Talk:Kirk (disambiguation): Difference between revisions

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

– 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. [1]. However, people strictly coming to the disambiguation page are overwhelmingly looking for the surname or the given name. [2] GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 05:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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