Talk:Engelbert Humperdinck (composer)

message: Why does searching for "Engelbert Humperdinck" return this page first, rather than the singer? The singer is more widely known and has a larger article. K-UNIT 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop being a troll. This is the actual Engelbert Humperdick. Arnold Dorsey just uses his name as a stage name. And besides, the composer is far more widely known. -- js
I don't think K-UNIT is being a troll. IMHO, I would have thought more people would be looking for the the pop singer when searching for Engelbert Humperdinck. Certainly, Google turns up more hits for the singer than the composer, it even lists Wikipedia's singer page first! On the other hand, I'm not really sure what policy is on matters such as these, although I doubt mere precedence is enough to warrant the main page. -postglock 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's one of those amazing but true facts.  Bucketsofg✐ 05:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If I adopted the stage name Paul McCartney and became quite well-known in some circles, the Wikipedia article Paul McCartney should point to me rather than the British musician, whose name it actually is? Or how about Tony Blair or George W. Bush or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? Stealing the identity of another person is a criminal offense in many countries. Wikipedia should not support crime. Engelbert Humperdinck is Engelbert Humperdinck, the only and true Engelbert Humperdinck. Arnold Dorsey is Arnold Dorsey, a person who uses the name of the composer as a stage name, without actually being the real Engelbert Humperdinck. --js
Well, I don't think the pop musician was intending identity theft, to make off with all his belongings unbeknownst to the general public . . . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and what I was suggesting was that if the popular musician was more likely to be the subjects of searches, and if it was in line with Wikipedia policy (which I suspect it is), then the other-way redirect should be considered. Also, few people look up Arnold Dorsey when wanting information about Engelbert the pop musician. -postglock 14:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does searching for "Engelbert Humperdinck" return this page first, rather than the singer?

message: Would prefer to suggest a merge here (and on Engelbert Humperdinck (composer)'s talk page) rather than on their article pages for now, as the latter is unsightly :).  But a merge in one or the other direction is necessary. Schissel | Sound the Note! 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: It says in the article that the composer suffered from deafness at the time when he was already dead. Can someone with knowledge please change that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.147.217 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Information 

message: I have removed the following from the article as it is of questionable relevance to this article and the citations seem rather suspicious:
He would later be credited as the inspiration for the character of Prince Humperdinck in William Goldman's 1973 novel, The Princess Bride,J. L. and A. V., A tale of two Humperdincks, J. Rid. Theory, 23(1):13–14, 2007 though some scholars argue that the fictitious prince was based on the singer of the same name, a contemporary of Goldman's.Gulverdashvili, M.N. (2007). Misrepresenting the author's intent: The impact of chronological context on negative archetypes in ruritanian romance. Thalia: studies in literary humor, 19(3): 67–82.
I've checked in Ulrich's and Periodical Title Abbreviations: By Abbreviation and cannot find any such journal as J. Rid. Theory.  There are also no last names of the authors given for the citation.  Thalia is a real publication, but I have been unable to turn up any reference to this article or its author.  I don't know if the citations are just sloppy or if this is some kind of prank, but even if someone could verify/correct the citations this information doesn't belong here.  It would be better suited for the article on the fictional Prince Humperdink. CKarnstein (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed questionable "Princess Bride" content 

message: Also apparently at least three string quartets (only no. 3 from ca. 1905?, seems to have reached CD?) and some other chamber works. Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  chamber music 

message: (Originally posted on 25 July 2012 at WT:D, copying it here now where it's relevant.)
That move discussion alone doesn't seem to indicate who is the primary topic. Someone should go through the entire list of Special:WhatLinksHere/Engelbert Humperdinck and see if there are mismatches - articles linking to the singer while we have composer as the primary topic. If that number is significant (e.g. more than 20%), then the assumption that the composer is the primary topic is gone. The amount of links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) also needs to be assessed. If the numbers are comparable, then that also pretty much does away with the assumption. I sympathise with the argument that the singer named himself after the composer, but the problem of the ambiguous title has arisen in the real world already - if we're going to pretend it's not there, that's only going to be confusing a lot of users arriving at the ambiguous title. I also saw the argument of how we're going to be spending the time of users arriving at a disambiguation page - but these users aren't confused, they are directed to the information they want in a straightforward manner, and they're also quickly informed about the ambiguity. It's an acceptable waste of user time - the purpose of the encyclopedia is to spread knowledge, not to optimize Internet searches or whatever. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time this was discussed there was disagreement over which Humperdinck should be primary, which kind of indicates that there is no primary topic. This page really should be a simple disambiguation page with all incoming links fixed to point to the correct Hump (per WP:DPL - I'll happily work through this). We will need consensus before moving the page and unfortunately last time this was not reached, IMO largely due to people not understanding how disambiguation works (the argument that the composer came first was frequently raised, but this should not be a factor). Worth re-proposing the move though. Bazonka (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  name ambiguity 

message: It's not obvious the singer Humpderdinck is different than the composer, so it's appropriate to give folks looking for the singer a link to his article. NE Ent 17:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that the page named "Engelbert Humperdinck (composer)" is for the composer, not for the singer. Per WP:NAMB, a hatnote is unnecessary. I suggest you remove it -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with NE Ent. Why? Well Engelbert Humperdinck (singer), while mostly known as a singer (mostly of other people's songs, but if that's common knowledge, it's news to me) is also a composer.allmusic Both being musicians can cause confusion-on the Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) page there is a disambig hatnote which probably gets some traffic. It would seem mutually useful to do the same for Engelbert Humperdinck (composer). Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous doesn't hold, in my opinion, in this case. I suggest my hatnote edit is reinstated. DadaNeem (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1st sentence at Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) says: "… is an English pop singer." The infobox gives:: "Occupation(s) Singer". The article doesn't mention any composition except 1 (obscure) song. There are no composer-related categories or project banners on the talk page. I have no interest in that article and don't care what hatnotes its editors deem necessary. NE Ent. offered no argument to support the hatnote here, and this article has been without it since February 2015 after it was moved to its current name in December 2014, except for the period from October to December 2016 after NE Ent. added it. This tells me that there is no significant confusion or doubt in readers' minds about the subject. Maybe you could invite some interested editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music or similar to broaden this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: After the disambiguation in 2015, there's clearly no need for a hatnote. Anybody looking for singer will know by the picture that he is at the wrong article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig hatnote