Talk:Kirk

Untitled

What is the point of this article? Kirk is already a disambig article, though it has come to be a bit more too. But there is no need for this. I suggest deletion. --Doric Loon 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've restored this page, just because when I typed in Kirk and found an article without a disambig page listed at top, i did a double take--205.188.116.8 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, after User:Chris the speller's clean-up and my attempt to rescue the material he deleted by finding a new place for it, we now have FIVE articles on "Kirk". Up to you guys if you really think this is helpful. --Doric Loon 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mightn't the Kirk article redirect to the article for the very popular character in Star Trek by that name? 75.18.4.86 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Much as I like Sart Treck (ah, my childhood!), that really is a minor side branch of the complex of topics here. --Doric Loon 08:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2025

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. Consensus that this is not the primary topic. Of the suggested titles for Kirk, Kirk (word) was mentioned/supported the most, so I'm closing with that title, but it can be the subject of another RM if needed. (closed by non-admin page mover) HurricaneZeta^C 14:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

---

• Kirk → ?
• Kirk (disambiguation) → Kirk

– It seems fairly clear that the term meaning 'church' doesn't have a clear primary topic over the surname or the given name. Further, there are numerous (some very relevant) people with the surname, which further prevents a clear primary topic for the term.

It should be noted, though, that according to Wikinav, people who end up on the term's page are, to a decent extent (although not in large amounts), going to the disambiguation page and from there often to people with either the given name or surname. . However, people strictly coming to the disambiguation page are overwhelmingly looking for the surname or the given name. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 05:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. There are 18 entries listed upon the Kirk (disambiguation) page, with little indication that the regional term's renown overwhelms the combined notability of the remaining 17 entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• The problem here is that the current Kirk article does seem like it could be a decent broad-concept article for the term, because it does already include a section for anthoponymy, too.

The recent traffic statistics aren't necessarily very informative because there's clearly an effect of extremely heightened reader interest in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This effect will dissipate over time, we can't assume the numbers will stay that way in perpetuity. We need to think about how to best navigate the average reader in more ordinary circumstances, too. --Joy (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue with that is that there is still no evidence that the term has a primary topic over any of them. Further, given that Charlie Kirk *has* received increased attention, that further blurs the point that the term has a primary topic over people with the surname (even if the surname is briefly mentioned in the term's article). GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 19:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Is the derivation of the surname from the term sufficient for a broad-concept article to be a valid option? Or did the derived use become a topic separate enough that it can't be part of the same broad concept? --Joy (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair point; I personally believe the latter, but I can see why the former might be true. Still, that's a good argument that should be kept in mind by future editors coming to this request. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 19:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support, and move Kirk to Kirk (Scottish). 162 etc. (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Kirk (word) would be a better title, since the word is not exclusively Scottish. Zacwill (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No objection. I was basing this disambiguation tag on the example of Ned (Scottish), but there's really no reason why that shouldn't be at Ned (word), either. 162 etc. (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. With the surname, the first name, the Scottish church, the people with the surname & first name, the characters with the surname, and other entries in the list, there's no clear primary topic. The safest bet is to have a disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as malformed. This needs to be a multimove. Srnec (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Srnec I fixed the syntax now, the bot should pick it up. --Joy (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support although I'm not sure what the appropriate parenthetical disambiguation is for the current meaning. Kirk (church)? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• This article seems to be about the word kirk, so I suggest that Kirk be renamed to Kirk (word). Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 21:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

followup

I have to protest: this move request was closed far too quickly. I do think that the primary meaning of "kirk" is "church", because James T. Kirk, Charlie Kirk etc. get articles using their full name, so Kirk by itself has no other content than church, and everything else is going to be some kind of redirect. However, I realise there can be different opinions on this. The really egregious thing here is the crazy idea of calling it Kirk (word). Where on Wikipedia do we have any article called "x (word)"? That is entirely inappropriate. Doric Loon (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate because we have articles such as Orange (word) and Jazz (word). Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 15:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The search engine finds 146 of these sorts of titles. I think it's probably fair given the WP:NOTDICT policy.

Some other prominent examples include Eureka (word), American (word), God (word), Football (word), Witch (word), Man (word), So (word), Data (word), ... --Joy (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I think it inappropriate that a former primary topic gets buried under 'other uses'. Compare Eureka. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I could see how maybe your formatting was too similar to MOS:DABPRIMARY. Make sure it more closely resembles MOS:DABCOMMON - say 'commonly refers to' and 'also refers to'. --Joy (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)