Talk:Richard Eckersley (footballer)

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. Relisted twice with sound policy arguments on both sides. Argument here is over whether page views constitute a primary topic, and there is no consensus on that, and no indication that further relisting would lead to one. Close defaults to not moving from the stable titles. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Both
  two-way DAB is the right thing according to current policy. Andrewa (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Here's your evidence.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! There is of course a problem with page views but these statistics are indeed one-sided enough to be evidence on the grounds of probable search term. But against that is the question of significance. The footballer appears notable but only just. The designer is clearly notable. A two-way DAB is appropriate in these circumstances. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In cases like this, a raw count of page view merely reflects a bias towards sports in popular culture. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obviously. The footballer gets 30x the page views[2] The evidence shows that this is the
  WP:TWODABS situation. A hat note to the designer will help readers find him in just as few clicks as a dab page; no need to send all readers to a dead end when the vast majority of them are looking for the soccer player.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I stand by my view about not using pageviews to give primacy to a popular culture topic over other fields of human endeavour. And a dab page is definitely not a dead end: the whole point of it is that rather than a dead end, it is a junction, in this case a simple binary fork in the road. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Relisting again. @Andrewa and BrownHairedGirl: it might be helpful if you could respond to the above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Thanks for the ping. Andrewa (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2017 (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.