Talk:Bill O'Reilly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

A note to Jack in the above section

American Soccer (European football) is the most popular sport in the world. A Clown in the Dark 04:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Bill O'REilly (Disambiguation) Page

I think the solution the editors found for michael moore is the best solution for Bill O'Reilly (commentator). Bill O'Reilly should automatically direct to bill oreilly commentator but give the option to redirect at his page for disambiguation. Basically I demand equality. I respect the cricket issue but Bill O'Reily the commentator gets a thousand times more hits and its inconvenient in the extreme . Mrdthree 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed and rejected on Talk:Bill O'Reilly. Please don't just unilaterally change it. The cricketer is better known worldwide. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This page should not exist

Is the cricketer or the commentator better-known? I have no idea (server logs or something would be nice, if we could check out which is more visited). But either way, a disambiguation page to disambig only two pages is entirely pointless. Rather, this should redirect to one of the two Bill O'Reillys, and both should make use of an otheruses template. Thus, if someone goes to Bill O'Reilly, there's a 50% chance they'll get to the right page immediately, and a 50% chance they'll have to click once to get to their destination; as it is now, there's a 100% chance that they have to click once to get to their destination. Let's pick one and go with it—either one will improve our average clickthrough time. Can we agree on that? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I think where it's not clear what the primary meaning is, a disambiguation page is appropriate even where there are only two articles, because a disambiguation link is more subtle than a disambiguation page. It also leads to fewer arguments.

I also think you don't need an "otheruses" template on an article with an already-disambiguated title "(cricketer)" or "(commentator)", because no-one is going to reach the wrong one, so I removed the ones you added, sorry!

Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

More subtle? Either one is extremely noticeable. It's at the very top of the article. Nobody could possibly miss it if they get to the wrong article. As for fewer arguments, that strikes me as reminiscent of Harrison Bergeron: better that the people who want one O'Reilly be inconvenienced as much as the people who want the other than that one group should have more convenience without cost to the other, just so the disadvantaged group isn't jealous. Everyone's equal if you pull them down to the floor. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? I think its appropriate. While yes, I think everyone thinks the commentator more often, just because the TV guy is more famous now does not mean he'll be more famous even in five years. One is a historical figure, the other is not (yet).J. M. 07:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably, and thus in five years we could change the redirect . . . but all I'm saying is that redirecting to one is better than redirecting to neither, even if the redirect target is the less-visited one. Either way, it's fewer clicks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the solution for michael moore is the best solution. BIll Oreilly should automatically direct to bill oreilly commentatory but give the option to redirect to a disambiguation page. Mrdthree 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The difference is that one Michael Moore is far better known than the others. Where it's not clear what the primary meaning is, a disambiguation page is appropriate. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bill Oreilly cricketeer page is barely used. No one has discussed anything on the page since it was made. It averages about one edit per month (fine 1.1).The bill oreilly commentator page is used by hundreds or thousands and edited by dozens daily. Its inconvenient to have to move through a disambiguation page that is useful to only a couple people per day. As for michael moore, you are correct that in the United States he is more well known, but that is only because we never heard of the former prime minister of New Zealand or the UK politician, etc. Mrdthree 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently some say that Bill O'Reilly is unrecognized outside the US, but he shows up as the first hit on local google pages(meaning pages based in that country) on most every english speaking nation except australia, there it depends on whether you write bill o'reilly or bill oreilly. A second point is you dont need a disambiguation page when there are only two alternatives.Mrdthree 14:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. See Australia (fourth hit is the president of the Australian Dental Association; cricketer only shows up on second page), UK (second hit is cricketer, but first hit is commentator; it's a mix after that, but looks biased toward commentator), Canada (everything on first two pages seems to be commentator), New Zealand (everything on first two pages that actually deals with a Bill O'Reilly refers to the commentator), etc. Note that these are searches of regionally-hosted sites, not just ordinary searches packaged in a different dialect of English.

Added to the fact that there is absolutely no reason to require all of our readers to make an extra click to get to the page they want, when we could allow at least half and probably more of them to get where they want to go without the extra click, this page really has no reason to exist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before innumerable times, Googlecounting is pretty pointless at the best of times and almost completely useless in this particular case: it's self-evident that a controversial political commentator of the present day is going to get more hits than a cricketer from the early twentieth century, however famous. However, this doesn't make the cricketer any less notable as a figure than the commentator. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with the basic principles here. The entire idea of responding intelligently to search queries is to try returning the page that as many readers as possible will want. If the two O'Reilly's are equally notable, then fifty percent will want one page, and fifty percent the other. But clearly, zero percent of people who type in "Bill O'Reilly" are looking for this page, which has no useful info on any O'Reilly, so redirecting to either would be better than this page's existence. Agree or disagree? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, I'm afraid, on several points. If the two are equally notable, then this disambiguation page is the 'right' answer. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2005

The claim below by jiy that the move argument was withdrawn and therefore dismissed is false. The discussion was carried over to the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page where it was no consensus was reached [[1]]. 08:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs) .

Actually, if you look at both pages, the original proposer withdrew the nomination. I'm not sure why the debate took place on two pages — that seems like a mistake — but in any case it was rejected here and had no consensus over on the commentator's page, so it didn't make any difference. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the record. THis should not be obscure to you since you participated in the argument at both sites. IN fact it sounds to me there is sufficient confucion as to what happened that we should re do this vote. The record shows that the argument was copied and moved to the Bill Oreilly (commentator) site and that no consenus was reached. IT is irrelevant whether you persuaded one person of the need for the site when the majority was not so inclined. Plus protection was made by a party ignorant to the fact that the discussion moved. Mrdthree 06:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished Debate moved to Bill OReilly

THe following debate is unprotected and never concluded the record states the debate was moved to teh BIll O'Reilly Commentator page and there it was a hung jury at best. THere is a need for a revote because the item was never concluded. Mrdthree 06:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim that below is an archived debate is False.Record shows user jiy erased the notice that the debate had moved and replaced it with a protection notice. Mrdthree 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was request withdrawn—jiy (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is False. Rrecord shows debate continued as parties remained interested in issue regardless of original request. Record also shows user jiy erased the notice that the debate had moved and replaced it with a protection notice. Mrdthree 06:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The cricketeer is nowhere near as notable as the controversial talk show host, and a disambiguation page is good enough. Google for 'Bill O'Reilly FOX News' receives 625,000 results; 'Bill O'Reilly Cricket' receives 41,200 results. I would be bold and move myself, but I'm afraid that doing so might not be possible due to page histories, etc. I am requesting this page be moved to Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation), and have Bill O'Reilly (commentator) be moved here.

What has Google to do with the fact that Aussie bowler Bill O'Reilly is known to cricket fans worldwide and that cricket is the second most popular spectator sport on Earth, after football? That's football as in "round ball played with the feet" not as in "bunch of unseated motor cyclists who career around for five seconds before everything stops for the next ten minutes". This American TV "personality" is unknown outside his own country and will be forgotten as soon as his show finishes. The real Bill O'Reilly will NEVER be forgotten. --Jack 10:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

Support. ral315 18:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. I apologize; I didn't know the cricketeer was that notable. ral315 23:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well said. A pity some of the more blinkered Americans don't try to understand the the rest of the World's viewpoint too. Best regards to you. --Jack 10:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Neither is self-evidently more notable than the other. --Ngb 19:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Definitely not clear that one is more notable than the other - googlecounting is, as ever, pretty stupid. --Khendon 19:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Per Khendon - O'Reilly played fifty years ago, naturally his google count is going to be deflated. Don Bradman picked him in his all-time World XI [2] before he died, apparently. Sam Vimes 19:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Bill O'Reilly was one of the best and most famous cricketers of his era - as evidenced by him being in the Australian Hall of Fame and in Bradman's all-time World XI. I've never heard of the American commentator, jguk 19:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Both are notable to different audiences. A disambiguation page is the right solution. Stephen Turner 20:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I daresay this TV "personality" has a higher Google count than someone like Erasmus, too, but who is the more notable in world terms? This attempt to glorify some American "TV celebrity" is typical. Aussie bowler Bill O'Reilly is one of the greatest players (and journalists too, after his playing days ended) in cricket history. Okay, he wasn't as good a bowler as Wilfred Rhodes or Shane Warne but that's no disgrace. He was on a par with Richie Benaud, especially given the media connection. The bowler will be remembered for all time. The TV man will be forgotten as soon as as his show finishes and, outside of the USA, no one knows who he is while his show is still running. --Jack 10:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a shame he's not around now - looks like the Aussie bowling could do with a bit of help:) jguk 10:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a pity Wilfred's not still around too because we're a bit too reliant on speed and swing.  ;-) --Jack 12:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I disagree with your assertion that the commentator is any more notable than the cricketer. This is almost certainly true within the boundaries of the United States, but I would contest that the opposite is true in many other English-speaking territories (the UK, Australia, India, etc.). I would expect many people outside of the US never to have heard of Bill O'Reilly (commentator), whereas Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) is widely notable in those countries as one of the best leg spinners ever. Don't forget that this is an international encyclopaedia, not just an American one. --Ngb 19:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I have never heard of the commentator, but know of the cricketer. --Q 19:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. As I said above, there are more cricket fans in India alone than there are people in America. And I have just carried out a little test. I contacted a pal of mine in Bangalore who was contracting in England a couple of years ago. Like most Indians, he is crazy about cricket. Without any prompting, I asked him if the name "Bill O'Reilly" means anything to him. He immediately said: "Tiger O'Reilly? Yes, what a bowler he must have been." I then asked him if he knew of anyone else with the name. He thought for quite a while and said: "No, I don't think so." I told him there is an American TV show presenter and he laughed his head off. He said something to the effect that people in India have better things to do than be interested in American TV personalities. I rest my case. --Jack 10:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I am an Indian and have been following this ....well about the no.of cricket fans in India....well One thing for sure you can count the no.of non cricket fans can be finger counted,and the rest...well you guessed it-- cricket fans.And about the obnoxious Bill Oreilly,i never heard about him until I came to the US

THe test is pretty weak. If you call a fanatical cricket fan and ask who bill oreilly is and discover hes heard of the cricketer its confirming the obvious. As for the personal testimony I would still bet he visits the Bill Oreilly (commentator) site more than he does the cricketer . Mrdthree 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

New Vote on Disambiguation page

THe previous vote was convoluted by changes in sho requested the vote and the location of the vote teh issue should be taken for a revote. Mrdthree 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no consensus for a move. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 09:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Bill O'Reilly → Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation)
• Bill O'Reilly (commentator) → Bill O'Reilly

Issue: Bill O'Reilly should refer to the commentator and the current Bill O'Reilly site should be renamed Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation).

Reason: Site traffic. BIll O'Reilly (commentator) tops google hits in every english speaking country for local sites and international sites (save Australia where spelling is important). Users of Wikipedia edit the Bill Oreilly (commentator) site at least 300x per month Users of teh Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) site edit the site 1x per month on average. There has been no discussion on the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) site since it was created. Mrdthree 07:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

As of today 12 for, 10 against move. Mrdthree 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC) It appears to me the move is suppressed by lack of concensus. My summary of the positions is: (A) all are agreed that the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) site gets more traffic. (B) opponents reject the move either because (1) there is not sufficient difference in popular interest to justify reprioritizing the dab page and the commentators page; or (2)they believe figurea with lasting notability and the same name must retain a dab page to link to the articles (regardless of the interest level or number of searches). Mrdthree 05:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The cricketer gentlemen have successfully suppressed move.I doubt many of these voters will ever use this dab page again so let me say congradulations and good bye, you win, the dab page will be here for you when you check in again at the next vote. But humor me, suppose someone finally writes the code to fairly count hits on Wikipedia articles. What would be a sufficient difference in popular interest to justify changing the priority of the dab page and the Bill O'Reilly(Commentator) page such that the cricketer were linked from the commentators page)? would a 100:1 traffic difference be sufficient? a 10:1 traffic difference? Mrdthree 05:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of 'suppressing' or 'winning'. Those of us who've opposed this move (N.B. it's a discussion, not a vote: see WP:VIE) have done so because we genuinely believe that a disambiguation page is the right solution. I've assumed good faith on your part and on the part of other Wikipedians who have supported the move, so I wish that you were able to do so on ours. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 07:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you support linking Cricket to the dab page first, after all there is significant confusion over the insect versus the game (or really for those who play darts, which game)? Mrdthree 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This has previously been brought up (about a year ago was the last time, I think) and no, I wouldn't support it. Cricket is a featured article. When Cricket (insect) is a featured article, there'll be a much better case for a change of arrangements there. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool so now we are getting some where. A article that has featured status has priority over a dab page, even if teh items on the dab page are highly notable?Mrdthree 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no hard-and-fast rules or criteria, just individual cases. The fact that Cricket (sport) is a featured article makes the decision a lot easier, but I think even if cricket (insect) were an FA I would still support the sport as the primary meaning (it's a significant leisure and entertainment interest of hundreds of millions of people): however, it would depend on the circumstances, and cricket (insect) isn't an FA, and the disambiguation of cricket isn't the issue we're discussing here anyway, so hashing it out is all a bit of a waste of time. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reading the arguments at teh cricket poll Talk:Cricket/oldpoll and I was pretty shocked to see the kinds of arguments you were supporting there. It is like upside down world. At least I know you can see both sides, right? Mrdthree 15:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I supported the position of cricket being the sport doesn't necessarily imply that I agree with all the arguments that were offered in support of that position. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken; there is no way that cricket will ever become a dab page. Mrdthree 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If cricket (insect) reaches FA status there will be a decent case that will probably gather strong support. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 18:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont encourage me or I'll start setting aside spare time. Mrdthree 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do -- we can always use more featured articles. It would be a bit of a shame, though, if the thing that spurred you to work on an article was irrational dislike of another topic of the same name. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reading the cricketer entry, here is someone who was last relevant in 1942, with relevant being a relative term (we are talking cricket here). The cricketer has no modern relevance, while Bill O'Reilly is someone who molds opinions that can affect the world.--Bedford 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It probably relates to one key point of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic: Is Bill O'Reilly (commentator) the page that "will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings"? One primary reason why the recent proposal to move Georgia (country) to Georgia failed was that both the country and the U.S. state are equally well known, read, and searched for. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No one here is denying the fact of a large difference in usage. Instead they are appealing to the notability of the cricketer. He is notable so he is in the encyclopedia. But he is not that relevant so people dont visit his site. Its that simple. Besides Stepehn Turner and Ngb, how many folks just arrived to express an opinion about notability because of the post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#O'Reilly_dab. If he was relevant you would have visited before now. Mrdthree 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't visit before now because I'm in California and I've only just woken up. I don't monitor the site all night. OK? Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) NB when I wrote this, Mrdthree's comment didn't explicitly exclude me. It's bad form to edit your own comments after people have replied to them. Please make a new comment instead. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

Clearly not Wikipediholic enough. :-) --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mrdthree's argument a couple of comments above doesn't work. I would never have arrived here because I did not know that Bill O'Reilly (commentator) existed. Had anyone suggested I should look at Bill O'Reilly's page I would have assumed the cricketer was being referred to. Now I know there is a US commentator of that name, I think it's fair there should be a dab page. And I can't quite see this why should be at all controversial: this is an encyclopedia, not a competition for primacy in some abstract and unprovable notion of notability. Johnlp 16:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

THis is the same as saying this is the first time you bothered to look for Bill O'Reilly. Why post at site you have no interest in? Mrdthree 16:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong to say I have no interest in this site. I have visited Bill O'Reilly (cricketer), though not edited there. And I'm not saying that the cricketer should have priority over the commentator: I think a dab page is the right way forward. Johnlp 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh my mistake, how did you find out about this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs)

Why is that relevant to anything? I thought the essence of Wikipedia is that everyone is encouraged to be interested in anything and everything. This page asks for views. I have made my views known. You don't seem to agree with my views, and I can respect that. But you seem to question my right to have any views, and I don't think that is helpful. Johnlp 17:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Especially unhelpful to complain about a notice at WT:CRIC, where it's clearly relevant, seeing as he invited seven people via their talk pages. Stephen Turner (Talk) 23:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is this. Currently, if you're looking for the cricketer, you have to click an extra time to get where you want, because there's a disambig page. If we redirect to the commentator and you're looking for the cricketer, you'll still have to click exactly one time. But someone looking for the commentator won't have to make that click. That's one less page load for every such person, which can be several seconds on slow days. So we should redirect to one or the other: nobody loses anything, but it's significantly more convenient for some people (those who want to go to the redirectee). It's win-win.

So why redirect to the commentator instead of to the cricketer? Well, the commentator is much more controversial, and so anything like edit count or talk page size has to be viewed with caution, but on the other hand, that very controversial nature means that more people will probably want the commentator's talk page. People probably get into arguments about something the commentator said last Wednesday all the time and go to Wikipedia to resolve their argument or get other details or whatever; while I'm sure there are many cricket fans who do the same, all available evidence suggests that the commentator probably gets more views than the cricketer: if not a hundred times more, then ten or five or two or 1.2, but very unlikely to be less.

On the balance, then, I see no reason to keep this page altogether, and given that we redirect to one or the other, the commentator seems to be the better choice. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As you know from our previous discussions, I disagree with your argument that there should never be a disambiguation page with only two links; let me explain why. You can use exactly the same argument to show that we should never have any disambiguation pages at all. If there were three BO'Rs, you choose one as the primary one and have two links at the top of the page, and still save time for one third of the people. Or if there were four BO'Rs, you could save time for one quarter of the people by doing away with the disambiguation page.

This conclusion is wrong though. Disambiguation pages are of course useful, and I think they're still useful even if there are only two meanings, where it's not clear which is the primary meaning. This is because disambiguation pages are slightly better than disambiguation links, for the people who are forced to follow an extra link. So if one meaning is primary, a disambiguation link at the top of the page is suitable. If the meanings are roughly equal, a disambiguation page is the right answer. That way we serve all constituencies equally, avoid systematic bias, and avoid edit wars.

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic for more on this. It says "Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page". There is no exception made for when there are only two meanings.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree. My answer to the suggestion that any number of pages could be hatnoted is that hatnotes become annoying and obtrusive if they get to be too long. {{two other uses}} should be about the limit; beyond that a separate disambig page is necessary. Once that happens, two extra clicks are necessary for anyone getting redirected but not wanting the target: they actually do suffer greater inconvenience, which I don't agree that they do here. Clicking a hatnote is no different to me than clicking a disambig page link.

As for Wikipedia:Disambiguation, policy is not particularly hard or fast on Wikipedia, as you probably know, and doubly so for guidelines. I read what you quote as meaning that Bill O'Reilly (commentator) shouldn't be moved to Bill O'Reilly without excluding the possibility of the latter redirecting to the former, but if it does say what you think it does, that doesn't mean there's actually consensus for it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

More metrics: 34 pages link to the cricketer, 551 link to the commentator. 107 pages link directly to the Bill O'Reilly page, and discounting those that are referring to the page itself (e.g., redirects), I didn't see any of them referring to the cricketer: virtually all if not absolutely all refer to the commentator. Again: we don't have airtight metrics, but those we do have all give the commentator something on the order of a 10-to-1 advantage. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support way more convenient. Mrdthree 07:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per Nom. Put a disambig link in the most notable Bill O'Reilly to the others. SOP.--Tbeatty 07:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, seems to meet two conditions of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic. First, it is more domainantly used. And second, most of the articles that link to just the current Bill O'Reilly page seem to be referring to the commentator. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral: However, under the same Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic rule, I do not have any idea how many times the cricketeer is searched for and read. As another user told me once, ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? The problem is how is Bill O'Reilly searched and read in other countries besides those users in the United States. Since I do not really have an answer, I am not sure what should be the best. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Convenience man, convenience. not just for you or me but everyone everywhere whos tired of having to disambiguate. I posted notice in teh Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) discussion section. I was teh first to ever post there. Its about convenience for Bill O'Reilly searchers everyhwere not convenience for cricket project fans who think they may look at Bill O'Reilly (cricketers) stats in five years. I say "One click for us two clicks for them". Mrdthree 17:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Convenience for who? Without solid evidence, it is presumptuous for me to assume that most people, including both American and non-American users, who enter "Bill O'Reilly" in Wikipedia's search box is specifically looking for the commentator. And please do not cite Google stats to me without first reading Wikipedia:Search engine test. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is not solid. However, it isn't garbage either, and all of it does point very strongly, even overwhelmingly, to the commentator, to the extent that it's valid. Given that, once more, it's not going to inconvenience anyone looking for the cricketer, it seems only sensible to redirect to the one whom the balance of evidence favors, even if not terribly strongly. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine one click for Bill Two clicks for tiger. I am mainly basing it on editting usage, an imperfect statistic, but a valid measure of visits. The google mention is an attempt to understand teh international dimension. As far as I can tell the issue is not whether Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is more popular, it is by how much. Mrdthree 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, for all the reasons previously stated--Bedford 08:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, for convenience as the raw numbers indicate most Wiki users are looking for the commentator. Ramsquire 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any need for a disambiguation page at all, then? Would it not be less clicks to have Bill O'Reilly for one and 'For the X see Bill O'Reilly (X)' at the top? --Cherry blossom tree 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cherry blossom tree this is precisely what we hope to see--one click for bill and two clicks for cricket. Mrdthree 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, for obvious reasons: using Google as a measure of encyclopaedic notability is, as I've noted, thoroughly ridiculous. (Paris Hilton has some 70,000,000 Google hits.) Using the number of edits to an article as a measure of encyclopaedic notability is equally silly: Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is a controversial current figure and his article is therefore updated regularly with new events in his life and fairly constant edit-warring; Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) died in 1992. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • I don't quite see your logic, Paris Hilton is a very notable figure and her getting 70 million google hits supports using google as mean for determining notability. Signature^brendel 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understood the reasoning for 'oppose' since your arguments seem to support the move. The proposal was to make the "Bill O'Reilly" page simply point to the commentator. There would still be a page on the cricketer and a disambiguation link on the O'Reilly page. To use your Paris Hilton example, there is no disambiguation page for her so I don't know how it applies. When people type in "Paris Hilton" it is overwhelmingly to find info on the person that Wikipedia points to. THe same is true for Bill O'Reilly, except Wikipedia points to a disambiguation page instead of the commentator. The vast majority of people who type in "Bill O'Reilly" are looking for the commentator so this change is to eliminate one page of redirection for the overwhelming majority. This is not a vote to delete the page on any "Bill O'Reilly". Both of the Bill O'Reilly's in Wikipedia have encyclopaedic value. --Tbeatty 08:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That is precisely my argument: since both O'Reillys have encyclopaedic value, and it's difficult to decide which is 'more notable', the present disambiguation situation is the proper one. My Paris Hilton example is simply to show that raw number of Google hits don't equate to long-term notability: she has many more Google hits than other figures who have had much more influence on the world. Bill O'Reilly the commentator has more hits than Bill O'Reilly the cricketer not because he is 'more notable' put because he is a highly controversial present-day figure. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 09:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • "because he is a highly controversial"- making him more notable. Signature^brendel 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • So you acknowledge the fact that Bill O'Reilly gets used 100x more, you are arguing that the cricketer is more notable and that it overrides usage?
    • I am arguing that it is impossible to say which is 'more notable'. I am suggesting that the fact Bill O'Reilly (commentator) gets edited more has no bearing on notability and therefore is not relevant to disambiguation. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (commentator) gets edited more--- I am glad we can agree to the fact that Bill O'Reilly gets edited more often. Now lets go on, do you agree to the number of edits being roughly 100:1? Mrdthree 16:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I agree that Bill O'Reilly (commentator) -- it's self-evident from looking at the edit history. However, as I've now said repeatedly I don't believe this is relevant. The commentator gets edited more than the cricketer because he is a controversial present-day figure whereas the cricketer is dead, not because the commentator is more notable. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that between Google and edits that bill O;Reilly (commentator) is likely viewed 10-100 times more than Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)? Mrdthree 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea. What makes you think this? Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Google suggests people search for bill oreilly (the commentator) more on the internet in every english speaking nation except perhaps australia where it may be a tie and there are more than 200 times as many edits per month also Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) stopped playing cricket in 1947 and holds no world records while Bill O'Reilly the commentator broadacasts 3 hours a day. Mrdthree 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, google hits, edits, and TV air time make the commentator a more notable figure. Notability is a simple concept, do people know him, how many? Are they interested in him, how many? The commentator is simply more likely to be searched for. Signature^brendel 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both are noteworthy and it's not possible to distinguish between the cricketer's long-term worldwide fame and the commentator's present celebrity (which is very largely confined to North America). We're trying to write an encyclopedia here which should have an eye on its longer-term shelf life: a disambiguation page that leads on to both individuals is likely to be the long-term answer so I don't see why we shouldn't adopt that now. Johnlp 08:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • We are all going to die in 80 years so why dont we do it now. Answer because it would be annoying. Since you dont visit the site, it doesnt bother you that you have to go through a disambig site that no one ever uses except Ngb and steve turner. Mrdthree 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ngb and Johnlp. Bill O'Reilly was last relevant in 1942?? I don't think some people here realise how significant O'Reilly was. Sure, I don't know anything about this other Bill O'Reilly either, but the argument that he is obviously a more notable seems just doesn't stack up. JPD (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • Have you ever searched for Bill O'Reilly before? The claim is that for people who use the site or search for Bill O'Reilly, 99% of the time they are looking for the commentator. FOr me it is 100% of the time so it is especially annoying since I dont need disambiguation. THe 1% who need a dab page would find it just as easy to link thru Bill O'Reilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs)
      • Do you have any source for this "99%" claim? This seems to be the crux of your argument, but it seems to rely on made-up statistics. Or am I wrong? Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Its true I am relying on asumptions like O'Reilly (commentator)'s broadcasting 3 hours of daily broadcasting actually does generate interest to see his wikipedia page. IN terms of raw numbers though the edits are at least 200:1, and google says people ingeneral search for bill oreilly (commentator) more on the internet in every english speaking nation except perhaps australia (bill oreilly is syndicated in every english speaking nation but india). Mrdthree 16:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But "99%" is just a guess. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a guess that rests on the assumption that edits predicts visits. As for actual numbers the only constraints I can find are its greater than 200(# of edits) and less than 80000 for Bill O'Reilly (Commentator) (if it were above 80000 it would go on the most popular 1000 list). Mrdthree 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As an aside it would make for a good extemporaneous comedy sketch (Whose line isit?) to take teh first fifty words on wikipedia's most popular list. I especially like the overrepresentation of sex terms, Paris Hilton and other notable dictators. Mrdthree 05:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out that the idea that edits predicts visits is nonsense, and more so is the idea that Google tells you who is more searched for. Google can tell you who is more talked about on the web, which is one important consideration, but not the whole story. I don't see any reason to think that the commentator is cleary the primary topic. Someone feted as "probably the greatest spin bowler the game has ever produced" 46 years after his Test career ended, and who also was a reasonably prominent and well respected cricket journalist for roughly 40 years can't be just dismissed as "irrelevant". JPD (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nobody seems able to agree who is the more notable, so a dab page is the right solution. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So your position is nO one can decide who is more notable but everyone agrees that the Bill Oreilly (Commentator) site gets used at least 100x more than the Bill O'Reilly (Cricketer site)Mrdthree 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is largely irrelevant, for reasons that have already been explained many times. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't regard it as irrelevant, but I'm also not sure it's true. We don't have any data on how often each are read, do we? — of course the commentator is edited more, but that's quite a different question. I would love to know how often each are read, especially by visitors outside the U.S. (because countering systematic bias is important too). Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well lets do an informal poll among all of us participants. Outside of these debates, which site do you post more on? Outside of these debates, which site do you visit more? Bill O'REilly (commentator) changes more so I tend to think the latter. Mrdthree 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be a hiding to nothing: those of us who are interested in cricket will say that we visit Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) more, those of us who are not interested in cricket will say Bill O'Reilly (commentator). This proves nothing. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK so you are saying that you visit the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) site more then. Which do you edit more frequently? Mrdthree 17:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is even the folks who like cricket read and post on the Bill O'Reilly (Commentator) page.Mrdthree 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons I gave in #Discussion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, most people searching for Bill O'Reilly will be looking for the commentator. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we cannot make judgements based upon what things might look like 50 years from now. Maybe the commentator will fall into irrelevance and the cricket player will be posthumously noted as a prophet of some new religion known the world over, or maybe the commentator will become a world dictator... these are things we cannot know and therefore do not base our judgements on. What we do know is that at this time, most people would be looking for the commentator. And significantly so. It is an appropriate time to have the article be about the most well known figure with this name, with a link at the top to the other or a disambig. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reading a discussion earlier today about why userboxes should not contain categories of Wikipedians, because it is too easy to get all the few editors on a particular subject to post on a debate, making their argument look to have more mainstream support then it actually has. I think those that oppose this change are proof positive why the userboxes should not have categories.--Bedford 20:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be sure to assume good faith. A number of people interested in cricket are doubtless watching this page regardless, and more may be following others' contributions as a matter of course. If you have any specific evidence of mass talk-page posts/e-mails, you can always present it in case the closing admin wants to take it into account, but saying something like that without evidence is inappropriate. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This one I have to comment on. You came here 29 minutes after the instigator of this vote notified you of this vote [3]. You're in no position to take the moral high ground here. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw what happened last time. Looks like I struck a nerve. Maybe I got a little too close to the truth? As for assuming "good faith", if I see someone put on Wikipedia that the sun rises from the west, sets in the east, and is made of guacamole, am I to assume good faith then as well?--Bedford 22:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I only notified the people who were on the record as having voted last time. I also notified the folks who visit the BIll O'Reilly (cricketer) page. I noticed someone took care of posting on the cricket talk page so between that and the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page I think everyone has been notified. Mrdthree 02:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a dreadful analogy. It is perfectly possible to assume that someone thought that informing potentially interested parties about a discussion they wouldn't otherwise have come across was acting for the good of the project. It is not possible to assume that of someone adding blatantly false information. The first line of Wikipedia:Assume good faith makes this distinction clear. --Cherry blossom tree 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. For an analogous case, see George Allen (another political figure with a vast talk page and considerable edits, yet shares his page with a Football Hall of Fame member, coincidentally his father). Sam Vimes | Address me 21:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

George allen is not analogous because there are like 10 george allens. But at a more general level you have to agree you post more often at the Bill O'Reilly commentator page than the Bill O'REilly (crickter) page. Doesnt that also mean you visit hte Bill O'Reilly (Commentator )page more?

• Comment Alexa knows the commentator page but not the cricketer page. This seems to be evidence that the commentator page gets quite a bit more traffic. Alexa only breaks down by site but it does know detail about common pages within a site. It's safe to say the commentator is more popular as a search target than the cricketer at this current point in history. If it changes in the future, it can certainly be changed.--Tbeatty 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  How can you tell what Alexa has seen before? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Put bot pages in the alexa search. It doesn't know anything about the cricketer but it kows the details about the commentator.--Tbeatty 03:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support the move. Looking carefully at the two leads me to find that the broadcaster is definitely more known than the cricketer. David | Talk 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I had never heard of the commentator before (unlike the famous Australian cricketer). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But have you ever visited either page? I am asking about usage, not eliminating the cricketers page. Mrdthree 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the price of cheese? The fact that we are having this discussion about someone who stopped playing first-class cricket 60 years ago, and died 14 years ago, demonstrates how important he is as a cricketer. It is slightly ridiculous for you to assert that a "commentator" (little more that a TV personality) is more notable. We are just fortunate that there is not (yet) a well-known American commentator called Don Bradman. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation is a convenience for searchers. Disambiguation becomes a inconvenience when it is simply an extra step for people to take. Notability is fine, but interest is also important. Fans of the commentator and his opponents frequently access his page. Cricket fans rearely access tiger oreillys page and soome of the cricket fans defending the notability of tiger oerilly will or have never used his page. If you make a yearly pilgrimmage to the cricketers webpage, do you really need a disambiguation page as opposed to a link from teh commentators page.Mrdthree 00:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No - disambiguation is primarily to resolve ambiguity where the same word or phrase is the natural title for articles on different topics. If disambiguation happens to be convenient for searchers, all the better. The ambiguity is clear in this case. It seems pretty clear to me that there is no single clearly dominant usage for Bill O'Reilly which should gazump the undisambiguated name. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well to be honest when I think of Cricket I think of the insect, and its very odd to me that the game comes up instead of the insect. Its a pretty ambuiguous case. Mrdthree 13:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a change from your previous positions or would you vote differently at teh Cricket dab page this time around? Talk:Cricket (disambiguation)#True_or_false Mrdthree 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? That discussion was about whether cricket should continue to a disambiguation page, or be about the insect (only), or be about the sport (only). At the time, early August 2004, cricket was the disambiguation page that now appears at cricket (disambiguation). It moved some time after that (before page moves appeared in the edit history, and before the logs started to show page moves - IIRC, both started in around December that eyar) and the talk page was moved along with it.

I still think cricket should be about the sport, as the primary topic, with a disambiguation page at cricket (disambiguation) and the insect at cricket (insect). See Talk:Cricket/archive6 and Talk:Cricket/oldpoll (and various other places, I am sure) for relevant discussion. In this case, my preferred solution would be to have the cricketer at Bill O'Reilly and the commentator at Bill O'Reilly (commentator), which would make the readers of articles on cricket happy and achieve the same position for people interested in this American commentator, whoever he is, but I can live with the current set up. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So wrt summary points you might say that you agree with point (1): there is not sufficient difference in popular interest to justify reprioritizing the dab page and the commentators page? Mrdthree 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support -A deceased cricket player is less likely to be searched than the opinion giver. Arbusto 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, as before. There is no overwhelming asymmetry in favour of one or the other, so not having this page be a disambiguation page is not appropriate. Remember, this is not supposed to be US-pedia, or right-this-minute-pedia. Guettarda 04:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support- The commentator is more likely to be searched for than the cricket player. We don't have a disamig page for Jaguar either, despite many looking for the auto-marque as well. Having a note at the top of the page seems perfectely fine. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A poor choice of example because Jaguar (animal) is a featured article, whereas Jaguar (car) isn't. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was using it as an example referring to notability of the article's subject matter and not referring to the article's overall quality. The car make Jaguar is obviously a very notable subject matter, yet we have decided to have the animal up as a first hit instead of a disambig page. Since when is quality one of the ceriteria in this disucssion? Signature^brendel 23:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do think that the commentator gets searched more often, but I also consider the cricketer to be more important person of the two (Having listened to the commentator once or twice, it is tempting to nominate him for Afd !). So, status quo. Tintin (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A comment of my was vandalized off this page, but instead of pointing out how that proves my point, I suggest we now be consistent and make the Cricket page a disambigation page.--Bedford 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment was not 'vandalized off this page'. It was removed by Simetrical -- someone who has, like you, strongly supported this proposed move, but who, unlike you, clearly cares about our principles that Wikipedians should be able to engage in polite and friendly discussion. Your comment was needlessly inflammatory and I totally support Simetrical's action in removing it, since it had no contribution to this discussion except to deliberately attempt to piss off people who disagree with you. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 07:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on which page should be at cricket is a perfectly valid opinion. Like your last comment, it has no bearing on this discussion. And I would like to thank Simetrical for removing my comment. Guettarda 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I must have hit edit a few seconds after you submitted yours. Never saw that, I thought I was just reverting Bedford (thus the edit summary). So sorry, if you're annoyed, or on the chance that sentence wasn't meant to be sarcastic, you're welcome.  :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I was serious. Thanks for saving me from myself ;) Guettarda 13:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. --G1076 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Like many, I had never heard of the commentator before coming to Wikipedia. The cricketer I knew - as his article notes, he is one of the greats of the game, not just a bit player. Where are two highly notable figures sharing the same name (as seems the case here, as I accept many US readers will have heard of the commentator), a disambiguation page seems reasonable, jguk 12:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How so? The commentator is on the air every day in front of millions of people, gets more google hits and his article more edits. We need to think of our readers here. What will our readers be looking for when they come here? Are our readers more likely to look for the commentator or the cricketier? Google hits, TV air time, and yes being controversial and alive make the commentator more likely to be searched for by out readers. Thus we should make things more convenient for our readers and move the commentator to "Bill O'Reily" w/ a link to the cricketier at the top of the page. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Millions of American people, I suppose. Practically all the Australians and British who have commented above have never heard of him. Tintin (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm British and I support the move. David | Talk 23:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention getting on for (gosh) over a billion Indians, tens or hundreds of millions of whom use English as a first or second language. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. --Peripatetic 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe I'm misreading something here, but we are not discussing the notability of either person. Disambiguation pages are set up for the convenience of the editors at this project. Since the editors at this project are overwhelmingly editing and viewing the article about the commentator, it should be at the top with a link to the cricketer. If it were 50-50 then the disambiguation page should stay. This is not a discussion comparing the notability between the two men or who is more popular worldwide. Ramsquire 00:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Calwatch 04:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Ramsquire's comment about usage and not notability. -- Dcflyer 05:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotta link to the American dude first.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

A flavour of who the 2 Bill O'Reillys are

I think it would be useful to add a brief description illustrating the respective Bill O'Reilly's notability. First, it may help explain why we have this as a disambiguation page (both are pretty notable in their field). Second, it is clear that most visitors to this page have only heard of one of the two Bill O'Reillys here - saying "hang on, there is another pretty notable one" is a perfectly good thing to say, and may encourage readers to browse the one less familiar to them too, jguk 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this change, as you know because I reverted it previously.

1. MOS:DAB is quite explicit that "the description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link". I don't see any reason to break that here.
2. It's unbalanced because it justifies the cricketer without having a parallel justification for the commentator.
3. It's liable to lead to inflation as each side justifies their own man; and edit wars in the description of the commentator. (I think that's the reason for the above guidance in MOS:DAB, and it's a definite danger in a figure as controversial as the commentator).
4. "Australian Cricket Hall of Fame" sounds like a pretty pathetic justification for the cricketer ("what, he didn't even make the actual Cricket Hall of Fame?")
5. The only links on dab pages should be to the dabbed articles, not to explanatory terms.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with User:Stephen Turner. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think this disambiguation page should be located at Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation) and that Bill O'Reilly (commentator) should be moved to this page - the cricket player is not as notable, is linked on 4 pages (not including lists and user pages). The talk show host is linked on over 40 articles (again not including lists, user pages and redirects) and is the person most people would be looking for if they entered Bill O'Reilly in a search - we could include a line at the top referring to the cricket player. Trödel|talk 16:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed SFont 0015, 9 Mar 2005 (PST)

Cricket is the second most popular spectator sport on Earth and the Aussie bowler Bill O'Reilly is a legend, especially given his considerable media work after he finished playing. For your information, there are more cricket fans in India alone than there are people in America. Some American TV "personality" who is "here today, gone tomorrow" is simply not recognised outside the country that thinks it is the centre of the universe. It's about time Americans realised that there is a huge world, the real world, outside their country. --Jack 10:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Cricket is "the second most popular spectator sport on Earth"? That's a laughably Anglocentric view. Cricket is played in Britain and a handful of her former colonies. Basketball is played in virtually every country of the Americas--and is particularly popular in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina (combined population roughly 530 million)--Continental Europe (including 150 million-strong Russia), Africa, and Eastern Asia. And before you play the tired "But India has a population of 1.1 billion and I talked to this IT guy and he says it's really popular there!" argument, let me remind you that China--a basketball-mad country--has 1.3 billion people, precisely zero of whom care about cricket. A few Americans might think their country is the whole world, but many more Englishmen think their country is the whole world minus America. 151.205.96.146 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Bill O'Reilly (commentator) play basketball? I think we should be told. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack, you must assume good faith. Words and phrases such as 'absolute rubbish' and 'two-bit' don't help us have a rational discussion at all.

Secondly, It's never clear to me how the figures about the number of Indian cricket fans are arrived at. There are about four times as many people in India as there are in the United States (1,080,264,388 to 296,800,000 per Wikipedia's 2005 estimates) so to a zeroth order approximation it's probably a fair enough statement -- but do you have any actual figures? --Ngb 10:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for breaching good faith and have removed the offending phrases. I don't have actual figures but I have a lot of contacts in India through my IT work and they confirm that cricket is incredibly popular there, with huge numbers of fans in every village and city. One man told me that he would estimate a third of the population are cricket fans and that would exceed the total population of the USA. --Jack 10:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I second Jack's arguement. Wikipedia is not being used exclusively by Americans. Amibidhrohi 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do indian fans follow sports from 50 years ago in other countries? Mrdthree 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's cricket, yes! Indians are completely fanatical about cricket. And one of the distinctive features of cricket is that people tend to follow international competition much more than domestic competition. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen is a surprisingly western name for an indian.Mrdthree 14:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Indian, nor claiming to be. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if one cricket fan calls another cricket fan and asks who bill oreilly is what kind of response should he expect? hardly scientific.

Mrdthree 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest the same thing. Move the file. Bytebear 03:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion on redirects

Move Bill O'Reilly (commentator) to Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly, the commentator, is infinitely more notable than the cricketeer, and this entire controversy only arised from POV-pushers who are fans of the cricketeer trying to give him false equal notability. Fistful of Questions 15:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see this has been discussed above at some length, and there was no consensus to do as you suggest. Each of these figures is notable within their own contexts. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the commentator is infinitely more notable than the cricketeer. Adhering to past practice, as seen in the George Washington, Leonardo, and Benjamin Franklin articles, the one with more importance gets the article.Fistful of Questions 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please would you let us know your criteria for deciding that a US TV commentator is "infinitely" more "notable" that an Australian international sportperson. For the avoidance of doubt, I completely disagree. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You have it the other way around. The commentator is well known in other countries where his broadcasts reach, including New Zealand, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, and Australia among others. The cricketeer has failed to achieve major notability outside of Australia. Ask any random person who Bill O'Reilly is a vast majority of them will recognize the commentator. You are trying to push an insignificant POV and trying to overrepresent it through the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets.Fistful of Questions 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, you shouln't use flawed metrics to evaluate the notability criteria. Why don't you publish reports of a survey in Italy and New Zealand to state your claims? A deceased person cannot compete against a living person in terms of "brand recall", but it does not mean the deceased was not notable in his own right. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are only presenting that argument that they are of equal notability becaus you know that it cannot be readily "proven". But it is still a well known fact that commentator is much more well known than the cricketeer, and you know this in the back of your mind, but you are denying that your point of view is wrong and you continue to push it and overrepresent it through the use of meatpuppets.Fistful of Questions 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

you keep harping that it is a well known fact, but where is it cited to be well known fact? You too cede that there is no metric to determine notability, so I suggest you not raise minor issues like this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a minor issue, it is the sole factor in deciding notability. And you can't discount it simply because you know it would destroy the basis of your entire POV.Fistful of Questions 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the Neutral Point of View policy? Please be more specific when replying, the topic seems to be heading into vague reasoning. I also refute your personal statistics wherein you state that 99.99% would think of the commentator and not the cricketer. There are a lot of people who you have discounted in India, Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies, England to name a few who can still associate the name Bill O'Reilly as a cricketer. As I put it, and you agreed, your metrics to determine the notability of mutually exclusive domains isn't the right way to proceed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: I am not sure that "more notable" is the relevant test here: notability is relevant to whether a topic is encyclopedic (and thus eligible to have a Wikipedia article) or not (and thus liable to be deleted). In this case, both are clearly notable. The question is whether one is clearly the "primary topic" (as it is called in Wikipedia:Disambiguation). Many people outside the US have not heard of the commentator, but have heard of the cricketer; in the US, I understand that the position is the opposite way around. On that basis, neither person is the "primary topic", so a disambiguation page is the right result. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also some relevant talk on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I suggest this page be protected from moves to maintain the status quo. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That would do nothing but give a false advantage to the small POV that the page should not be moved. Allow both sides to present their arguments first.Fistful of Questions 15:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That has already been decided and I was not the party to that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fistful of Questions appears to have stopped repeatedly moving the page now and is engaging in discussion instead, so move protection is probably unnecessary. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps this will help. No one should be arguing who is more notable, we should be arguing who is more notable now. O'Reilly (commentator) averages 2 million viewers a night, and is still active in his profession. The cricketeer is undoubtedly also notable; however, the reference to the cricket article will be of much less while the other O'Reilly is still in his profession. We should be removing disambig. pages where it is possible, and on just two pages - we should be looking for the most notable at the present time. --75.21.241.167 04:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Someone has proposed a move of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) to here. Check out Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator) for discussion. Nil Einne 09:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate has now been closed, with an overwhelming consensus against the move. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there should be a debate. The commentator has shown himself to be much more notable in present-day society. This disambig page should not stand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.179.121 (talk • contribs)

I believe this has already been settled. /Blaxthos 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yet another proposed move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Given that Bill O'Reilly and Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation) direct to the same page, it makes more sense for Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation) to be the main page, and Bill O'Reilly to be the redirect. I'd like to suggest a straw vote on this. (This question is completely separate from whether Bill O'Reilly should redirect to Bill O'Reilly (commentator) or not—except that after this change is made, any such change in redirection would be less likely to be destructive.)

Support—per my comments above. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The guidance at WP:DAB#Page naming conventions is explicit that the current layout is the correct one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I disagree with the convention, but respect that it is the convention. I withdraw my proposal. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation) could probably be speedied then. No-one is going to be inconvenienced by its disappearance, if all links to it are amended first. --Dweller 08:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've prodded it, in case someone thinks of a good reason to keep it. Nothing links to it from mainspace. --Dweller 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A note to A Clown in the Dark in the above section

American Soccer (European football) is not a sport. Association football, commonly known as football or soccer is the sport you are after. It's asinine comments like these that increase the already mounting anti American sentiment on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk • contribs)

That's not fair. He just meant "What Americans call soccer". Let's keep the personal attacks out of it, please? (However, his comment is strange in another way, in that Jack only claimed cricket was the second most popular sport). Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, after evaluating my initial comment I may have come across as abrupt and harsh but this was not my intended message. I still stand by my initial comment though. I understand where you are comming from in regards to stating that aclowninthedark's initial messaging wasn't meant to be taken in the context that he himself wrote it, but the fact remains that the information was still presented that way. I didn't mean to portray my message with anti american sentiments, infact my purpose is quite the opposite (half of my family is in Corona, Sacramaento, Cali whilst i bake here in Sydney, Australia!). As a guy that loves the concept of wikipedia i browse this site all the time and I lurk the discussion pages and read the information presented on these talk pages perhaps more then the actually articlse core contents. This reason is due to the fact that I can always see the see sawing viewing of opinions and you probably do gain more insight on the topic on hand by hearing passionaite people arguing back and forth. However it is during these all to frequent adventures of mine that I see such blatent unbaited Anti American sentiments portrayed just for the sake of it. It is for this reason I stated my initial message as most of the fish out there, just need the smallest amount of bait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

I know that this has been discussed at length, but why is 32627 view for the commentator vs 1462 views for the cricketer in april not enough to do a primary disambiguation? WP:D does not condemn the use of page move statistics for determining primary topic, in fact, it cautiously condones it. -Zeus-^u|c 04:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you noticed above, the last serious move discussion took place almost three years ago, and WP:D has changed since then, including the suggestion about checking the page stats.[4] Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you support the move? -Zeus-^u|c 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Since this has been discussed at length, my current view would be based on the current second paragraph of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Of course, I cannot really stop you from opening up another RM request to see if consensus has changed. But if you do, like any other challenge of consensus, I would strongly recommend that you review the previous discussions above so you know what arguments you will probably expect. Good luck. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)