Jump to content

Talk:Scott Walker

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

Scott Walker

[edit]

Where does the architect Scott Tallon Walker come in from? Andy Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 17:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

[edit]

I think its' pretty clear that Scott Walker (singer) should be the primary topic here. None of the others come anywhere close to the recognition that the singer has, and I suspect that 90% plus of people coming here looking for Scott Walker are looking for the singer. I would therefore propose that this disambiguation page is moved to Scott Walker (disambiguation) and Scott Walker (singer) moved here. --Michig (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 90 days the page on the politician has been visited 269191 times while the singer has been visited 65141 times. Those numbers don't indicate that the singer is the more likely target of this page. Tassedethe (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Scott Walker (politician) is the most important topic. For the past 1.5 years, WI's labor reforms are an omnipresent issue, and most people have probably never heard of a singer with the same name. 38.111.32.82 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have recently been getting similar numbers of page hits. The difference is that the singer has been internationally popular since the 1960s while the politician is virtually unknown outside the US. --Michig (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not American, but I know about the massive coverage his labor reforms, and subsequent protests and recall have generated, not to mention his speculation as a potential 2016 candidate. The singer? No clue who that is. Therefore the disambiguation page should redirect to the Wisconsin governor. 128.164.27.98 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page should be moved from "Scott Walker" to "Scott Walker (disambiguation)". I have started a move request below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 July 2015

[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. Consensus has been established that the American politician is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/c 14:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the politician is the primary topic with respect to usage, because the politician is much more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. With respect to long-term significance, either no one is the primary topic or else the politician is the primary topic, and it makes no difference because the politician is the primary topic as to usage. The only other topic that comes close is Scott Walker (singer), as discussed at the disambiguation talk page. If you go to "what links here" and hide redirects, the singer has less than 450 items listed, whereas the politician has more than 600. Article traffic statistics are more telling: in the past 90 days the singer has 35476 hits, whereas the politician has 179,616. Google news hits: 155,000 for the singer, versus about 1.4 million for the politician. Google books garners about 831 for the politician, versus 961 for the singer, but Google Scholar gives 3050 hits for the politician versus 936 for the singer. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The politician is virtually unknown outside North America. The singer is internationally famous. Try a non-American search engine and the results will likely be very different. --Michig (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my nomination. The results may (or may not) be different using search engines in other languages, but this is the English Wikipedia, and the instructions say to use Google.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (usage). Page views are compelling by a factor of about five for the past 90 days. My estimation is that both subjects have roughly equal long-term significance.- MrX 21:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. All search engine results are heavily skewed to WP:RECENTISM and current news spikes. Wikipedia:Search engine test#Interpreting results warns not to solely rely on raw counts. Even this Billboard article states, "Within the last few years fans of avant-indie music have come to terms with the fact that the name Scott Walker is no longer most closely associated with the American-born British singer-songwriter (emphasis added)".[1] In other words, the American politician was only a relative unknown until just a few years ago, while the singer has been notable for at least 40 years. Thus, only judging search engine results for just a period of just 90 days in this type of case is insufficient -- if it were, thousands of primary topics would change solely based on recentism and current news spikes, leading to an unstable online encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google search results that I gave were not limited to 90 days. The Wikipedia stats that I gave were limited to 90 days, but you can confirm that the politician has been getting way more Wikipedia hits than the singer throughout 2015, and that is very likely to continue given the career trajectories. The Billboard article discusses "the last few years" and the trend over those last few years is unmistakeable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So does Steve McQueen (director).Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point that WP:RECENT comes into play here is relevant. If the Governor is selected for a major party Presidential or Vice Presidential nomination then I'd likely support this move, but as of now his prominence is within the U.S. and the Midwest. Granted that he will gain more prominence and be featured in news articles during his presidential run, but if he finishes as an also-ran then that will fade quickly. Randy Kryn 11:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the politician suddenly fades away, after several years as the clear primary topic, then consensus about the article titles can change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These decisions must be based on the most current and best available data, not speculation concerning future trends. H. Humbert (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Without specifically disagreeing with H. Humbert, I have to point out that the politician is going to be the primary usage, and a long-term attempt to deny it will likely cause another Hillary Clinton-style mess (even that would be better than a Grant Shapps-style incident). Better to move now and avoid gaming. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The singer is indeed highly notable, but I think only a niche group of searchers would be looking for him, while an average search for "Scott Walker" is almost certainly designed to reach the governor. Also, it's not like he's just suddenly gaining notoriety due to the presidential campaign; he has been an exceptionally controversial figure at the national level (and even internationally...google "Scott Walker Chatham House" for more info) since 2011. 74.127.175.164 (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I believe that Scott Walker the politician is currently slightly more relevant. I do think we should wait just a little bit longer as he has only announced his candidacy.MeropeRiddle 00:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - we're talking about a singer versus a governor?? Seriously?? Goodness sakes, could the two criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC be any clearer? Red Slash 00:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did a double-take when searching for "Scott Walker" led me to a disambiguation page. Search Google News for "Scott Walker" and 99% of the stories are about the Wisconsin Governor, a man who has a good chance of becoming the next President of the United States. --Tocino 06:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unless he becomes the president or the US congressman, let's not make him primary topic right now. Even when popular, he can't outmatch the significance of the singer. He is a mere governor of one state, while the singer was notable as part of band and solo singer in two or more countries. George Ho (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly meets the objective primary topic criterion, usage – I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The other criterion, long-term significance, is of course subjective. Personally I would say a governor and presidential candidate has more long-term significance than a singer, but I guess others could disagree. Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per primary topic. Hugh (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Recentism and US-centricism aside, the singer is clearly the primary topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Brah, it took fourteen years to get America to redirect to United States. Meanwhile, a small Irish city somehow still has primary topic at Limerick. This is not a US-centric encyclopedia. On that note, any objective reasoning would show that someone who has the sole authority to pardon crimes, veto or approve legislature, and execute the laws of a state with over five million people is probably more relevant than someone who... sings. Red Slash 04:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly the primary topic in usage. Just based on his term as governor he's a highly influential figure; you don't need to be elected to a national office to be of enduring fame and historical impact—e.g. Floyd B. Olson, George Wallace, Jerry Brown. —innotata 21:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on primary topic criteria, and Walker the politician's growing prominence (thinking of union backlash and now his current presidential bid). He's not going away and his profile is likely only to rise, especially on the international scale if he gains any sort of traction for the presidency. Fuzchia (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Likely to rise", the singer's history and traction have already risen on a larger stage. The U.S. centric politician may or may not become a worldwide figure. Politics is just one profession, not always the prime topic of every name that wins a local office. Randy Kryn 11:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard is "highly likely...to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). The candidate is the subject that readers have been searching for recently. I don't see a scenario under which he would be less notable next year than he is now. H. Humbert (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Running for president of the United States is hardly a local office. Fuzchia (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Local office? Are you aware that there are more people in Wisconsin than in Ireland? Red Slash 18:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more people in Ireland (and better beer). He's running for president in a large field, if he gets the nomination for president of vice president maybe this should be revisited. Randy Kryn 18:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trolling? Wisconsin Republic of Ireland Red Slash 19:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just remembering that a little place called Northern Ireland is part of the Isle. Ireland's population leaves Wisconsin in the dust (or in the cheese). Randy Kryn 11:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per primary topic. —Lowellian (reply) 07:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The governor is the clear primary topic. None of the opposes are convincing either. Calidum T|C 01:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Outside the U.S. the singer is the primary topic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and in the U.S., Birmingham is not the primary topic. We don't decide based on how one country feels or does not feel; we decide holistically. See WP:WHATCOMESTOMIND. Red Slash 17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP:What comes to mind" also contains this language: "There are two different comic book characters called "Dennis the Menace" that are well known in the U.K. and the U.S. respectively, but since neither has worldwide dominance over the other, there is no primary topic and Dennis the Menace goes to a disambiguation page." which sums up this discussion. The politician is a state Governor in the U.S. who is trying to gain a wider office but has not yet come close, and the singer is known by millions of people worldwide. Both are known and popular to a great deal of people, hence the disambiguation probably should take precedent. Randy Kryn 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For two things which are roughly equal in relevance. Birmingham, AL is more important to Americans than Birmingham, UK, but each one's actual overall significance is very unequal. Red Slash 19:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And WP:WHATCOMESTOMIND to the majority of people outside of the U.S. is the singer, not the politician. To move the politician to the primary topic demonstrates a U.S. centric bias. Best leave the status quo with no primary topic, unless he becomes president or something. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: easily the primary topic. He has an international profile, just because he is American doesn't automatically make this proposal US-centric. Ebonelm (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, after looking at this it appears the governor is clearly the primary topic. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:11, 30 July 2015 (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.

Interesting that this requested move was not posted at the main article. Why? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A notice was placed there on July 13 by the RM bot.[2]--Cúchullain t/c 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 August 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: Moved. I do so look forward to dabbing hundreds of pages (thank heavens for AWB). Having checked the pv stats myself, and while supporters and their rationales clearly outnumber opposers, and in no way wanting to sound judgemental toward last year's page rename, there is much to be learned from this situation. Recentism isn't always easy to sense, especially in the thick of things. (non-admin closure)  Paine u/c 14:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– After one year of the current setup, it has become very clear that there is no primary topic. Much of what the nominator says is no longer true today - "the politician is the primary topic with respect to usage, because the politician is much more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." & "with respect to long-term significance, either no one is the primary topic or else the politician is the primary topic, and it makes no difference because the politician is the primary topic as to usage". The 90-day usage stats presented in the previous discussion were probably heavily inflated because of recentism - back then, the nominator notes 35476 pageviews for the singer and 179616 for the politician. Now, the politician has dropped to 78977, while the singer has remained consistent with 54421. This is not a very impressive difference, and it shows the politician's pageviews are dropping steadily and will likely only continue to do so. The margin (when solely comparing the politician and singer) is only 59.2% for the politician, so he is not "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Systemic bias plays a role, too; right now I'm in Canada and Google results favor the singer, who has more worldwide prominence than the politician who would likely be unknown here. MelanieLamont (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC) --Appears that consensus for the move is fading, but give another week — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States politicians and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on procedural grounds. Would we be setting a precedent? Although there are numerous primary topics which should not be primary topics, can a link be furnished which would confirm that there had been any previous individuals who became primary topics as the result of a vote and were subsequently deprived of their primary topic status as the result of another vote? Another argument in favor of Scott Walker's retention as primary topic may be consulted directly below at Talk:Scott Walker (disambiguation)#Article traffic on August 15, 2016. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but taking in the entire year the governor had twice as many as the singer, which is going downward quickly enough that the last month's figures show the governor still maybe holding onto the primary by his fingernails while the singer has a documentary that I should watch sometime. But the case for the disamb. page still seems quite strong. So a question, how closer do the figures have to get before there is true consensus (which is everybody agreeing on the outcome)? The gap will likely narrow further once he's out of office, unless some major political/governmental appointment comes his way. Randy Kryn 2:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
It is clear that the politician had more Wikipedia searches over the past 30 days, since January 1, and over the past year, than the remaining eight entries added together. Perhaps the standard should be twice or thrice more Wikisearches than all others, which would certainly cut down on the number of primary topic pages. Many editors also mention Google searches, including Google Books, while others feel that searches through sources outside of Wikipedia itself are not as indicative and that Wikipedia article traffic should be given prime consideration. Some of these points appear in similar WP:RM votes, such as the one for another politician, at Talk:Bob Brown#Recent move and, later, Talk:Bob Brown#Requested move. One of the arguments may be that all article traffic flows first to Scott Walker and, subsequently, to the disambiguation page, but the dab page traffic has been comparatively low, thus indicating that few of those searching for the singer go through the dab page, but rather through links in other articles which mention the singer. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, so maybe a change should be held-off until the recentism wears off once the fellow leaves the governors mansion and ends up as a lobbyist or something worse. As of now he does seem the primary, it depends on if "recentism plus Wikipedia searches" is enough to keep a primary a primary. Randy Kryn 17:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even getting twice the traffic volume doesn't confer overwhelming WP:PTOPIC status to the politician. This name has two dominant notable subjects (the politician and the singer), and a bunch of minor subjects who get orders-of-magnitude less traffic. Besides, page views for the politician are inflated by virtue of sitting at the base name, just like what we discussed recently about New York. — JFG talk 06:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's requirement that "a topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". The politican clearly recieves more hits than all other topics combined. Ebonelm (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is incredible--did someone change the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC while I was away? Isn't long-term educational significance one of the two criteria we rely on? How absurd to assume that a singer--a singer!--has even remotely the encyclopedic value as a governor. He is the chief executive of a co-sovereign state of nearly six million people (and has been for almost six years). Even if page views were equal (which they're not), you cannot even remotely compare the long-term educational value. Scott Walker the governor will be in textbooks for the next hundred years (for his role in dismantling organized labor, if nothing else), while the singer will possibly be remembered as... a singer. Red Slash 18:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably in American textbooks, but this is certainly not the case worldwide. The singer is very influential, it's just that his fame is mostly international. I'm sure there are people in the UK that would say similar things to yours, just about the singer. Of course Americans aren't going to care much about the singer, but the amount of significant people he's influenced means he isn't destined to be remembered as just a bottom-of-the-barrel teen idol like you seem to imply is the case. MelanieLamont (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The governor only has/had local and short-term interest. An internationally recognised artist who is much better known worldwide should be the primary topic if any, but for now this proposal makes sense. --Michig (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — the politician as primary has not satisfied the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 02:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The English Wikipedia isn't the American Wikipedia. SSTflyer 03:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The previous move was based on recentism, but that spike in pageviews has passed, and there is now no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Doesn't meet primary topic and it sounds like the previous move was pretty recentist. Graham (talk) 18:02, 27 August 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.

Article traffic on August 15, 2016

[edit]

The 30-day period covered is July 16 to August 14, 2016. However, in order to sample a broader view, there is a second number (in parentheses) which covers January 1 to August 15, 2016 and a third number [in brackets] which covers the full year August 14, 2015–August 14, 2016. However measured, it is still evident that Scott Walker/Scott Walker (politician) has higher traffic than all the others combined. If we can agree that the requirement for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be a number which is two or three times greater than all the others combined, then Scott Walker should be returned to Scott Walker (politician). A vote of this nature should be neutral, not based on political considerations, thus avoiding the setting of a precedent which may affect other PRIMARYTOPIC discussions. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The base name point had been addressed by the comment dated 14:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC) under "Requested move 9 August 2016" above. While disambiguation pages of other articles may show heavy traffic, this dab page (Scott Walker (disambiguation)----------956 (9244) [14,392]) demonstrates that even if all dab page traffic had gone to the singer, the proportional majority for the politician would still have been greater than the combined traffic for all others. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hits for Scott Walker (singer) now predictably exceed those for Scott Walker (politician) once again, considering the total since 2016.[4] Given the number of links that previously needed adjustment after each move (477 for the musician, and more for the politician), I'm wondering whether it's wise to propose making Scott Walker (singer) the primary topic as before, while the politician is still in office (and may stand for US President again?). One lesson from the WP:RECENTISM may be that a disambiguation page should be seen as a good consensus compromise. It's also worth listening to subject experts who could provide qualitative information on international cultural impact about how many musicians cite Walker as a long-term influence, and looking at other projects like French Wikipedia where the musician is still primary topic, and a peak of news coverage in 2015 had less effect.[5] --Cedderstk 11:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Walker&oldid=1253099073"