Talk:Willie Johnson

Latest comment: 16 years ago by JPG-GR in topic Requested move

Requested move

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Willie JohnsonWillie Johnson (disambiguation) — Based on the article traffic tool, Willie Johnson should be redirected to Blind Willie Johnson. —TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • What are you talking about Blind_Willie_Johnson is getting about 15 times as many views as the other two combined

Discussion

edit
Any additional comments:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unsure of this one. Willie Johnson is such a common name that there are bound to be other claimants. Of those currently listed on the DAB, agree that Blind Willie Johnson has the best case. The stat tool has given some very strange results in other nominations; I think its evidence should be disregarded at this stage. Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

From the survey above:

The stat tool should be the only evidence that matters. It tells you who is viewing what pages based on what words they enter to get to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs)

See Talk:Car wash and Talk:Breaking for some other opinions on this. Andrewa (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia talk:Web statistics tool for some discussion of the statistics tool. Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.