Talk:Earl Thomas

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

I motion that this Earl Thomas should be the primary topic

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I motion to make this Earl Thomas the primary topic for the name “Earl Thomas”. There are three other “Earl Thomases” but they are very insignificant compared to the current NFL defensive back. I looked at article traffic statistics from all four of the “Earl Thomases” and the results are astounding (to be fair, when I entered the dates for the comparison, I excluded the last few days to show more typical averages, because the recent signing news with the Ravens has caused a huge spike in viewership since the news was reported). This Earl Thomas averages 1,194 page views per day, the other three Earl Thomas articles average 8, 6, and 1 page view per day. Please submit your opinions and thoughts. Should concensus be reached, I will make the page change in about one week’s time, as that is generally the minimum amount of time that Wikipedia establishes as a guideline for talk discussions before making drastic changes. Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Primary topic Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any opinion on whether the page must be move or not, but if the decision is to move it please use the move tab and not cut and paste the material. Cut-and-paste moves do not preserve the editing history and therefore technically are copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can't be infringing our own copyright, can we?
(talk) 15:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Basically there's no "we" in terms of Wikipedia copyright. See
WP:ATTREQ. Dekimasuよ! 19:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing

How about a key for the statistics tables? What, for example, is "comb"? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: There is a tooltip for those expanding on its definitions, but I don't know how accessible that is. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see it. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]