Talk:John Ratcliffe

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist🩸 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

John Ratcliffe (American politician) → John Ratcliffe – John Ratcliffe is the most prominent person with this name now that he is the CIA director, everyone else is either dead or mostly unknown. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, he is the clear primary topic as he is the most searched and referenced person by this name. The disambiguation is unnecessary, and the base name should redirect to him. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 07:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - appoint to an office does not a primary topic make. It is common usage and long-term significance that do that. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, John Ratcliffe, who is the CIA director and former congressman, is the primary topic based on both usage and long-term significance. He is the most searched and referenced person with this name, while all others are from the 1900s or earlier with less modern relevance. His political roles ensure lasting significance. A similar move was made for Chris Wright when he became Secretary of Energy. Since most readers searching "John Ratcliffe" are looking for him, disambiguation is unnecessary. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 04:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Blind assertions do not a primary topic make. You make a reference to less modern relevance- we don't judge based solely on "modern relevance", we actually avoid that per WP:RECENTISM. The politician has generally had more views, but not sufficiently more than any other topic prior to his recent appointment to be a primary topic. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom, but Oppose not adding disambiguation. This John Ratcliffe is by far the most popular one out there, as the page view count is consistently above all the others. However, we should add a disambiguation because John Ratcliffe (governor) is still very much viewed, albeit not as much. People searching for the president of Jamestown may be confused by the redirect. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, John Ratcliffe the former congressman and CIA director is the most searched and referenced person with this name. While John Ratcliffe (governor) still receives some views, he died in 1609 and already has a disambiguation, preventing confusion. Readers specifically looking for the governor will find him through the existing disambiguation page, while most searching for "John Ratcliffe" expect the modern political figure. Adding unnecessary disambiguation contradicts Wikipedia’s goal of easy navigation. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 04:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I would consider the governor to be an insignificant figure in this calculation, except for the fact that he was made into the main villain of the Disney Pocahontas movies. BD2412 T 23:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per nom, but keep the disambiguation page. AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. No primary topic by long-term significance. Not every American political appointee automatically becomes the primary topic. And it is truly bizarre to suggest that living people are automatically more significant than dead people. That's really not how it works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Necrothesp Killuminator (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinging: Bringing in all editors from a similar discussion of Talk:Chris Wright#Requested move February 2025. Your imput is welcome.

Tomrtn, AsaQuathern, BlueShirtz, Czarking0, Gcarrell, PhotographyEdits, TDKR Chicago 101, Rochambeau1783, BD2412, PublicDomainFan08 TimeToFixThis | 🕒 20:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support, I agree it should be renamed PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, seems like a clear case of long term significance. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above AsaQuathern (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Pretty clear this article is now the primary topic. BlueShirtz (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Cabinet level position noteworthyTomrtn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning support based on ten-year page view data. This subject has substantially more page views than all similarly named subjects combined, and this has been consistently true over the past decade. Their recent appointment is not definitive, but will only boost their profile in this regard. BD2412 T 00:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 01:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support - This John Ratcliffe is the most notable person with this name. Long term, he seems to be the most notable, which we must consider as well. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment why not John Lee Ratcliffe? Czarking0 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's a good idea, but I think that level of disambiguation is unnecessary. In the future, if it becomes apparent that further disambiguation is needed we can always reopen this discussion and find another solution. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 04:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Czarking0 and TimeToFixThis: Renaming this John Lee Ratcliffe would require substantial evidence that the subject was frequently referred to in sources by that full name. BD2412 T 05:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like MOS:NAME supports you here. Glad I checked for reference. Czarking0 (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)