Talk:Callum Wilson

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

Requested move 12 August 2018[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: no consensus to move the page at this time; no consensus in the present discussion that the criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are adequately fulfilled by the subject of this article. Dekimasuよ! 01:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Wilson (English footballer) → Callum Wilson – Australian footballer isn't notable outside his homeland and the English one is the far more likely target.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose the pom isn't notable in Australia, instead make the Aussie the global primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I speak as a Pom. The Brit is only known in UK. Making one or other WP:PTOPIC is a guaranteed way to accumulate bad links (I am here because User:DPL bot found some). Narky Blert (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No indication that either Callum Wilson is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, an overwhelming primary topic. Over the last 90 days the Australian rules footballer has averaged 4 views per day versus 250 for the English footballer. Thats 62 times as many, and the disparity is only going to get larger. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Strong support Per Xezbeth, a hatnote to the only other person will mean readers who are looking for the English footballer will not have a click, while those looking for the Australian footballer will have 1 click either way WP:2DABPRIMARY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: A hatnote to the only other person will mean that bad links will slowly accumulate, and will never, ever, be found and corrected. I fix something like 10 or 20 bad links to "WP:PTOPICs" every single day, as a byproduct of User:DPL bot's reports. I have sharp eyes and a strong sense of smell. For example, the two links I fixed today to the film Safe would never have appeared in any error report. I caught them by eye, because they were near to a flagged-up error.
I check Tetrahedron every couple of months. I'm sure I've missed some, but I always find a link or two which was intended for Tetrahedron. I've fixed a dozen or more. And that is a case where the PTOPIC is utterly clear, in that everyone who knows about the journal will also know about the Platonic solid. Ask any organic chemist. Narky Blert (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Then why would you have opposed moving Bury then? This seems to be much more clear cut than Bury, which also had incorrect links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: A partial analysis of the incoming links to Bury has suggested that 1-2% of them were intended for Bury F.C. rather than for the town. That is a trivial error, compared with confusing two people on opposite sides of the planet.
The Bury move created at least ten man-hours work to clean up the resulting mess. How much effort have you put into helping to do that? Narky Blert (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The links aren't determinate and can be cleared up, I have been gradually clearing them up. The name "Bury" is clearly ambiguous while this only has 2 items. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to strong support per Station1. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. 109.156.195.83 (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Narky Blert; a disambig page is aways better than a hat note in the long run. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We can easily move it back, I doubt this is too much of a problem with Recentism when we only have 2 and per Station1's views its over 100:1! Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I understand and appreciate the nominator's rational but one could easily argue that since more people follow the Premier League than the A-League is the result of the gulf in the page views, but there is nothing to indicate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An overwhelming primary topic in a WP:TWODABS situation. He's getting 99% of the pageviews this year. Even the dab page is getting 4 times the views of the Australian footballer! [2] - Station1 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2018 (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.

Soccerbase[edit]

For some reason Soccerbase has dropped two appearances from his total with Newcastle in the career section, i.e. it shows 34 apps (here) where our current Wikipedia version shows 36 apps (as archived today by me). Probably one of those instances where Soccerbase has not added up correctly like the Steve Bruce discussion earlier this year. Giving this a thumbs up in case some people reduce the correct figure of apps by two goals because they viewed it from Soccerbase. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rechecked Soccerbase almost a year on, the figures from Soccerbase and the article table now matches the current total of 55, all good. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 November 2022[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 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: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– I'll pretty much let the page views do the talking for this one: [3]. Since the start of this year, the 1992 footballer has received a daily average of 1,207 views, compared with 14 views per day for the 2004 player, 9 for the 1999 player and 1 for the Australian rules footballer. That's two whole orders of magnitude bigger than anything else. Add to that, he's an established Premier League player and has multiple England caps too, I'd say he's also primary by long-term significance. The above debate from four years ago seems to focus mainly on who's primary between the 1992 footballer and the Australian, with the page view discrepancy massive then too, so it really should have been moved then. But four years on, with more longevity under his belt and with him appearing in the World Cup as we speak, this one looks completely slam dunk to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Callum_Wilson&oldid=1210499622"