Talk:Anthony Watts

Primary topic

Two Wikipedia pages have the title Anthony Watts and it is not clear that one is the primary topic, so a disambiguation page is required. Tassedethe (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that the disambiguation page is required. That is why I was changing the name to Anthony Watts (disambiguation) per Wikipedia guidelines.

However, because the unqualified name pointed to the meteorologist's page for about 2 years, it is obvious that he is the primary topic. As far as I can tell, it is normal to add disambiguation terms to each existing topic page and then to use a redirect to forward the old name to the new one so that existing links from outside wikipedia won't be broken.

The rugby player only has a one year old simple player bio and, therefore, is obviously not the primary.

I am not sure why the biologist was added, wiki guidelines clearly state that redlinks should not be added to disambiguation pages.

You reverted my change before I had finished the related changes. (My ISP crashed for 30 minutes.) Q Science (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the articles or the time the articles have been on Wikipedia isn't really relevant to deciding on whether a topic is the primary topic. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lays out the guidelines which I don't feel have been met. Both these articles feature on a very small number of Wikipedia pages, leading to my conclusion that neither are clearly primary. (I will fix the redlink.) Tassedethe (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://stats.grok.se/ (as suggested in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), the following represents the number of views for 2009-05. Seven to one is a pretty good indication, but perhaps not good enough. Similar numbers are shown for other recent months.

829 - Anthony Watts
114 - Anthony Watts (rugby league)

In addition, because of the people involved and their history with the Global Warming pages, I assumed that this was being used to attempt to discredit the work of a person they openly disagree with. (I could quote much stronger language from the talk pages.) Particularly, I think the use of the term blogger verses meteorologist is an ad hominem attack. (That group considers bloggers to be lower than dirt. If the label sticks, then it is easier to discredit what he writes.) I have been openly criticized for writing that elsewhere (we are supposed to assume the best), but experience with those specific people still makes me suspicious. Q Science (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that this was being used to attempt to discredit - well at least you're being candid. But you should WP:AGF William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APF??? Q Science (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Is there a problem? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hit upon the biologist when trying to ascertain if one of the Watts'es has clear primacy. He meets, without question, the notability requirements layed down in WP:PROF (6 and 8 are obvious). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the problem. The guidelines just say not to add anyone to a disambiguation page who doesn't already have a wiki page.

"Use only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry, and avoid red links"

Once there is a page he should definitely be here. Q Science (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote is right, but does not support your main claim. Read Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Red_links and the examples. I agree that Tassedethe edit is an improvement in that it does get rid of the red link for now. But that does not affect whether the Professor should be mentioned or not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am just a little dense today, but neither University of Oxford (your link) nor European Biophysics Journal contains a red link to any Anthony Watts.

"A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link."

I was not questioning his notability, just why it was added now. Perhaps I could have worded that better. Q Science (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I'm not defending the original red link (I was not aware of that MOS clause). I added him as soon as I found him - and I found him while researching the relative notability of different Wattses after your BLP inquiry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]