basis of the above move that there is a natural disambiguation: there is not. Cardinal Sean O'Malley is not written as Cardinal Seán O'Malley in any major English-language publication in his home country, and the middle initial is only used because of the NYT house style, which would not make it common either.

Next, the issue of

It's not an overstatement to argue that people will be writing academic books on him in a century. This isn't just a random prelate, it's one of major historical importance.If you want contemporary documentation of his historical importance here's a selection:

• Work in 2009 on the US-Cuba situation
• Washington Post article discussing him as a potential candidate for Pope in 2013
• Appointment to Pope Francis' council of 8 cardinal advisors in the NYT in 2014
• Discussion of US-Cuba diplomacy in 2014
• Discussion of his role in the Obama-Cuba deal in 2015 in the NYT
• Washington Post reprint of analyzing interview he gave on sexual abuse, discussing him as the head of the panel addressing this worldwide
• 2019 article discussing how he was a serious contender for pope in 2013
• 2019 article in the Wall Street Journal discussing his role in advocating for sexual abuse reforms with pope Francis
• Current (September 2021) article discussing him meeting with Cuban government officials about the release of protesters

This is just in the last decade. If you go back to 2003, you will find many stories about his response to the Cardinal Law scandal in Boston.

To put it bluntly, the Cardinal is the obvious primary topic based on long-term significance: his role in the US and globally both inside and outside the Catholic Church will be analyzed for decades if not centuries to come because of his role in taking over Boston after Cardinal Law, and because of his later influence in the Catholic Church with in that regard.

Even if we don't buy that he is the primary topic, the MMA fighter certainly isn't, and the default would be to have no primary topic rather than move one of lesser long-term significance to it.

The other arguments about natural disambiguation have also been refuted above. As that seemed to be the basis for this move, the obvious solution is to undo it and restore the status quo, with a potential discussion on where the redirect should point to happen after. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per all above. I have nothing to add to Tony's very comprehensive nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination and Necrothesp. Although in the previous RM I voted for the move of
  Cardinal O'Malley's common name is indeed indicated in the plain form "Sean O'Malley" and that the fighter is definitely not the primary topic for that name form. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, and make DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A hat note to
  Cardinal O'Malley, they can search that instead. The fighter is the primary topic for "Sean O'Malley". The purpose of Wikipedia is to get people to the page they are searching for the most. If they want to get to the cardinal, it's the same number of clicks as if they had a DAB page. Most are looking for the fighter. Marty2Hotty (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, mostly per Tony. In this case, I'd say the fighter is primary with respect to usage and the cardinal is primary with respect to long-term significance; the two cancel one another out, making disambiguation appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The fighter is the primary topic, however if we were to change the name why wouldn't the cardinals name be Seán O'Malley (cardinal) since you're arguing that it is his common name. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There's just no way the MMA fighter can be the primary topic here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)=[reply]

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) Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 17:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sean O'Malley (fighter) → Sean O'Malley
• Seán Patrick O'Malley → Sean Patrick O'Malley (cardinal)

– The fighter has an overwhelming number of page views: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Sean_O%27Malley_(fighter). Dating back to 2017, the fighter gets 2500 daily views compared to the cardinal who gets 100. The fighter is the primary topic and even though this was discussed in September 2021 to revert to a DAB page, Wikipedia's intent is to get readers to the correct article. A hatnote linking to the cardinal will be sufficient. The arguments listed in the September 2021 proposal is subjective, as news articles were referenced. To counter, hundreds of articles on the fighter could be used as well. Marty2Hotty (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per last fall's RM, where we got the current titles and OP was the only dissenter. While O'Malley the fighter has the pageviews advantage,
  Sean Patrick O'Malley has the long-term notability, thus no primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I do not think the cardinal has long term notability. The fighter will be fighting for another ten years and continues to build his name. In the long run, the cardinal will continue to get fewer views, in my opinion. The fighter is clearly the primary topic. I do think since there are only two people with this name, getting the reader to one of the two reduces a click. As the fighter outdoes the cardinal by over 25 times a day, I do think it is a better decision to give him the article "Sean O'Malley". Marty2Hotty (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand you, Marty2Hotty, are a mma editor and has been going around request page name change for mma fighters as per primary topic. Pls note mma fighters are only primary topic for a few years or 4-5 years and only a very small number fights and still have a lot of view in 10 years. Long term notability does not just for 1-5 years, pls stop request for mma fighters page name change every week. Do understand Wikipedia a an enclyopedia and not just favour name change just because of short term view page and dont make an existing disamb page to another disamb page. Cassiopeia talk 20:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per last RM and as per 162 etc. above. Cassiopeia talk 21:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 162 etc. and Cassiopeia. The cardinal does, indeed, have long-term historical importance. As for the second nomination — Seán Patrick O'Malley → Sean Patrick O'Malley (cardinal) — there is no need for the parenthetical qualifier "(cardinal)" since he is the sole "Sean Patrick O'Malley" with a Wikipedia entry — the fighter's full name is Sean Daniel O'Malley. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Already discussed. Nothing has changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]