Talk:Baker (disambiguation)

Rename
When I encountered it, this page had a tag on it, requesting a change to Baker (disambiguation). However, I think it might require a little more thought than is common to speedy renames. What would we put at the un-dabbed term if not this disambiguation page? Seems to me that Baker's primary sense has evolved from an occupation to being just a last name. That would make the dab page the primary topic, in my mind. Other thoughts? 03:44: Sat 24 Jun 2017
 * I agree. Both the last name and the occupation are too common to give precedence of one over the other. Shambala108 ☎  01:27, September 25, 2017 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the original speedy rename was due to the fact that there is no page for Baker (occupation). Though very few, there are links that intend to go to the occupation (from Walter Wibberley, for instance), but instead land on this dab page. So the situation can certainly be improved. Upon thinking about it, my suspicion is that it would be more user-friendly to move the dab page and use the undabbed page for the occupation. Here is my reasoning: an editor who wants to make a link to the occupation is likely to just type "Baker" without checking because it is such a common, everyday thing. On the other hand, it is not often that a link to the dab page is needed. And there editors are more likely to check the link. As for the primality, it is true that the name is not directly connected to the occupation anymore, but is nevertheless unmistakably derivative from it. Amorkuz ☎  18:28, October 29, 2017 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me, I change my position from two years ago. Shambala108 ☎  21:55, August 23, 2019 (UTC)