Talk:John Nutt

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on John Nutt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007011033/http://www.infonet.st-johns.nf.ca/green/johnnutt.html to http://www.infonet.st-johns.nf.ca/green/johnnutt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. No clear consensus whether the pirate is the Primary Topic or not. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• John Nutt → John Nutt (pirate)
• John Nutt (disambiguation) → John Nutt

– It does not appear that, after 400 years, this pirate's historical legacy looms so large that it completely overshadows the combined prominence of the other two same-named men and becomes the unquestioned WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Contrary to other editor's opinions, long-term page views show that the base name article is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (not to mention that 400 years does point to "long-term significance"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support – even with more page views and long term, the primarytopic claim for the pirate seems too marginal. Disambiguation is good. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria met, no counter indication given in the proposal or supports other than WP:PERNOM and things that aren't criteria: completely overshadowing is not the metric, nor is seems too marginal. Disambiguation is indeed good, and it is used properly here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The pirate may be more notable than the other topic, but is still itself a topic of marginal notability. BD2412 T 00:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, not clearly primary, and as I've just had to correct one incoming link (the printer was intended), and unlink another, I feel the move will help improve the quality of the encyclopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment the page view link above does not give a true picture, as views for hte politician are not included. THis is because the majority of links are to John Nutt (MP) rather than to John Nutt (politician). this is a better comparison. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Over 73% of the page views is enough to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Cuchullain: It's not "over 73%", it's 61% (9360 out of 15299), as you would know if you'd read my comment immediately before your own. DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Your take is incorrect. Anyone clicking on John Nutt (MP) would go to John Nutt (politician). So a view on the former also records as a view for the latter, even though it's the same visit by the same reader. The better measure is the views at the actual article, which is over 73%.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  No, as you would know if you read the notes linked from the analysis page "If a user browses to a redirect, a pageview is registered for the redirect but not for the target page"DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is not that it's a redirect, which is usually insignificant. The problem in this case is that the politician was at John Nutt (MP) until 5 Aug 2020, so pageviews through July need to use the previous article title. Doing that shows 61% is correct, but that's still more than all others combined. Station1 (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds reasonable to me, taking into account the redirect your figures look accurate to me. It doesn’t seem to me that Station1 was trying to deliberately mislead anyone. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Page views seem to indicate a primary topic. In terms of long term notability, it's hard to weed out non-notable people in a Google books search, but the pirate seems to be most common.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nom doesn't actually offer any concrete rationale for this move, other than "It does not appear that, after 400 years ... it completely overshadows the combined prominence of the other two same-named men". Well who says it doesn't? We need some concrete reason if we're to change the status quo. Other than that, Cuchullain's page views suggest the current set up is quite correct.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose but put John Nutt (printer) and John Nutt (politician) directly in the hatnote per WP:D#Primary topic with two or more other topics so that we have the same result as if the dab page were at the base name. Station1 (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I do feel that the person who is most well known as John Nutt is the pirate. Let’s leave this here and correct any mistakenly added wikilinks as they appear. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support per Shhhnotsoloud's page views 9,360 v 3,255 (more than a third despite the benefit of being at the base name) doesn't appear to meet the "much more likely than any other". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Regarding "We need some concrete reason if we're to change the status quo..." a large majority of current primary topics are not primary because they were voted upon and chosen by consensus, but simply because they were created first and became primary by default. If the creator of the second or the third "John Nutt" entry, or of the John Nutt dab page, had simply added "(pirate)" to this article's main header, the dab page would have no primary topic and, in the unlikely possibility that the pirate's article were to be ever nominated for primary topic, the end result judging by these votes, would be "Not moved" or, at best, "No consensus". Ultimately, it would seem that the bar for becoming a primary topic should be set higher than simply "No consensus" for its downgrading from already-existing primary topic, but rather a unanimous or near-unanimous agreement that this is indeed an obvious primary topic which nobody can deny. Such an approach would very likely reduce the number of primary topics, but that could be the subject for a wider-ranging disambiguation discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  That assumes that articles are created on a chronologically random basis. But, logically, we should expect a high correlation between primary topic and order of creation. It's not chance that George Washington was created before George Washington (inventor). Of course, there will be exceptions, but it does make sense that those should need to overcome the presumption that the earlier article is primary. Station1 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, names such as George Washington or Albert Einstein (a family joke of Albert Brooks' comedian father, Harry Einstein [stage name Parkyakarkus], was to name his son Albert) would fall under the description of "unanimous or near-unanimous agreement that this is indeed an obvious primary topic which nobody can deny" and only a troll would waste time at RM by nominating any such name. It is all the other putatively primary topic names, such as this one, which fall under the second discussion point that if those names are presumed to be unable to succeed if nominated for primary topic and if such presumed nomination would be expected to result in "Not moved" or "No consensus", then they should not continue as primary topics if their continuation as primary is only as a result of "No consensus", rather than a ringing WP:SNOW endorsement. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Throughout Wikipedia, whether for page moves, deciding if an article should have a photo, or deciding if a sentence should be included in an intro, proposed changes that don't get a consensus are pretty much always interpreted to mean "keep at the current stable situation." If we start deciding that a certain quality should be the "default" -- in this case that there would be no primary topic -- it gets much stickier. If there is a proposal that Cats should not go to cat anymore because the plural is well known as a musical, should a no consensus result mean the proposal is accepted as though it has consensus? Or the very common proposal that a UK city should not be a primary topic given the existence of many other cities named after it -- if the proposal fails to get full support and there is no consensus, should it be moved anyway? These aren't questions that necessarily need to be answered regarding this proposal, but mean it would be tough to implement that proposed approach.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus regarding matters other than primary topics, or matters that cannot be easily viewed from a reverse angle, obviously need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. As far as primary topics are concerned, however, the bar for elevation to or retention of primary should be set high. The simple question should be, "would this non-uniquely-named subject be able to muster a near-unanimous consensus for elevation to primary topic?" If the answer is not a clear "Yes", then it should not be a primary topic.

There are many obvious examples where the answer would be a clear "Yes" — even though President Kennedy has been usually referenced as "John Fitzgerald Kennedy", "John F. Kennedy", "Jack Kennedy" or "JFK", rather than as simply "John Kennedy", he is the unquestioned primary topic over the 72 men listed at the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page. Winston Churchill is primary over Winston Churchill (Cavalier) and Winston Churchill (novelist) while Elizabeth Taylor is primary over Elizabeth Taylor (painter) and Elizabeth Taylor (novelist) and only a troll would challenge the existence of a primary topic in those cases.

However, judging by the votes and arguments here and at Talk:David Jack#Requested move 6 July 2020, the lack of unanimity and consensus becomes clear. Thus, subjects such as David Jack or John Nutt that would face opposition sufficient to prevent them from achieving consensus for elevation to primary topic, should also not remain as primary topics by the default of "No consensus". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think if that's the change you're looking for we definitely would want to be discussing it on a wider forum. We rely on the judgement of closing admins to determine if there is a consensus, but we don't want decisions on whether a discussion's lack of consensus should be overridden to be determined on such a case by case basis. After all, the system you propose could mean proposals that there is not a lack of primary topic, where ~60 percent of !votes oppose, might be moved as proposed despite the discussion. We might agree that only a troll could oppose a primary for Winston Churchill, but then it starts getting stickier -- you'll find passionate arguments that only a troll could think there is no primary topic for Manchester and who would flip out if a proposal to do so that got 40% support was implemented. Or on the flip side, we could just as easily say "since most Wikipedia pages are at a base name and not disambiguated, unless there is a prior consensus for a lack of primary topic we should assume there is one." I wouldn't agree with that either, but as soon as we start determining that "lack of consensus means a move can still go through" we open up a can of worms.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, of course, regarding a wider forum. I just felt obliged to comment here basically because of the earlier "Nom doesn't actually offer any concrete rationale for this move..." posting. Nevertheless, as to your theoretical point (with which you disagree) — "we could just as easily say 'since most Wikipedia pages are at a base name and not disambiguated, unless there is a prior consensus for a lack of primary topic we should assume there is one'" — we could not just as easily say that because in contentious primary topic cases the reverse angle does not function equally in both directions.

Since the natural state of being for dab pages is "no primary topic", once we get past the obvious and expectedly unanimous Winston Churchill–Albert Einstein–Elizabeth Taylor territory and into the non-obvious and contentious David Jack–John Nutt territory, we realize that the longer a primary topic is discussed and the greater the number of participants, the higher the bar for becoming the primary.

If only a couple of Wikipedians cared to comment or if almost everyone agreed that the number of Google hits or page views was the deciding factor, we could put the matter to rest (as an example of a primary topic which does not seem to attract any interest, Charles Marsh, the putative primary topic of the 13-entry Charles Marsh (disambiguation) page has been listed for three days, but has not gotten a single vote).

However, in cases such as this one or David Jack, and taking into account that most dab pages are bereft of a primary topic, it would seem that to remain as primary a topic should do better than the present 7 votes for "John Nutt is not primary" to 8 votes for "John Nutt is primary" or 6 votes for "David Jack is not primary" to 4 votes for "David Jack is primary".

Ultimately, consensus decides everything, including whether 55% or 60% percent support is sufficient to create or retain a primary topic or whether a primary should require a higher level of support, such as at least 67% or even 75% support that we would expect for the more obvious names or topics. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. A classic case of The Problem With Page Views. Page views are the only argument advanced above to support primary topic for a guy who was a minor pirate for three years, and that's his best claim to fame. His legal and illegal and successful tactics to escape the gallows aren't all that remarkable for the period and nor is his piracy. Judged by significance, John Nutt (printer) would be clear primary topic. So best to say there isn't one. Andrewa (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The page views show that anyone searching with “John Nutt” is more likely than not looking for the pirate. In other words the pirate is the primary topic. The whole point of primary topic is to best serve our users. Sending everyone to a god forsaken dab page is the opposite of serving them well. Editors like Andrewa may disagree with our users’ search priorities, but that’s no reason to stick it to them. —-В²C ☎ 07:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree with one user's search priorities. You are the only one I know who goes to the same DAB fourteen times in quick succession (I think it was fourteen... It was to The Americans, I'm sure you remember it... but you won that one), says he almost threw his tablet across the room in anger, and then blames Wikipedia for the fact that he didn't bookmark the page he wanted on the first occasion.
  • The page views show that they got to the article on the pirate. They don't indicate that they wanted that article. Do they? Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • So then I have to open and wade through my bookmarks to find it? No thank you! I usually have a WP tab open. I should be able to type in “the Americans” and get directly there. Thankfully I can now, though no thanks to you, lol. And yes we know most are looking for the pirate because most get to WP articles via external search engines, which are remarkably accurate, which is why we can rely on page view statistics to ascertain relative likelihoods of being sought. And before you get all hot and bothered about users using external search engines, remember that titles are much less important to them. Where they matter are precisely to the minority that uses internal search. And yes, we presume the distribution of search likelihoods is about the same for internal searchers as for external ones. So the page views established mostly by external searchers provide the data required to title our articles to optimize internal searches, including recognizing primary topics based on page views. It’s a beautiful thing. Embrace it. —В²C ☎ 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
      • No, you just need to organise your bookmarks. It's not hard and it will be worth it. I'm not hot and bothered, just quietly confident that reason will eventually win out as it did in the case of NYRM. I hope the NY people enjoyed their eleven years of power while their pet article was at New York, and I gather you enjoy having yours at The Americans, and however long it stays there neither Wikipedia nor the world will end as a result. Just a few people will be inconvenienced. And the same here. Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        • The Americans is not the only article I frequently search. You want me to create book marks for all of them so you can break internal search entirely by abandoning primary topic? Ridiculous. Search works. Don’t break it. —-В²C ☎ 22:07, 31 August 2020 (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.