Talk:Emilio Sánchez (disambiguation)

Requested move 25 April 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: moved Emilio José Sánchez Fuentes → Emilio Sánchez (footballer), not moved the other two. And note that the rule of thumb for that part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is more than all others combined, not 10x more than all others combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so DAB should be at base page. Disambiguate tennis player and footballer to standard, WP:COMMONNAME for both is just "Emilio Sánchez". Ortizesp (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to move. No real primary topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1st and 2nd because the tennis player is the primary topic among those with this name as a Grand Slam tennis champion, Olympic medallist and the clear leader in page views. Support 3rd per nom. Iffy★Chat -- 08:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think he hits the threshold for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a rule of thumb is 10x over the other entries combined. And he isn't historically more significant than the other entries.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if your "rule of thumb" reflected community consensus (which I dispute), this case is close to that figure. How are the other entries historically significant? I don't see anything on their Wikipedia articles to suggest long term significance comparable to the achievements I listed above. On balance, I don't see where the argument against having the tennis player as the primary topic comes from. Iffy★Chat -- 23:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not arguing the other pages are more historically significant, I just don't think any of these "Emilio Sanchez's" are significantly comparable including this tennis player.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The criterion is more popular than everything else put together (not 10x), which is clearly met. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 10:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, no PRIMARYTOPIC. Page views mean nothing, we don't know how many readers were searching for the footballer (or other people by this name) and clicked on the tennis player article in error as that is (currently) at the prime location. GiantSnowman 10:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Page views are literally one of the main ways we measure the Usage criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Even if 100% of pageviews to the artist and footballer last year were originating from Emilio Sánchez (a very dubious assumption), then around 2/3 of readers were taken to the correct article on one click, the kind of situation primary topics were made for. Iffy★Chat -- 23:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Page views is one of the thresholds, and even then this tennis player isn't much more popular than the other combined pages. And less so when we consider that his page is at the base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1st and 2nd, support 3rd (Emilio José Sánchez Fuentes → Emilio Sánchez (footballer)). The footballer spent his career in Segunda División (2nd division). The tennis player was world class with grand slams and an Olympic medal. Much more page views too.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tennis player primary and associated moves per Bob and Iffy. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the consensus is to keep the tennis player at primary, but move the footballer to Emilio Sánchez (footballer). I'm find with that, if someone can close this it would be appreciated.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.