Talk:Earl Thomas

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)

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)

---

• Earl Thomas (defensive back) → Earl Thomas
• Earl Thomas → Earl Thomas (disambiguation)

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

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)

We can't be infringing our own copyright, can we? ONR (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Basically there's no "we" in terms of Wikipedia copyright. See WP:ATTREQ. Dekimasuよ! 19:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning to oppose, honestly think that with such a common name best left as is. But whatever... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support move. Though there's a recentism concern, he appears to have the most long-term significance as well. ONR (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, obviously the primary topic and most relevant. In ictu oculi, I would encourage you to reevaluate your oppose, as it is not based on Wikipedia policy, but more of a WP:CRYSTALBALL assumption that more notable Earl Thomases are going to show up. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is very clear that determination of the primary topic is based on existing articles, not future articles. Obviously, if someone named Earl Thomas comes along and becomes the primary topic, we can move it back. But until then, all we have to work with is the existing articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Clear primary topic in terms of usgae. PC78 (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. A common name with four subjects who have Wikipedia articles and two additional men who have very closely related names. A disambiguation page at base name serves users best. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The existence of other Earl Thomases with articles doesn't stop this from being the primary topic. The page views could not be any clearer [1]. Calidum 04:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Relisting comment - I have restyled this as a multipage move, as the disambiguation page has to be involved too. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Clear as day primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I often argue against declaring a common-looking name a WP:PTOPIC because of the risk of accumulating bad links and thus degrading the encyclopaedia; but when one person on the DAB page has got 98.7% of the page views over the last year and none of the others has had more views on any day, there's no question about it. I also support Amakuru's proposal that the DAB page is needed, because a hatnote to three other people with the same name and to two others with closely similar names would be hopelessly unwieldy. Narky Blert (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Clear winner in terms of views over time. This looks to be about all discussed out. Safrolic (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2019 (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.

Missing

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

@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)

I see it. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)