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. Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Usher (occupation) → Usher
• Usher → Usher (disambiguation)

– As noted at Usher (musician), this article is a clear primary topic per long-term significance. The occupation is also the primary definition listed for "usher" in a dictionary. 204.184.47.150 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, definitely the long-term significant term, backed up by WP:PTOPIC (as quoted by Necrothesp in the original discussion): The question of significance is not how long something has been significant - it's our best judgment as editors whether one topic has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than any other topic. --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. The musician article is the clear primary topic by usage. A split primarytopic leading to a dab page is preferable to sending 40x as many readers to an article they are not expecting. Dohn joe (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That is rendered moot by the fact that Usher (occupation) is not a WP:DICDEF - and hopefully the closing administrator sees this and judges anything that is based on this opinion accordingly. I absolutely agree that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that is irrelevant in this discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per Dohn joe though I would also discount the historical significance of such a banal occupation and weak topic.The musician, who has historical significance as well, is the clear primary topic. —В²C ☎ 02:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. We have already determined that the musician is not the primary topic by long-term significance (frankly, in my opinion, any claim that he is is laughable - the occupation has been around much longer than he has and will still be around when he is long forgotten; Beethoven he ain't!). However, given all the sub-types of the occupation I'm not sure the generic occupation article is either. Probably best to leave as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per teh other discussion—blindlynx 15:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Usher is the primary topic. The guideline that has been miscited to oppose thise is irrelevant to the issue here. WP:NOTADICTIONARY only says:

This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.

Note that the guideline does not say that common nouns cannot be primary topics and only proper nouns/names can be. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the point is that Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, will assign different weights to its topics compared to a dictionary. What may be the primary meaning of the word in the English language will not necessarily correspond to the primary topic of an encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Why do you say “usher” is the primary topic? Just saying it is doesn’t make it so. And simply being an old word doesn’t establish enough historical significance to overcome the much higher likelihood of another topic being sought. In this case the historical significance of the occupation is unimpressive (one measure is to consider how little there is to say in the article) while the likelihood of the musician being sought is overwhelming. An astute closer will discount your JDLI contribution accordingly. —В²C ☎ 01:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, not a clear WP:PRIMARTYOPIC, obviously the singer get's much more page views. So I think because of the uncertainty, DAB should remain at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Rather obvious primary topic by longterm significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose while I don't think the musician is primary either I agree with Dohn joe that having no primary topic is better than sending readers onto the wrong article, where PT criterias are split no primary topic is safest. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. It's not the primary topic. The times when there's a valid claim of "long-term significance" generally come when there's some reason that the other options are very obviously recentism, or when the other meanings are "descendent" meanings, but that isn't the case here. SnowFire (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per Dohn joe's arguements. Tree Critter (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per reasons listed by User:Dohn joe above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support as the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]