-
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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 20:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Arthur Walsh (U.S. senator) → Arthur Walsh (American politician) – The current title is unnecessarily role-specific. This proposal was suggested by Necrothesp (and somewhat also by SmokeyJoe) in the previous RM, but got lost in the rejection of the en mass move request. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Oppose. Not known as “politician”, but for his highest position, for which he was appointed not elected, and in which is not noted for having done anything political. The shorter, more helpful, role-specific disambiguator is better on many counts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
If he wasn't a politician, perhaps the article should not open with a sentence saying『Arthur Walsh (February 26, 1896 – December 13, 1947) was an American politician ...』— BarrelProof (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Done. While arguably every member of congress could be auto-labelled “politician”, not a single source I can find describes him so, and his senate appointment was brief and unelected. The word doesn’t belong in the lede sentence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Oppose per SmokeyJoe. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Opposed per other editors. more useful to keep senator as a disambiguation. Killuminator (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Support. Standard disambiguator. No reason whatsoever to make an exception for one individual. And despite only being a senator briefly, he does seem to have been a political animal throughout his career, so there is nothing wrong with "politician". -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
If the other roles in his life make his a politician, then the word is meaningless. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Given his appointment to the Senate was party political he can clearly be defined as a politician. He was appointed as a Democrat, not an independent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Given that we know next to nothing about his politics, we can’t argue that he is an extraordinary example of a non-political senator. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Leaning to flipping to “support” due to WP:NCPDAB and the preference for disambiguators to be nonspecific. In some ways that guidelines feels wrong, but in others, right, and special cases should not be made from obscure cases. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
