Talk:Robert Shaw

Requested move 15 August 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 18:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

---

• Robert Shaw (British actor) → Robert Shaw (actor)Robert Shaw (actor)
• Bob Shaw (American actor) → Robert Gottschall

– The English actor was a major figure who could be, arguably, positioned as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only reason for the addition of "British" in his qualifier appears to be competition from an obscure performer, Bob Shaw (American actor), who is listed under his birth name, Robert Gottschall, at Find a Grave. The American was a bit player who went uncredited throughout the majority of his film appearances. Upon the few occasions that he did receive very minor billing, it was "Bob Shaw", "Robert Gottschall" and, on five occasions, between 1939 and 1945, had bit parts in which he was billed as "Robert Shaw". In his final bit part appearances, in 1980 and 1983, he was billed as "Robert Gottschall". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom, and this page is already the redirect. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support... would even be okay if with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as mentioned. Thanks, Roman, for the well researched background info. It really helps makes a decision here. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support moving the British actor to Robert Shaw, and moving the dab page to Robert Shaw (disambiguation). Despite the fact that he died nearly four decades ago, he still receives over 73% of the page views; the next runner up, Robert Gould Shaw, is rarely known without his middle name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 23 August 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 April 2021

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 that this Robert Shaw is more notable than all the others combined. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• Robert Shaw (actor) → Robert Shaw
• Robert Shaw → Robert Shaw (disambiguation)

– Since the Robert Shaw disambiguation page lists 34 men, there has been, most likely, reluctance to propose one of them as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, nearly four years ago, a partially-related Talk:Robert Shaw (actor)#Requested move 15 August 2017 above, suggested the possible existence of sufficient support for such a nomination. Thus, for the record, let us establish consensus. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: That's not a very strong argument in favour of the proposal. — BarrelProof (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The nomination is structured so that each !vote represents a personal evaluation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Leaning support!: I see. This actor is very well known and certainly the most highly viewed topic among the possibilities. The others that are viewed relatively frequently are generally known by a somewhat different name. The remainders seem relatively obscure. There is also a small WP:INCDAB issue for the actor. — BarrelProof (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose There are so many different entries, that it's hard for me to pick one as PRIMARYTOPIC even though the actor has much more pageviews than the next candidate.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not going to do the precise maths, but massviews over "all time" show that the actor's article is the most popular but it is not clear that it has more views than everything else put together (the criterion for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage). Of course there might be a separate notability argument. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2021 (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.

Requested move 20 July 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. Don't see any official opposition here. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

---

• Robert Shaw (actor) → Robert Shaw
• Robert Shaw → Robert Shaw (disambiguation)

– The actor is the primary topic for the name Robert Shaw. Of every article on the disambiguation page, this actor gets 71.7% of pageviews over the past 5 years. This means that far more people want to see this Robert Shaw than every other Robert Shaw combined. This is borne out by navigation data at the disambiguation page, where over 80% of people wanted the actor both in May and in April. This should not be affected by recentism, since the actor died in 1978 and we're coming up on 50 years since he passed away. The closest contender, Union Army officer Robert Gould Shaw, obviously has substantial long-term significance, so he gave me pause. However, as far as I can see, he seems to be near-unanimously referred to exclusively as "Robert Gould Shaw" and never "Robert Shaw" (see: Britannica, several news articles, US government website, several different books.) Almost nobody will go to Robert Shaw expecting the Civil War officer; almost nobody goes from the disambiguation page to Robert Gould Shaw, as you can see in the clickstream data above. Because of this, I don't think we need more than a hatnote at this page to clear any possible confusion. This is a similar setup as we have with little-known actress Helena Carter and much better-known actress Helena Bonham Carter, or with a disambiguation page at John Booth even though Lincoln's assassin is obviously the best-known, most important person of that name. Ladtrack (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 14:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Nearly four years ago, the same proposal at Talk:Robert Shaw (actor)#Requested move 29 April 2021 attracted three participants, with one "leaning support" and two "oppose" votes. Since then, the 50th anniversary of Jaws and associated reminders such as The Shark Is Broken or JAWS@50 have kept the memory of Shaw's name and career near the forefront of pop culture. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Neutral. I could go either way. But it should be noted that by saying Shaw's name has remained relevant based on the resurgence of media attention associated with the 50th anniversary of the 1975 movie Jaws and the 2019 play The Shark is Broken should also apply to Spielberg, Dreyfuss and Scheider. However, the reason we still know those names is because Spielberg has directed countless award-winning films since 1975, and both Dreyfuss and Scheider have starred in numerous films, theatrical and television productions to keep their names relevant yet separate from the 1975 film Jaws. If you take Jaws out of the equation for all four of these persons, three would remain relevant. I'm not quite sure Shaw would still be relevant in 2025; considering the 9 films he made after and the 29 films prior do nothing to keep him on the tongues of today's readers (except for maybe "The Sting"; but even that, one remembers Redford and Newman, not Shaw). Second, one can cherry pick obscure names such as American Civil War Union Army Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, and plead a very good case that Robert Shaw the actor is far more well known; but I'm not sure you can say that for one whose name is synonymous with choral conducting even today: Robert Shaw, or blues piano: Robert Shaw. If this page is made primary, I would strongly move toward having these names included as "For the:" along with the "See also" disambiguation page link. Just my thoughts. Maineartists (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  You've brought up two different issues here, so I'll address them one by one.

  Second, one can cherry pick obscure names such as American Civil War Union Army Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, and plead a very good case that Robert Shaw the actor is far more well known; but I'm not sure you can say that for one whose name is synonymous with choral conducting even today: Robert Shaw, or blues piano: Robert Shaw.

  I actually didn't cherry-pick Robert Gould Shaw; Wikipedia readers find him much more interesting than either of the guys you've mentioned here. For the record: Between July 24, 2020 and July 24, 2025 (exactly five years), the blues musician has received 4,657 pageviews, the conductor has received 96,160 pageviews, and Robert Gould Shaw has received 1,495,777 pageviews, which is almost 15 times as much as both those other guys combined. The actor, meanwhile, has received 5,074,347 pageviews in the same span, which is 50 times the total of the conductor and the blues pianist. (Data here, if you want to see it.)

  I'm not quite sure Shaw would still be relevant in 2025

  But he is relevant to Wikipedia readers. He is, we know exactly how many people have visited this page and it's a lot of people. Far more people have visited this page than for that of any other person named "Robert Shaw". This is the crux of the issue; Wikipedia readers want to see this actor. When they search up "Robert Shaw", they want to see this guy, much more often than they want to see anybody else. Why? That's up for interpretation, but shouldn't we give them what they want? Ladtrack (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hm. Well. You mentioned "between 2020 and 2025. That is during the time the 2019 play premiered in the UK, then went on to the Ambassador Theater in 2021, Toronto in 2022, New York in 2023, and the tour that began in January 2025. That certainly would drum up world wide interest in not only the film, but the characters involved: i.e. Shaw. My curiosity in recentism lies with the statistics prior to 2019 (premiere of the play)? If one looks at the complete history of page views dating back to the page's creation until today, one sees radically diminished page views from 2015 up to the time the play premiere in 2019. In 2016, the average monthly page views were only 2K-3K. In 2024 the average monthly view was 50K-70K. However, in June 2025 when the 50th Anniversary release hit the movie theaters it spikes to 267K. Second, it would seem that all those readers you claim "want to see this guy", are having no trouble finding him with the way the page is set up currently. It hasn't posed a problem in the last decade. That being said, yes, at present this Shaw is most certainly more relevant than any other listed Shaw. Maineartists (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

In 2016, the average monthly page views were only 2K-3K.

Ah, this is a bit of a miscommunication. This article was moved to its current title from Robert Shaw (British actor) in August 2017 (the RM was here), so the views from before then are found under that title rather than the current one. If you include redirects, the views make a lot more sense; they capture views under the previous page title, too, which is obviously nearly all views prior to August 2017. The correct number is just under 60k monthly views between mid-2015 and mid-2017. There has been an increase, as you've noted, but it's not nearly as dramatic as it initially appears; this page averaged just about 2,000 views a day prior to the move, and about 2,700 between 2020 and 2024 (with another big jump after that which probably is due to the 50th anniversary). That's definitely an increase in interest, but not a massive one.

Second, it would seem that all those readers you claim "want to see this guy", are having no trouble finding him with the way the page is set up currently.

See, I don't think they do. Over 80% of people that go to the Robert Shaw disambiguation page click the link to this guy (in June it was 88%). Granted, this isn't a huge number of people, but still, it's several hundred every month. Why not help them out? Ladtrack (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject James Bond, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and WikiProject Ireland have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"Can't we all just get along?" 2603:8080:21F0:1650:895:9C84:283A:CF8A (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I should hope so, but I don't quite understand what relevance this statement has to the discussion. Is it a Rodney King reference? Ladtrack (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:11, 13 August 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.