Talk:Tom Arnold (actor)/Archives/2016

Requested move 2 May 2016

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. Was relisted once and still gained no consensus. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

---

• Tom Arnold (actor) → Tom Arnold
• Tom Arnold → Tom Arnold (disambiguation)

– I am pretty surprised this hasn't been proposed before (to my knowledge) given how well-known of a figure Tom Arnold is. Pageviews don't lie: excluding the DAB page, this article has gotten 159759 views in the last 90 days, which by my count is 99% of views for all "Tom Arnold" pages on Wikipedia, excluding the DAB. If you include the DAB, the amount of hits it gets far outweighs any other Tom Arnold than the actor with 6313. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why not just leave Tom Arnold (actor), where it is, move Tom Arnold to Tom Arnold (theatre impresario) and leave Tom Arnold as a dismabig page? HughJLF (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Tom Arnold already is a DAB page. The actor is the primary topic, and it's clear from the views the current setup is not good for readers, so I'm proposing a change. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Heh! Ho! Mmm! I see. Then I vote for no change to the current set-up, I'm afraid. HughJLF (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Clear primary topic. SSTflyer 05:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• I agree there's little doubt which article comes out on top when considering page views only, but reading the primacy article, one of the criteria it gives is:

"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".

Oppose - From a US-centric point of view, the actor may be the main point of focus, but taking a broader perspective, It's not clear to me that Tom Arnold (Actor) will have a greater long-term significance than all other Tom Arnold's

HughJLF (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• You would probably have to wait an extremely long time before the actor's significance drops so much that he's on the level of the others who can't muster up 1k views a month. It's not like the others aren't notable but this Tom Arnold is and was a pretty major pop culture figure. Nohomersryan (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever WP says is fine by me. I get the primacy thing with subjects, but don't support the page-view basis for people unless in exceptional circumstances, like Gandhi. HughJLF (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The actor is not more significant than the economist, despite high viewership. Also, the actor hasn't won awards yet, unlike the economist. George Ho (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The economist is only of regional significance, while this one is well-known worldwide and will continue to be. Views prove this move would help out WP readers, so let's do it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Do readers really need 'helping out'? C'mon, the real issue involved here isn't usability, its about perceived importance. As things stand it's hardly a struggle to find any of the Tom Arnold pages. I see no case for change. HughJLF (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Primary topic has nothing to do with what we feel should be important. Calidum ¤ 19:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The actor is by far the primary topic. Calidum ¤ 19:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I think that's the question we're trying to bottom out. HughJLF (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You've already voted. Calidum ¤ 03:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on page views. Zarcadia (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with George Ho - the actor is not more significant than the others. JerryHuang2013 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per George Ho. Page views only tell part of the story. Pop culture topics will always gain more views than academic ones, but we are an encyclopedia. The actor and the economist are of similar notability.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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.