Talk:Tupac (name)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Help? —the preceding comment is by Jigsaw Jimmy (talk • contribs) Jigsaw Jimmy: Please sign your posts!.

Help? With what? (Me | The Article) 20:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since Tupac died every artist that he had beef with jumped onhis band wagon, i mean look at Nas Tupac dis him bad and Nas was saying forget a thug but soon as Tupac died he claims to be a thug oh yeah big lip Jay-Z too east coast rappers hated westr coast rap but there whole style is wect coast, east coast rap use to be real MC's and west had that gangsta rythym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.127.153 (talk • contribs)

Requested move 1 (2007)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

 Not done per lack of consensus below. Neil ム 10:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page would have to be moved to Tupac (disambiguation) because a google search shows the deceased celebrity, Tupac Shakur, as the most well-known "Tupac", therefore, when this move is done Tupac should redirect to Tupac Shakur. I'm using Elvis which redirects to Elvis Presley as the precedent. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • With due respect to Messrs. Costello, Mitchell, Crespo, Grbac et al, Mr. Presley has greater relative importance than the other Elvises combined. A (relatively) contemporary music performer does not have the same weight as important emperors and revolutionaries. Ten years from now, the situation can be reassessed vis-à-vis recentism and geographic bias. — AjaxSmack 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per AjaxSmack Reginmund 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All else aside, he appears to be the only person on the list often referred to as just "Tupac", which makes Jesus a better analogy than Madonna. Dekimasuよ! 12:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Tupac Shakur[edit]

Rap artist or entertainer?

Discuss.

  • rapper (someone who performs rap music)[1]
  • entertainer (a person who tries to please or amuse)[2]

--EchetusXe (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why "entertainer" is used is because he was not just a rap artist. He was also an actor, among many other things. There's your response. If you want a precedent you could have asked. See Usher (entertainer) and Madonna (entertainer). Inclusively, here's the Wiktionary definition. Reasoning good enough? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we see:

Remember this is a disambiguation page, not to be confused with naming conventions, so precedents in that respect are invalid for this discussion.

So in answer to your question, no the reasoning is not good enough. Also, 'activist' and the numerous other things he was described as are not covered by 'entertainer' even if rapper can loosely be covered by it.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)tupac was awesome[reply]

Then I prefer 'musician', as intended by Ashrawi. Fair enough? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't see what is wrong with rap artist/rapper. Musician would be best if he did multiple genres but in terms of music all he did was rap so it is accurate.

Afterall the first line of his article reads: "Tupac Amaru Shakur (June 16, 1971 — September 13, 1996), also known by his stage names 2Pac and Makaveli, was an American rapper." Its simple, uncontroversial and straight to the point.

The guy above him 'Tupac A. Hunter' is listed as 'state senator from Michigan' rather than just 'politician' or 'American/Michigan politician'.

I think we should just leave it at 'rap artist' or change it to 'rapper ' if you prefer and move on to more interesting and important things to edit about on Wikipedia.--EchetusXe (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2[edit]

Hey, guys. 'Tupac' should obviously redirect to Tupac Shakur. Tupac was and still is unbelieveably influential to hip hop and black culture...but he's not white, so I guess that's irrelevant to you people.Indiawilliams (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2008 (uTC)

actually if you'll notice, none of the people on this list are white :) --81.158.147.16 (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was refered to as 'American entertainer' on this page before I changed it, I think that says quite a lot. EchetusXe (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: name of link to Tupac Shakur article[edit]

I feel that utilizing a pipe-link to change the displayed name from the current "Tupac Shakur" to "Tupac Amaru Shakur" in the link to said article would constitute an improvement to Wikipedia. Though it is certainly not the most common instance of the man's name, it is more than clear that the quality of the disambiguation page at hand would be improved; for example, to immediately resolve a reader's curiousity as to the origins and nature of Tupac Shakur's name, or to further demonstrate the various people and things that have adopted the historical namesake of Tupac Amaru II. Though it may be 'simpler' to allow the link on the page to read "Tupac Shakur," omitting the middle name(s) of the article's subject as per policy, I am of the opinion that changing the display name to "Tupac Amaru Shakur" would be an improvement in many senses and largely make the page more informative.

- Arstchnca (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound like a good reason to mask the link. We can instead utilize a redirect approach since WP:PIPING#Exceptions gives us that option. The entry would simply look like:

Tupac may refer to:

...

...

Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are that the change is largely harmless and variously beneficial. Also, that the current page format as it stands is quite functional.
- Arstchnca (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The edit unfortunately doesn't conform with dab guidelines. Regardless, let's hear what others think. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. You say "let's hear what others think," supporting your proposed version not with substantial reasoning but with the potential that others /may/ agree. I have, to the best of my belief, enumerated the various advantages that I feel warrants my proposed version.
I suppose that my confusion stems from how you, failing to yet provide arguments for your case, decided regardless to edit the page at hand, reverting my changes to your proposed version. I implore you to believe that I am trying my hardest to understand your actions in the context of "good faith;" alas, I am unable. Perhaps you could make clearer the situation?
- Arstchnca (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Tupac Amaru Shakur would be useful if this were the Amaru (disambiguation), Tupac Amaru (disambiguation) or Amaru Shakur (disambiguation) page, since then the reader would be expected to know the middle name. Since it's just the Tupac (disambiguation) page, however, there is no need to use the full-name redirect, and using the full-name redirect instead of the common name may hinder readers who come here looking for the rapper they know only as Tupac Shakur. The full name shouldn't be used here for that reason. Too, this isn't a disambiguation page either, but an anthroponymy given name list article; the tag should be changed. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009 move for Tupac page for Tupac Shakur[edit]

Everything else to link out of it. Any feelings on the subject?Huey Newton and the News (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what exactly are you proposing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 (2013)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: no consensus. Miniapolis 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Tupac → Tupac (disambiguation) – As stated in the previous RM, Tupac Shakur is essentially the only topic on this page frequently referred to solely as "Tupac," making the other topics basically WP:PTMs. In the first four pages of Google results, the only hits not about Shakur were this page and a Linux utility that would probably never meet WP:GNG. The idea that WP:RECENTISM is a reason not to favor a person who's been dead for over 15 years is pretty laughable. I can't name a single Tupac song, but it's clear from the evidence that the man has pretty clearly enduring notability. Finally, Tupac Shakur is easily the most popular article on this page, garnering 535,407 views (in the top 200 overall) last month compared to 26,165 for all other topics combined, even those within the see also section. That's over 20 times more views. --BDD (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is a given name page, so it should be moved to Tupac (given name). Check out Tupac -wikipedia. By my count, 28 of the top 30 results refer to the rapper, one is for the New Mexico Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Program, and one is for "Turbo Pacman," a database utility. Kauffner (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing on this DAB page is a reasonable candidate to be primary topic, despite differences in notability. One of many cases in which the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may be completely unhelpful, by itself. Let it be tempered by the policy imperative: serve the needs of readers, not of editors (see WP:TITLE). The rapper may be found through prompts at the Wikipedia search box. Try it: "Tupac Shakur" appears first in the list once "tup" has been typed in! Alternatively, a simple Google search on tupac gets his WP article as the first result, with confirmation of the content clearly highlighted: "Tupac Shakur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". That is an ideal arrangement to serve readers, and can hardly be improved upon. The onus is on those supporting a different arrangement to show that it would be an improvement. NoeticaTea? 06:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per Noetica. The behavior of the Wikipedia search box will take a reader looking for Tupac Shakur to the right article anyway. The person looking for the rapper won't even save milliseconds if the Tupac page is devoted to him instead of a DAB. (The person who types 'Tupac' into the search box is unlikely to scroll past the 'Tupac Shakur' entry, which is the first hit, to go down to 'Tupac'). EdJohnston (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support different move to Tupac (given name) to allow the base name to redirect to Tupac Shakur, per nom and Kauffner. Oppose proposed move, this is not a disambiguation page, so it cannot be moved to the (disambiguation) title. The behavior of the search box is irrelevant to the primary topic of the title, and Noetica's disagreement with the consensus at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has not yet changed that consensus, and the readers are best served by landing them on the primary topic from the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, although I'm not sure how appropriate the See also section is, then. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support different move to Tupac (name) unless it is also used as a surname. Tupac itself should certainly redirect to Tupac Shakur with a headnote on his page pointing to the disambig and possibly also the chief Incan. Ignoring guidelines is one thing, but regardless of them the rapper is far and away the primary topic in 2013. Maybe things'll've gotten more ambiguous in a few decades or centuries, but that's the situation at the moment regardless. — LlywelynII 14:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this seems like a precursor for Tupac Shakur to usurp the namespace of a very old/traditional Quechuan name, one that has been given to Inca leaders. While Tupac Shakur will be here today, gone tomorrow, the enduring name must be the historic one and not one driven too much by recent events. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 14:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, and we should move Elvis (name) to Elvis, over the redirect to that usurper, Presley. Age and derivation are not primary topic criteria, and this is not a specialist Quechuan encyclopdia. Tupac Shakur is no longer here either, but that article is still the one readers looking up "Tupac" expect to find. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at least some kind of move Even as a history buff with a soft spot for pre-Columbian history, I'm inclined to agree that the modern rapper has become the de facto primary topic by a very wide margin. Time-honored or not, WP:ASTONISH should be applied here, not respect for obscure Inca leaders. Peter Isotalo 20:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are lots of prominent people who have had this name. Not one is the primary use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If would be helpful to explain the basis for asserting that none is the primary use. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Page view stats show that Shakur is the primary topic for Tupac; no other use of Tupac gets anywhere near as many page views. Also per everything said by BDD and JHunterJ. As to where exactly to move this page... Tupac (name), Tupac (given name) or Tupac (disambiguation), in that order. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 27 February 2016[edit]

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: Move to Tupac (name). We have clear consensus that the primary topic of the term "Tupac" is Tupac Shakur, so the base name will redirect there. Cúchullain t/c 15:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Tupac → Tupac (disambiguation) or Tupac (name) – and redirect to Tupac Shakur. Tupac Shakur is by far the most searched for Tupac. For example, in the month of January 2016, Shakur's article was viewed around 21,600 times per day, whereas Tupac Amaru II, in second place, was viewed 388 times per day, so Shakur definitely meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Even a simple Google search takes 8 pages to get to something not related to Shakur – and it's for New Mexico Tobacco Use Prevention and Control. Only on page eleven does something for another Tupac come up... the Votesmart.org biography of Tupac A. Hunter. While it is a very old name that has been around for centuries, most people using Wikipedia today are looking for just one Tupac – Tupac Shakur. MB298 (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is not a disambiguation page, it is a name article, the proposed pagename is incorrect -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Altered. MB298 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Calidum ¤ 14:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Obvious primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 02:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an apparent error in the logic of this proposal, in the interpretation of WP:PTOPIC. The redirect should be made if the term "Tupac" alone is used to refer to Tupac Shakur in this kind of a volume, not just because it's part of the term "Tupac Shakur" which has a large volume of search traffic. You should present a modicum of evidence, e.g. from Google Books search results, that indicates that the preponderance of published works which use the term "Tupac" do it in a mononymous manner, to refer to Tupac Shakur. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see this move being a WP:WORLDWIDE issue. Tupac Shakur's notability in non-US English-speaking countries seems unverifiable so far. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about these articles from the United Kingdom? [3], [4], or this one from India: [5]. MB298 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination here, and nomination of BDD above. This is an obvious primary topic, sources using this for Tupac Shakur dwarf those of the other titles.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but the IP is correct; this page is a name page, not a disambiguation page. Tupac (disambiguation) is an acceptable redirect with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, since set indices still function like disambiguation pages, but the page title shuld be Tupac (name). --BDD (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • @Cuchullain: Is there a particular reason you did not restore the indef semi-protection to Tupac after you recreated it? (I just noticed that the protection is no longer there.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it had been removed. I'll restore the protection.--Cúchullain t/c 15:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tupac_(name)&oldid=1202676783"