Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus

"Mary Free" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mary Free has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 3 § Mary Free until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

"Nuestra Senora la Mayor" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nuestra Senora la Mayor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 3 § Spanish redirects involving the Virgin Mary until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

"Virgin Mary joke" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Virgin Mary joke has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 3 § Virgin Mary joke until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

16 years old

@New editing editor: The problem with 16 years old: too old for an almah. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Huh??? I only changed it because I've heard more people online claim she was 15-16 as of recent. New editing editor (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

My take is that her age at the birth of Jesus cannot be known. Even the claim that Jesus was her first child is a legend, not a historical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm just commenting that the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure is well-established and accepted by the full academic consensus. He is even mentioned in non-Christian sources from that period, for example, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, etc.--JasterOmega (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Jesus really existed. I dispute the birth narratives as historically accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

All the sources for this articles are religious and religious only.

Her whole existence is based on subjective sources and lack of evidence is overwhelming.

This whole article is a joke, affirming she existed without anything to back it up but writings with bad credibility and no anchorage into reality, with things like a virgin girl giving birth or resurrection.

And she, in the contrary of Jesus himself, didn't have any "contemporary" accounts of her existence, or at least none expressed in this specific adticle.

And yet again she is presented as an existing historical figure in the very introduction of her article.

Absurdity and religious zealots are strong in this article. ~2026-41077-75 (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The consensus of historians is that Jesus has existed. Since he existed, he had a mother. For simplicity, we call her Mary. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

She has had so much influence on Western Culture and Identity you have no idea. Every knee will bow and Every tongue shall confess 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2026

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 14:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

---

• Mary, mother of Jesus → Mary
• Mary → Mary (disambiguation)Mary (disambiguation)

– The strongest basis to move Mary, mother of Jesus to Mary is the second critreion at WP:PTOPIC. Mary has substantially greater long-term significance than any other topic listed at Mary, spanning across Christianity, Islam, art, literature, music, and wider culture over roughly 2 millennia.
This also answers the argument raised in previous RMs that the given name itself prevents any primary topic from being made. The widespread use of Mary in Christian societies was itself substantially influenced by veneration of Mary, Mother of Jesus. the article Mary (name) states that reverence for her is "in large part responsible" for use of the name and its variants. This is not itself determinative of WP:PTOPIC but it weakens treating the cultural significance of the given name as truly independent of this Mary.
The pageview objection raised in the 2022 RM is less persuasive. Pure raw views for Mary, Queen of Scots, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Teck, etc. dont show what readers mean when they search for the unqualified term Mary. Readers searching for these articles may simply have searched for their full names. Most competing figures raised in previous RMs such as those listed above are normally distinguehed by another title, qualifier, or name. But the mother of Jesus is very commonly referred to simply as Mary.The WikiNav objection raised in the 2022 RM is likewise not conclusive as WP:PTOPIC treats WikiNav only as a supporting tool and cautions that it shows a single month of traffic, filters scarce data and may produce inaccurate figures where redirects are not fully accounted for. at most, this makes usage inconclusive, not long-term significance
WP:PTOPIC doesnt require the same topic to prevail under both usage and long-term significance. Even if the usage is inconclusive, the long term significance is unusally strong here. None of the other meanings of Mary have any comparable enduring significance across cultures, fields, and two millennia.
Following this, the disambiguation page should therefore be moved to Mary (disambiguation), with Mary occupied this (Mary, mother of Jesus) present article

References

2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support, 2x makes a good case, and long-term cultural significance, even though 'Mary' is a very common name, resides with this individual. If moved, and that's not certain as this is the fourth attempt to move to the single name, many descriptors would still have to use "mother of Jesus" to differentiate and describe the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Moving the article to Mary would only establish her as the WP:PTOPIC. "… mother of Jesus" would just redirect to Mary, so no link change is needed 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has been hashed out several times without any significantly different new evidence. While there is no question that mother Mary has deep long-term significance, the name is also extremely common. Even without considering the extremely long tail, wikinav does not support claim that most people arriving at the disambiguation were looking for the religious figure.
  Further, removing the disambiguation would make identifying mistaken links to the page much more difficult. older ≠ wiser 13:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t think this addresses the basis of the RM. I explicitly concede that usage may be inconclusive; As WP:PTOPIC treats usage and long-term significance separately, and says that “in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant.”

  WikiNav therefore doesnt need to show that most readers were seeking Mary, mother of Jesus, if the second criterion is satisfied. WikiNav does not dispose of the separate long-term-significance criterion. The RM also adds new sourcing on her long-term significance and on unqualified ‘‘Mary’’ usage. With mistaken links, Mary (disambiguation) would still exist and can serve the normal disambiguation-linking function. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  To be clear then, I don't agree that the long-term significance is sufficient to override the plethora of other common uses. Regarding fixing links, the existence of Mary (disambiguation) does absolutely nothing to help identify and fix mistaken links. It does make it significantly more difficult. older ≠ wiser 17:04, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Could you address the sourcing offered for the second WP:PTOPIC criterion? Pelikan, Rubin, and the Met are cited specifically for Mary’s long-term cultural significance across religion, art, literature, music, and wider culture. I understand your WikiNav point on usage, but I’m interested in why you think that sourced long-term-significance case is still insufficient. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  There is no question about long-term significance. The issue is that there are an extremely large number of things known as 'Mary' and the evidence from WikiNav strongly suggests that the mother of Jesus is NOT what the majority of readers are looking for when they search for the term 'Mary. older ≠ wiser 14:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you agree there is “no question” that Mary has the substantially greater long-term significance as thought of at WP:PTOPIC, and the guideline expressly allows primary-topic status to rest on that criterion even where usage is divided, what exactly is left in the guideline that you think prevents supporting the move? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Don't put words in my mouth. The religious figure clearly has greater long-term significance than any other single 'Mary' topic. I do not agree that it outweighs usage. older ≠ wiser 18:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. The only reason for a PTOPIC is that when people enter the search term "Mary" they are led there. What is the likelihood of someone entering "Mary" alone in a search and hoping for a different result than this Mary, mother of Jesus? It there someone else (or something else) they might be looking for? Is there another "Mary" known by first name alone?
  This proposal seems consistent to other very common names like Sarah, Rachel, Joseph, Jacob, Benjamin, David, etc. directed to the Biblical figures after whom the common name derives. Walrasiad (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  In the above list of biblical figures Joseph is actually an article on the name. (That isn't to say that Mary should or shouldn't be the same, it's just that Joseph is unlike the other entries in the list.) As it's a list of Old Testament figures I'm guessing you were expecting Joseph (Genesis) to be the target, but it's not clear to me whether that Joseph, Saint Joseph, the name or none of the above should be considered the primary topic. Ham II (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Walrasiad, we can see something of the the likelihood of someone entering "Mary" alone in a search and hoping for a different result than this Mary, mother of Jesus by looking at WikiNav and it indicates only about 27% of visitors to Mary continue on to the article for the mother of Jesus. older ≠ wiser 00:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not very persuasive. It's the biggest category for single name. Sure, many people use Wikipedia as a baby name dictionary. But that's not really what Wikipedia is for. The Mary (name) article is about as far from encyclopedic as it gets, and has next to no educational value. It's an entry in a baby name dictionary. Walrasiad (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's an opinion, but you asked about something else. What people use Wikipedia for is not for us to judge. But the evidence strongly suggests that nearly three quarters of people entering "Mary" alone in a search were not looking for the article on mother Mary. older ≠ wiser 01:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It absolutely is for us to judge what is fit (and not fit) for an encyclopedia. That's why we have WP:AFD. And frankly, I wouldn't object if "Mary (name)" was a candidate for deletion. There's nothing there. A reminder of policy: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And that's a dictionary entry. It contains nothing but the etymology of a word and a couple of notes about its usage. It probably should be deleted. Walrasiad (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

So are you suggesting Mary (name) should be deleted? Good luck with that. That would be quickly (and quite properly) trouted. What you say about WP:WINAD is irrelevant here, unless you actually want test your theory and risk being outed as a trout-lover. older ≠ wiser 04:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and AfD is about content. It would an invalid argument to suggest an article should be deleted because readers want to read articles about a topic. older ≠ wiser 04:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. It has no content but the etymology of a word and its usage. That could be disposed of in one or two sentences in the main Mary article. I would support its deletion. Wouldn't you? Do you think there's actually any content there?

Unfortunately, there are so many contentless first name articles out there already, it would be an ordeal to sift to through them to see which (if any) would be worth keeping. But it doesn't mean we have to give baby name dictionary entries with little or no content or educational worth the same weight as encyclopedic, content-rich articles of great long-term significance and educational value. That's why we have the WP:PT2 criteria for determining primary topic. Walrasiad (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If you think it is a dictionary entry, take it to AfD. You will be soundly reproved. Your opinion about name articles is irrelevant. There's much on Wikipedia that I think is silly, but unless you can build a consensus to agree with you, there is little point to trotting out your opinion as if it were a universal truth. older ≠ wiser 10:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't fob me off. I'm asking you if you think it is has content. You should be able to give me your opinion. You're the one promoting its numbers here, I am wondering if you've actually seen it.

This RM is about determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And the criteria is WP:PT2: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."

This is asking for judgment. And I am exercising my judgment. And asking you to do the same.

I examined the "Mary (name)" page, and saw it had next to no content or educational value. Maybe I'm missing something. Do you think it has worth? And don't say "some people like it" because that's not the question in PT2. Walrasiad (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely is satisfactory article about the name. Could it be improved, probably, but it would be quite exceptional to delete such an article based on an idiosyncratic opinion about its value. PT1 and PT2 are both criteria that are considered in determining a primary topic and NEITHER automatically overrides the other. older ≠ wiser 12:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Since you seem to enjoy numbers, have you looked at what links to "Mary (name)" in Wikipedia? Nothing. Just other baby name dictionary entries. Or pages that already mention Mary (mother of Jesus), reinforcing the primacy of the Biblical/historical person. Shall I tell you how many pages link to the "Mary (mother of Jesus)" article? As you can imagine, the difference in numbers is vast. 217 vs. 83,585 wikilinks. Or if you want to count only direct, 116 vs. 8,510. That should help you get a better idea of their relative importance.

Since you seem so attached to PT1, this is a measure of usage. This article is practically not used at all in Wikipedia. Walrasiad (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

There are several dozens of links to the page. Your opinion about the articles that link to it has no basis whatsoever in policy or guidelines. And in any case, what links to a page is merely one aspect to consider evaluating usage with respect to primary topic. No one has made a rational case for directing nearly 75% of readers who arrive at the Mary to an article they did not want. And even in terms of raw page views, the primacy of the religious figure is dubious. older ≠ wiser 14:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Several dozens? Did you actually examine them? The only pages that link to it are other contentless baby name dictionary pages. I found only one encyclopedic article ("Molly house") that links to the "Mary (name)" article independently of Marian veneration. Primacy is dubious? Come on.

Nobody, not even parents searching for baby names, would be surprised to be directed to Mary (mother of Jesus) if they entered "Mary" alone in a search. Just as when they enter Rachel, Sarah, etc. Mary is not less primary than Rachel or Sarah for their names. What rational reason is there to make Mary an exception? Walrasiad (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said, your opinion of the articles that link here is irrelevant and without any basis in policy. And as I also said, what links here is only one aspect (and you brought up first). I don't see anything remotely unusual in what links here for the name page, although I would not have thought it of any significance in determining primary topic in this case. As for your last point, consistency has never been a strong point on Wikipedia. Consider as well Joseph or Rebecca or John or Peter or Simon, etc. older ≠ wiser 16:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per usage[] and long-term significance of the given name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Could you expand on the “long-term significance of the given name” point? The RM cites Pelikan, Rubin, and the Met for Mary’s enduring significance across religion, art, literature, music, and wider culture over roughly two millennia. What evidence do you think shows the given name has comparable long-term significance for WP:PTOPIC purposes? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. As mentioned in the nom, just because Mary (mother of Jesus) influenced other uses of 'Mary', it doesn't determine the primary topic, as is stated in WP:DPT. Katiedevi (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  The nom explicitly says this is not itself determinative of PTOPIC; the narrower claim is that the long-term significance of the given name is not wholly independent of this Mary’s historical influence on its use. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Keeps consistency with other biblical figures. I can't imagine many people would search for "Mary" alone without expecting to come across this article. It's plainly obvious which Mary this article is about without stating she is the mother of Jesus in the title. Lemonladybug (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Mary is a very common name, including several monarchs and a lot of other figures. We should be cautious of deciding that there is a primary meaning, and this might even reflect a degree of Christian/Islamic cultural bias (see WP:BIAS). There are all sorts of arguments about whether various biblical figures should be treated as primary, each case should be decided on its merits. PatGallacher (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  The commonness of the name is relevant to usage, which the RM already treats as potentially inconclusive. I’m less convinced by the WP:BIAS point as the long-term-significance case is based on sources documenting Mary’s influence across Christianity, Islam, art, literature, music and wider culture, rather than assuming significance from a Christian perspective.

  If you have evidence that another individual topic at Mary has comparable enduring significance under WP:PTOPIC, that would be more relevant. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. As with articles such as Adam or Eve, the main referent of the article is Mary, mother of Jesus. Even if someone were looking for another article, I highly doubt they would be confused to end up here. Obonyxiam (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there is a primary topic of the term, it is almost certainly Mary (name), which predates the biblical figure, whose name is therefore merely an instance of the name (and who was, as it happens, probably actually named Maryam or Miriam). BD2412 T 19:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:PTOPIC expressly states historical age and being the original source of a name are not determinative. So what makes Mary (name) primary here? The Usage is divided, while Mary, mother of Jesus has the stronger long-term-significance case. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  About 45% of visitors to Mary go on to Mary (name), compared to about 27% that continue on to the article for mother Mary. Solely based on that traffic data, the name article has a better claim to being primary topic (although as previous move discussions have established, the ambiguity about this common name makes a disambiguation page most appropriate). older ≠ wiser 04:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  You’re giving WikiNav more weight than WP:PTOPIC gives it. It can support a usage finding, but it does not automatically override a separately satisfied long-term-significance criterion. "The religious figure clearly has greater long-term significance than any other single 'Mary' topic" -You 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I never said that it automatically override[s] a separately satisfied long-term-significance criterion. By the same measure, a claim of long-term significance does not automatically override the usage criterion. In the case of Apple, the fruit is second in overall page views behind the company. That is not the case here (and not even close). older ≠ wiser 12:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  The Apple example doesnt create some rule that the long-term-significance topic must also rank second in pageviews. WP:PTOPIC uses Apple only to show that usage and long-term significance can conflict, and expressly says traffic tools are not absolute determining factors. If you agree Mary satisfies PT2, what part of the guideline makes her lower traffic dispositive? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but there is no reason to force a very significant majority of readers who are NOT looking for an article to that very article. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  You're just restating the usage criterion. Look at WP:PTOPIC where it expressly contemplates times where usage and long-term significance point in different directions; as I showed above, its Apple example does exactly that. It also says traffic tools such as WikiNav merely “support” a determination and arent absolute determining factors. Nothing in the guideline says a sufficiently large WikiNav majority overrides an otherwise satisfied long-term-significance criterion, or that the latter must first meet some minimum traffic share; So why should 45–27 be dispositive here?? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  And you are ignoring the caveat that where usage and long-term significance conflict as in Apple: In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic. I remain unpersuaded by your arguments that long-term significance negates usages in this case. The case with Apple is somewhat easier because the fruit is something familiar across cultures. The religious figure is primarily of interest to a subset. In addition, there is such an extremely long tail of other uses of 'Mary' that it is a disservice to readers to posit that there is a primary topic when the P1/P2 criteria conflict. older ≠ wiser 19:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Typically, to qualify for primary topic, you'd want the chosen topic to be more important than all others put together, either in pageviews or long-term significance. There are a whole lot of Marys, and admittedly many are partial title matches, but here's three that aren't:

• Mary, Queen of Scots: a focal point of Catholic-Protestant conflict in the UK, as well as a crucial part of uniting Scotland and England
• Mary I: again, a central figure in the Catholic-Protestant conflict, and an iconic cultural figure thanks to persecution of Protestants
• Mary Magdalene: another Biblical figure, and also a very important one, also with millennia of study and veneration

The mother of Jesus is more important than all three of these figures, but is she more important than all of them put together, plus others like Mary of Bethany and Mary of Egypt and Mary II and the name itself (the most common female name in the world, I believe)? Ladtrack (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think WP:PTOPIC uses an “all others put together” test for long-term significance. That language appears in criterion 1 for usage but criterion 2 asks whether one topic has substantially greater enduring significance than “any other topic associated with that term.”

I can demonstrate this distinction with one example at WP:PTOPIC: Apple Inc. is primary by usage while the fruit is primary by long-term significance. Requiring the fruit to outweigh every other “Apple” topic added together would impose a test the guideline does not contain. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Funny, I'd say the fruit clears that bar easily. Ladtrack (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with other opposers above, so all their strong arguments apply here. I would also give gentle reminder to editors that this reference work, Wikipedia, is global in context. In my mind that affects long-term significance, because that only applies to a limited number of WP readers. There is no such significance to readers who practice faiths in which Mary, mother of Jesus is not known nor studied. In deference to all those readers who have other belief systems, I think this article should retain it's presently correct title. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:PTOPIC doesnt make long-term significance depend on whether every group of readers knows or studies a subject. The test is comparative enduring notability and educational value. The nomination already cites sources covering Mary across Christianity, Islam, art, literature, music and wider culture. If another ‘‘Mary’’ has comparable global long-term significance, that would be relevant. unfamiliarity among some readers doesnt show that one does 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Since WP's editing guideline at PTOPIC doesn't make long-term significance depend on a good many things, that is why we have these wonderful interactions between and among editors in order to determine consensus as defined by WP. I've read all of your responses in this survey, and I'm sorry to say that not one of the supporting arguments have been able to sway my opinion on this subject. This article's title should remain just as it is now, and I hope and expect consensus will back me up. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fair. But you still leaves the substantive question unanswered; what competing Mary has comparable enduring notability and educational value under WP:PTOPIC? Consensus is how the question is decided, but its not an argument for either outcome 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  That "substantive" question has answers that depend on who one is, where one lives, in which culture and religious faith one is born to, and perhaps other factors of which I'm ignorant. For you or anyone to answer: "nobody but the mother of Jesus" is to answer for a small handful of religions, and that's an answer that cannot be viable for a global knowledge resource like WP. There are people who are members of hundreds of other religions who have no idea who the subject of this article is. What is the long-term significance of Mary, mother of Jesus to those people? Zero. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Paine Ellsworth Well then, what is the long-term significance of any other biblical or religious figure who also has a single name title? Other people have pointed out figures such as Adam, Eve, David, and Sarah, who all have common names. Even more so, Aisha, Muhammad's third wife, also has a single title wikipedia page despite it being one the most common names in the world, and she would only be relevant to muslims (there are also definitely many people who have heard of the name Aisha and not the historical firgure Aisha, unlike Mary). Mary's title page is, as such, an outlier amongst similar articles of religious figures. Lemonladybug (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the answer to your question is just as complex and meaningful as the answer sought by the nom. The point of course is to uphold as much balance among worldwide standards and usages as is possible. Perhaps there are other article titles about religious figures that need more scrutiny, which might be subjects for future move requests. It seems that the need to edit Wikipedia is a neverending story. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well, at the very least, I'd hope that Adam, Eve, David, and Sarah are by far the most important biblical figures with their names. Mary is one of three major Biblical figures with that name; the most important of the three, but still just one of three. And that's without factoring any of the other Marys, either. It's sort of like how Joseph isn't about Jesus's father, at least partly because there's one other very important Joseph in the Bible. Ladtrack (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly per older ≠ wiser. The long-term significance isn't really in dispute, but that's only half the test, and wikinav is pretty clear that only 29% of people hitting the dab page go to this article. I also don't think Adam or Eve are good comparisons. There's only one Adam anyone means. In contrast, Mary Magdalene, Mary I, and Mary Queen of Scots are all just "Mary" in the right context, which is more the Joseph situation Ladtrack mentioned. That's what the dab page is for. Winissium (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  This still seems to make WikiNav do more work than WP:PTOPIC permits it. The guideline doesnt require both criteria to be satisfied, it expressly states that “in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant.”

  WikiNav is evidence on usage, but once long-term significance is conceded (read above), a 29% figure doesnt by itself answer why PT2 should fail to establish the primary topic. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  What I and others are saying is that it is not the case here that in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  If the opposers concede PT2 as satisfied, what is the actual reason the contrary PT1 evidence should prevent it from establishing the PTOPIC here?

  What rule or case specific reason makes PT1 controlling here, beyond that 29% figure you bring up, that should control over an independently satisfied PT2? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  The guideline doesn't say PT1 or PT2 wins when they disagree. It says consensus decides which topic, if any, is primary, and the "if any" is the part that answers your question. My reason for reading it as none is that most people typing "Mary" don't want this article, and there are several Marys who go by just Mary. Winissium (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, I disagree with the nominator's conclusions that Mary, mother of Jesus has substantially greater long-term significance (PT2) than Mary (name). There is no doubt that Mary, mother of Jesus is responsible for much of the name's enduring popularity, but the name itself (and its variations) is ancient and has been popular for centuries. I understand the argument that the name's popularity and importance derives from the mother of Jesus, and that this therefore adds points in favor of the mother of Jesus's greater long-term significance, but I disagree with the conclusion. The name has taken on a life of its own. I would argue the mother of Jesus has somewhat greater long-term significance, but it is not substantial. Second, I disagree that we can simply dismiss usage (PT1) and WikiNav evidence. Nearly half of readers navigate from the dab page to the Mary (name). If we were to follow a generous reading of the advice at the essay WP:1OTHERPRIMARY, we might actually make Mary (name) primary and link to Mary, mother of Jesus in a hatnote to save hundreds of readers a click (I am not suggesting we do this). I disagree with the nom's reading of in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. It's true that many RMs are decided without an analysis of both factors but this is not one of those cases. And since I disagree with the nom's PT2 assessment anyway, I wouldn't support this move even if I agreed that usage were irrelevant.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is the first oppose that actually disputes PT2, but what evidence supports the conclusion that Mary (name) has comparable enduring notability and educational value? The nom cites multiple sources for Mary's significance across religion, art, literature, music and wider culture. You saying that the name has “taken on a life of its own” doesnt establish that the difference is only slight. Several opposers above have already conceded that Mary has the greater long-term significance.

  If you think the gap isnt substantial, what source or comparison supports that? (also WP:1OTHERPRIMARY doesnt answer this either because its an essay about one-other-topic cases, which this plainly isnt) 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  The evidence is that Mary is one of the most popular English names and has been for centuries. When considering its variations and related names, it is even older and more prominent. "Long-term significant" is not easily quantifiable. I would place the gap somewhere between "slight" and "substantial". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  Popularity and age establish that the name is significant, of which I dont dispute, however PT2 asks about enduring notability and educational value. The sources in the RM show Mary's affects across religion, art, literature, music and cultural history. Stating that the name has been popular for centuries still doesnt show comparable span or educational value. And I dont think "...variations and related names" should be added when assessing the PT2 significance of the term, Mary, because the question in this thread is which topic has the greater long-term significance for the ambiguous term Mary? Its not the combined significance of Mary plus separate related names such as Maria, Marie, or Miriam

  What evidence actually puts Mary (name) close enough to that sourced record that the difference is not substantial? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps that it's the most common female given name in recorded history? That might be something. Also, you're asking to prove a negative when you're the one making the claim that's being contested, the burden of proof here is on you. While we're at it, consider not bludgeoning the discussion. I understand you were the nominator and typically that gives a little extra leeway, but posting repetitive counterarguments to every opposer does not help anybody. Not everybody will see things the same way as you, and posting numerous very similar responses in the same discussion will not convince them. If anyone wants to know what you think, they can read your previous eighteen replies. You don't need to make a nineteenth reply just to say yet again that you think this Mary is easily the primary topic by long-term significance and that usage doesn't matter in this case. Ladtrack (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Notes

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.