Talk:Romeo (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Primary usage[edit]

In cases like this, where there is one clear meaning that 99% of Wikipedia readers are looking for, a Romeo (disambiguation) page should carry this present information, while Romeo should redirect to Romeo and Juliet. Just my opinion. --Wetman 07:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, so I've moved it. sjorford →•← 11:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


"... a term for a man who goes after a great deal of women"

Is this correct? I never seen the play but as far as I understand, Romeo loves only Juliet - so dearly in fact that he dies for her. I think you might be mistaking Romeo with Casanova? -- 03:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

in the beginning he's pining after some other chick.

It is correct as is casanova. (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the character from whom this usage derives its colloquial meaning was not a womaniser, that is its current definition. Information yes (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus for move. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RomeoRomeo (disambiguation) — Shakespeare's character is surely the primary meaning, whatever title we might give his article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems logical. Powers T 01:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose the trope "Romeo" is the primary and common meaning; some sort of boyfriend. An article should be created for this class of character/personality, in lieu of such an article already existing, the disambiguation page should remain until such time it is created. (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd to claim that the primary meaning is a hypothetical article which nobody has created yet. PatGallacher (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is merely an unsubstantiated assumption that Shakespeare's character is the main meaning. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. P199 rightly asks for evidence that the Shakespeare character is in fact the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Romeo". Here's what I found. A Google Books search for "Romeo" gives 1,160,000 results. A search for "Romeo" -juliet -shakespeare -montague -capulet gives 522,000 results. Subtract the one from the other, and you get 638,000 results that presumably refer to Shakespeare's Romeo. Since well more than half of the references are for that Romeo, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would indicate that this Romeo is the primary topic. Dohn joe (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • WP's reliance on Google stats to determine notability is misleading. Wikipedia article traffic statistics is a better indication. For instance, Romeo_Miller was viewed 259430 times in March 2011. That is slightly less than Romeo_and_Juliet (266873 times), but many times more than Romeo_Montague (only 17765 times). Some of the other "Romeo" articles are attracting many tens of thousands of views as well. Why redirect Romeo to Romeo Montague, forcing hundreds of thousands of readers to go back to the disambig page? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
      • You're making the assumption that people get to those other "Romeo" pages by searching for "Romeo". Powers T 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Seemed logical to begin with and Dohn joe's evidence merely reinforces the point. Jenks24 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The “trope” Romeo is at best a dictionary definition, and at worst a jargon entry (prove me wrong by writing a decent, sourced, article on it). Thus Romeo is clearly the primary usage. --Xover (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The Shakespeare character is clearly the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, primary topic for an encyclopedia, dictionary definitions take lower priority.--Kotniski (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.