| Revision as of 05:58, 7 July 2023 editR. G. Checkers (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,224 edits →Requested move 3 July 2023: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:25, 20 October 2024 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,965 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 93.109.98.78 (talk) to last revision by CewbotTags: Twinkle Undo |
| (88 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{ds/talk notice|blp|long}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|long}} |
|
{{ds/talk notice|ap}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}} |
|
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Oreilly, Bill|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=B|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid|listas=Oreilly, Bill}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=Low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Radio|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Radio|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|auto=Inherit|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|auto=Inherit|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Television|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Television|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|American=yes |American-importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
|
|maxarchivesize = 202K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 202K |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 6 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive %(counter)d |
| Line 30: |
Line 30: |
|
{{BillOReillyRMArchive}} |
|
{{BillOReillyRMArchive}} |
|
{{Merged-from|Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)}} |
|
{{Merged-from|Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Journalists|class=B}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 16 2017 (10th)}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 16 2017 (10th)}} |
|
{{archives|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Howard Stern == |
|
==RM Post close== |
|
|
For the record I think this close was premature and also did a poor job characterizing the support for the move which had far stronger policy arguments. In this case ] was simply ignored by arguments of perception and speculation which were made primarily by fans of a particular sport. In cases like this when the outcome is determined simply by votes I wonder why we even have policies at all. ] (]) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, it wasn't ignored. The proponents of the move, however, chose to cite only one part of it and ignore the other. Pageviews are ''not'' the only thing that counts for primary topic status. And plenty of those opposing were not cricket fans. -- ] (]) 13:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::BOTH have long term significance. 1 for 1 on PT2. However only 1 has page views. 1 for 0 on PT1. That means only one of them has both PT1 and PT2. It is the strongest argument, they are not equal. -- ]] 14:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::But we don't ''know'' whether the political commentator has long-term significance. With some exceptions, it's very difficult to judge that for living people who are still active in their careers. And political commentators like him are the sort of people who tend to fade from history after their careers end. Anyway, the RM has been closed. If you object to the close then take it to MRV. -- ] (]) 14:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::He's nearly 80 years old now, his career is mostly done after he left Fox in 2017, I think it's safe to judge him by what he has done and not what he will do. In the context of the culture war period 1996-2017, there was probably no one with more weight and importance on the right-wing of US political commentary.The O'Reilly Factor had been the highest-rated cable news show for 16 years, and he was described by media analyst Howard Kurtz as "the biggest star in the 20-year history at Fox News" at the time of his ousting (and Fox News was the most watched news channel in the USA). His influence on US politics and culture is hard to overestimate. -- ]] 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes but Bill O’Reilly 2’s influence on cricket is hard to overestimate. That’s the issue— they’re both influential in their respective fields. ] (]) 02:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::] To me that's irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what people are actually looking for... someone could be the Babe Ruth of Rubik's Cubes and it wouldn't matter if the other person is getting searched for five times to one. ] (]) 02:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::But cricket is hardly Rubik’s Cubes. ] (]) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
This was a perfectly reasonable close. It might have been wise to wait for an admin for a better trusted conclusion and explanation. Clear consensus was NOT demonstrated, neither by headcount nor by strength of argument, by my reading. Since I didn't contribute to the conversation, I'll opine that while both subjects are public figures in different arenas of popular culture, it's clear to me the cricketeer is regarded as a far more significant figure in their field (based on the cited significance assertion in the article as of the close) than the political commentator is in theirs (no reliable sources in the existing article make the argument that the pundit is one of the greatest figures in American political commentary). ] (]) 15:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. Even if you agree with the result of the close, this absolutely should have been closed by an admin, because it's a very contentious RM. Or by a very esteemed non-admin involved in RMs for a long time. A weak close by a passer-by just makes it more likely that a similarly futile RM will happen in the near future because this close isn't seen as very strong. (To be clear, I would urge this close to be withdrawn / overturned for either an admin or a respected closer to do this ''even if the result had supported my !vote''.) ] (]) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Agree. It takes someone with experience and confidence to close in a way that is maybe not popular but correct in terms of rules. In any case, if this comes up again, I hope the framer will force voters to address all the facts, summarize the core arguments and rules and request they be addressed, so it doesn't turn into yet another "idontlikeit" bias free for all that closes NC again. The framing of the RM is everything, it takes some time and effort. -- ]] 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close''' - as someone who supported moving, I understand that this close was correct. There was no other reasonable conclusion that could have been made. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* FWIW my comment wasn't to overturn the close. I would have formally gone through that process if I thought that was possible. It was just on observation on the poorly written close and relatively mob rule nature of the entire discussion. We do the average user a huge disservice when we make information more difficult to find. Anyway, I don't really care about either one of these people and the political commentator is rather annoying. Thanks to the weak nature of the close this will likely come up again since the majority of end users will be perplexed at the status quo. ] (]) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close'''. It's clear that there was no consensus here. Speaking as the editor who proposed the move, even if I understand why some editors may feel that an uninvolved admin should have made the choice to either close it or keep it open, I personally don't believe we needed to wait for more responses to prove just how divisive this move was. ] (]) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close''' Unsurprising I suppose as I was an editor who asked that conversation to be closed. ] (]) 15:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' reopening would have no benefit. ] (]) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Reasonable close, but @], unless a discussion is very clear to basically every reasonable editor in it, it's better to wait for a very experienced closer. I think many experienced non-admins would have waited. ] (]) 10:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
Removed this sentence from bio: "During his time at BU, he also was a classmate of future radio talk show host ] whom O'Reilly noticed because Stern was the only student on campus taller than he was." Stern was an undergrad when O'Reilly was in grad school. To hear O'Reilly talk on air, he and Stern were friends and classmates. Stern is adamant that they never crossed paths, much less were classmates or friends. ] (]) 14:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' - Was hoping for a different result. Oh well. ] (]) 16:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Talk archive cleanup == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propose ] be renamed ]. The same with ]. These pages are blank/useless except for their edit history content. At some point the content was moved out of the page into Archive_4 and now they are interfering with auto archiving (I think). -- ]] 16:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)|answered=yes}} |
|
|
change "near the 9//1 memorial site" to "near the 9/11 memorial site" ] (]) 03:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}} Thanks. ] (]) 03:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Looks like this was never done. No need o retain a blank copy, I'll just ask they be speedily deleted. ] (]) 03:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Newsmax == |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)|answered=yes}} |
|
|
The article states that Bill O'Reilly is a journalist, however, this is not true. He's a political pundit. I would like to change "journalist" to "political pundit" to reflect the true nature of his career. ] (]) 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 19:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since 2020, states he works at Newsmax. This is not true. His current show, " Bill O'Reilly No Spin News" The Channel is called, " The First" not "Newsmax". ] (]) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Newsmax started airing it in 2020, then the First did as well. Updated. ] (]) 17:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)|answered=yes}} |
|
|
In the '''Books by O'Reilly''' section, please link the 1st instance of Martin Dugard to ]. — ] (]) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> ]] 21:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Category Fired from Fox News == |
|
|
|
|
|
I reverted this per BRD. ] (]) 16:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:What is your justification for removing it? The last paragraph of the Fox News section in this article plainly says "On April 19, 2017, Fox News announced that '''O'Reilly would not return to their primetime lineup'''" and "'''After O'Reilly was fired...'''" And the lead says "...various sexual misconduct lawsuits, '''which led to the network terminating O'Reilly's employment.'''"-- ] (]) 16:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::OK, I thought this was just added? If RS say he was "fired" then its ok. --] (]) 17:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The sources say that they "agreed" that he would leave? Is that being "fired"?--] (]) 17:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well, the lead has six sources. (Way too many and I think I will delete a few.) The headlines of the first two are "Bill O’Reilly Is Forced Out at Fox News" (NYT) and "Fox News drops Bill O’Reilly in wake of harassment allegations" (Fox News). "Forced out" and "drops" sound pretty definitive. The public statement Fox issued (after they told him he was out) is that he "agreed" that he will not be returning to the Fox News Channel. The articles make it clear that the decision had been made and that he was "agreeing" as a face saving gesture. Bottom line, "People fired from Fox News" is an appropriate category for him IMO. -- ] (]) 18:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ok, fair enough.--] (]) 19:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks. And thanks for trimming the duplicative "covered above" stuff. -- ] (]) 19:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This was removed because it was a shit category that classified a person by the means they left or were removed from a job at a specific company. It is now at CfD where the discussion thus far is unanimous. So if you don't delete it now, someone will just be doing it again in around 6 days. ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 3 July 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{requested move/dated|Bill O'Reilly}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Bill O'Reilly}} – When I saw that this article was distinguished with "(political commentator)," I was surprised -- "who else has a page called 'Bill O'Reilly'?," I thought to myself. I looked up ], which redirected to the disambiguation page ], which features only one other article titled Bill O'Reilly, about an ]. Between the fact that the article about the political commentator has thousands of page views in the last month alone while the cricketer's page just barely cracks one thousand in that span of time, Google searching "Bill O'Reilly" nearly exclusively showed results about the political commentator. To me, this is a clear ], without question. ] (]) 04:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose again per all previous attempts''' see "From the Archives, 1992: O’Reilly a giant from cricket’s golden age dies". This commentator fails long term historical claim to encyclopaedic default status. He is a political commentator not a cricketer and there's no shame in having his article titled so it is not ambiguous. ] (]) 13:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:That's only one source, though. As noted above, page views and Google searching seem to tell a very different story about the significance of this cricketer compared to the political commentator, the latter appearing to be a far more culturally significant figure than the (relatively) obscure cricketer (I should also point this out, with regards to Google searching -- it took well over a hundred results, at least on my end, until I found something related to the cricketer, while the political commentator was immediately very visible upon hitting the search button). If you can find more than one source asserting that this cricketer with only a few dozen sources on his page holds more significance than a widely controversial political commentator whose page features hundreds of sources, then maybe I'd be able to see your point. As it stands, though, I don't believe that this one source you've provided automatically constitutes more (or equal) notability with O'Reilly the political commentator. ] (]) 13:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Using Google searches as a reasoning is fairly useless considering how personalised the results are. The cricketer was the second result for me, there were multiple results for the cricketer on the first page, and the first news result was the cricketer even though he died quite some time ago. Google just correctly inferred that you aren't very interested in cricket. ] (]) 12:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support'''. The page view differential is so massive here it cannot be ignored: nearly a for the political commentator. <span class="nowrap">–]</span> (] • ]) 14:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' The request is pure ], combined with standard American lack of knowledge of cricket and lack of respect for history. This has been done to death on several occasions in the past. I will continue to mock any comment here that shows an ignorance of cricket, its place in world sport, and its history. ] (]) 00:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:"I will continue to mock any comment here that shows an ignorance of cricket, its place in world sport, and its history." It's OK if you disagree with my comments, but please be civil when you explain why you feel that way. Snide comments about me and people who agree with me having a "standard American lack of respect for history" et al are unwarranted and unhelpful. ] (]) 01:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::That too is a standard response from parochial Americans. It's NOT an insult. It's an invitation to you to learn more about the world outside your borders, and what has been going on there for at least 400 years in a sport with probably over a billion fans. ] (]) 01:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Over a billion fans that don't frequent Misplaced Pages, it would seem, from the page views... <span class="nowrap">–]</span> (] • ]) 02:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Given what has already been said here, that's a really silly comment. ] (]) 03:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::], your conduct, which at times is flat out condescending ("That too is a standard response from parochial Americans"), is not OK. Most of your behavior here seems to be focused on belittling American users for their lack of knowledge about someone whose importance, while substantial in the Australian sports world, does not appear to hold as much relevance in contemporary society as a political commentator whose page views and Google results tell a very different story to this being ], as you allege. Oppose this proposed move all you want, but do it in a constructive fashion. Don't talk about how American users should "learn more about the world outside of borders," comment on why the move itself wouldn't be a good idea. ] (]) 03:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::You really should stop now. Or learn a lot more about the cricketer. This isn't about the Australian sports world. It's about the international sports world, again something unfamiliar to a lot of Americans, who tend to follow sports played largely within their own borders. Have you even read beyond the first sentence of ]? ] (]) 06:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. This issue has been ] since ]. What has changed since the ] is that the political commentator departed ] and now appears on podcasts and other media that seems to be less widely distributed. Therefore I am even more inclined to support the status quo. And to repeat what I stated in the ]: {{tq|If there is consensus that an inductee to both ] and the ] has the same amount of notability as an inductee to the ], and has the same amount of notability as the current political commentator, then there cannot be any primary topic}}. ] (]) 01:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. It's a clearly ambiguous name and little has changed since all of the previous failed attempts to move except the commentator having a slightly lower profile now. It's the cricketer who first comes to mind for many even though he died 20 years ago, and we wouldn't be having this discussion if it was a baseball player or another US sportsperson. Misplaced Pages is stronger when it doesn't have a strong recency bias. ] (]) 06:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''', ] is by far the more renowned throughout much of the world. ] (]) 13:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC). |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' The argument to move is "my unawareness only allowed me the knowledge of one Bill O'Reilly" and "um, lots of pageviews". Earth-shattering as it may be to some, an American conservative known for sexually harassing women and yelling about things he doesn't like is not terribly important to the entire English-speaking world. Should ] usurp ], per ? ] (]) 13:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per all above. American political commentators are big in America, but the rest of the world couldn't care less. -- ] (]) 13:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' The American newsreader is certainly not more notable than the Cricketer. ] (]) 14:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' I am an American and readily admit that I personally knew more about the political commentator than the cricketer, until I read the excellent biography of the cricketer just now, clicked on a bunch of links and learned more about cricket as a result. The status quo is just fine. I would like to say that nationalist sniping among editors is poor behavior, and encourage all involved to avoid pot shots against other nationalities. ] (]) 18:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - as I've never heard about a cricket player named Bill O'Reilly. But, I've certainly heard about & seen, Bill 'Do it live' O'Reilly. ] (]) 19:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' largely because this has been discussed so many times and O'Reilly is far more irrelevant now than he was when the previous discussions took place. There's no clear primary topic.] (]) 21:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Um, the way you've formulated your first sentence suggests that your second sentence is untrue; there {{em|is}} a clear primary topic <small>and it's the asshat from Fox</small>. <i>— ] (] / ])</i> 01:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*It seems that the only reason to oppose this is either procedural or ]. After reviewing the pageviews it seems those two arguments are pretty weak in comparison to the huge pageview discrepancy. The political commentator has been around for decades so I'm not sure how ] is relevant. The political commentator receives 30 to 50 times more pageviews per month. It's extremely difficult to and argue that the political commentator isn't the ]. One reason this might keep coming up is that it's been wrongly decided in the past. In light of there not being a compelling argument to oppose and the overwhelming pageview difference I '''support''' the move. ] (]) 00:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - There are two important men with this name. Continue to disambiguate. |
|
|
:P.S. please stop sniping at the Americans. It's not just America - most of the world doesn't play cricket (China, Russia, EU, Brazil, Indonesia, Canada, etc.) Also, a majority of Americans would love to trade their live Bill O'Reilly for Australia's dead one. |
|
|
:--<span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 00:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Plenty of Canadians play Cricket, especially in Ontario. I used to go and watch folks on the local pitch back when I lived in Toronto. Never learned how to play but it looks like a fun game. ] (]) 12:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Take it from an Englishman, it really isn't. ;) -- ] (]) 13:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The most important reason to support disambiguation: ''collegiality'' |
|
|
::::We're having a divisive discussion that's ''just not worth'' it in terms of the price we're paying as a community. |
|
|
::::-- <span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 02:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Isn't this quite the opposite though? This keeps coming up because so many editors are perplexed at how this hasn't been changed. The process doesn't seem to be encouraging collegiality. ] (]) 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Ridiculous suggestion. Bill O'Reilly was one of the greatest cricketers of all time, who would be clear PTOPIC if Misplaced Pages only extended to countries in which that game is played. I've barely heard of the political commentator. No PTOPIC, continue to disambiguate. ] (]) 03:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Note'''. I've moved the cricketeer and the American commentator to the first two entries at the disamb. page. They were both several down, making it a bit harder for readers to find, so presenting them as the first names may address some of the concern. Some editors here, myself included, have learned a little more about cricket because of this nomination, thanks. ] (]) 04:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per ] "more likely than all the other topics combined" ie. page view counts are dramatically in favor of the American. The argument for ] "enduring significance" for the cricket player is not false, but, the politician also has enduring significance, they are are a wash. That leaves WP:PT1 as the main difference, and the American easily takes it. -- ]] 14:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. According to WikiNav, '''''' to the disambiguation page are looking for the political pundit. I believe that GreenC's reading of ] is correct. It seems that most editors are !voting based on ] rather than providing meaningful evidence or citing P&G (and I assume that such !votes, both for and against, will be given little to no weight when closing). ] <small>(])</small> 16:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''' Pageviews aren't relevant to notability. Misplaced Pages isn't organized as a popularity contest.{{pb}}] (]) 18:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
**:WikiNav is completely relevant here because it's mentioned when ]. The ] varies per person and WikiNav can be extremely helpful to help make an objective decision. ] (]) 19:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': Agree with GreenC that the political commentator is clearly primary with respect to usage according to ], and it's not at all clear that in the grand scheme of history the cricketer is primary according to historical signficance. (Anecdotally, I'm from a cricketing nation but am not old enough to remember the cricketer's playing career; I had never heard of the cricketer but am well aware of the political commentator) ] (]) 19:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose.''' I entered this thread expecting to support the proposal, but after reviewing the cricketer's article, it's clear that he was a pivotal figure in the history of the sport. While the commentator undoubtedly has a dramatic lead in pageviews, I believe the cricketer has a sufficient level of significance to make this a ] situation. ] (] • ]) 19:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:We may be loosing sight of why PRIMARYTOPIC exists. If 93% of readers typing "Bill O'Reilly" want the American, we can help them by sending them directly to the American. Per ] "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily". Furthermore, being an important person on Cricket is relevant, but this simply favors WP:PT2 over WP:PT1. Fair enough that's an opinion, but the American is ''also'' a PT2. So we have NOPRIMARY situation on PT2. But a clear PRIMARY on PT1. Keeping score, it's 2 to 1 in favor of the American, in terms of how many ] guidelines they have. The guidelines weight in favor of the American. -- ]] 20:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep disambiguated''' per NOPRIMARY. Yeah TV Bill handily captures PT1, but PT2 seems at best unclear, and the disambiguation hurts nothing. Type {{xt|Bill O'}} into the search bar and TV Bill pops right to the top. Not sure how we're hindering anyone's navigation with the status quo. ] (]) 22:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:] has an example of ] being the primary topic due to long-term significance (PT2) even though ] has the higher usage (PT1). Continuing with ]'s logic, if a primary topic can be assigned when an article wins per PT2 but loses per PT1, surely a primary topic can be assigned when an article wins handily per PT1 and draws per PT2, no? <span class="nowrap">–]</span> (] • ]) 22:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I don't know. That supposition seems to assume two things though: that sports Bill and TV Bill "draw" PT2 rather than sports Bill "winning" it; and that in case of different subjects claiming PT1 and PT2, both PT are on equal footing. I imagine the outcome of this discussion will clarify one of those assumptions, and this can be added as an example to the guidance. ] (]) 02:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - it seems clear to me that the primary topic is the political commentator. Same reason ] redirects to the article about United States citizens. --]] 00:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:It seems clear to me that the primary topic is the sport. ] (]) 00:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::You didn't learn anything from the complaints at ], did you? --]] 00:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::What? ] (]) 00:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:How on earth is ] relevant? -- ] (]) 09:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::You have a set of people who insist that there is no primary topic for ], because all people from the Americas are American. They are wrong. Same with the people (in my opinion) who insist that there is no primary topic for Bill O'Reilly here. -- ]] 09:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Yes, they are wrong. That's blatantly obvious. How is this relevant to the subject at hand? Most people in the world have probably never heard of either of these people. Of those that have, most Americans would probably identify the political commentator and most people from the Commonwealth (where cricket is huge) would probably identify the cricketer. -- ] (]) 14:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Concur. This is obvious ] territory.] (]) 14:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', the American commentator and the world-class Hall of Fame cricketeer seem to be equally important to their chosen career paths. ] (]) 12:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. Clearly the primary topic. Never heard of the cricketer. ] (]) 16:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*: Although I agree this is the primary topic, I don't think "never heard of X" is a good argument. Also, I don't think this is worth keeping open. It's pretty obvious there won't be consensus to move this. --]] 21:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I completely agree that "never heard of X" is not a good argument. Even without it being said, that was obviously an factor behind quite a lot of comments in this thread. I say that as a cricket fan from the city that gave Rupert Murdoch to the world, and who has followed his influence on politics in multiple countries, including using people such as ] as major contributors. Perhaps editors need to be reminded of those words you just wrote in the section at the top of this page showing the history of previous move requests. ] (]) 23:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - I know this is not going to be successful because this is one of those things that Misplaced Pages is going to be stubborn about, but whatever. This Bill O'Reilly is ]. The nominator is correct, if you search up Bill O'Reilly, there isn't going to be a single index of the cricketer or any other other ones. The vast majority of reliable sources concerning Bill O'Reilly are going to be about this one. And the fact that this has been nominated for a move a million times should be telling that there is a primary topic. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:A question drawing from the mini-thread just above - How much do you know about the sport of cricket? ] (]) 03:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I know he was a good cricket player and is notable as such. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::That's not enough. Note that my question wasn't about O'Reilly. It was about the sport. ] (]) 04:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::I don't think that's relevant. -- ]] 05:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::Thinking that is part of the problem here. ] (]) 05:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::You believe cricket is important. Ok that is fine. The primary topic is not decided by whether cricket is really popular or not. It's not decided by , Wikinav, and relevance in English sourcing. Every single one of these indicators point to moving this page, with the former two being massively in favor of a move. It's hard to quantify the latter one but all search queries nearly exclusively point to moving the page. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
For the record I think this close was premature and also did a poor job characterizing the support for the move which had far stronger policy arguments. In this case WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was simply ignored by arguments of perception and speculation which were made primarily by fans of a particular sport. In cases like this when the outcome is determined simply by votes I wonder why we even have policies at all. Nemov (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This was a perfectly reasonable close. It might have been wise to wait for an admin for a better trusted conclusion and explanation. Clear consensus was NOT demonstrated, neither by headcount nor by strength of argument, by my reading. Since I didn't contribute to the conversation, I'll opine that while both subjects are public figures in different arenas of popular culture, it's clear to me the cricketeer is regarded as a far more significant figure in their field (based on the cited significance assertion in the article as of the close) than the political commentator is in theirs (no reliable sources in the existing article make the argument that the pundit is one of the greatest figures in American political commentary). BusterD (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Since 2020, states he works at Newsmax. This is not true. His current show, " Bill O'Reilly No Spin News" The Channel is called, " The First" not "Newsmax". 104.202.135.219 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
