Talk:Thomas Peterson

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. It appears there's substantial skepticism, but no consensus that this isn't the primary topic among articles called "Tom Peterson" in that spelling. Various participants feel the overall disambiguation structure is inadequate; I'll take a stab at cleaning it up and see if that helps. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Addendum: I've moved the dab page Thomas Peterson, which is more inclusive of the entries, and was already a redirect. This measure was explicitly advocated by one of the participants.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– I think that it should be self-evident why Tom Peterson should be here. There are simply too many similarly named pages requiring this dab page in order for "Tom Peterson" (without a disambiguation) to be the title of any individual's page. Hoops gza (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No clear primary topic, too many names that would be pronounced identically. bd2412 T 21:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – If this isn't a solution in search of a problem, then I don't know what is. It needs to be pointed out that the creation of the dab page was concurrent with this move request. The timing and choice of titles offers the impression that this is more about challenging the primary topic status of Tom Peterson than about providing any sort of remedy to a problem. This, in turn, appears to be part of a recent trend on Wikipedia to marginalize certain biography articles, on account of the subject being viewed by editors as strictly a "local celebrity" (which isn't entirely factual in Tom Peterson's case). Convention, not to mention common sense, would dictate a dab page that would contain "Thomas" in the title but would also encompass instances of "Tom", not the other way around. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 16:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There are simply too many similarly named pages requiring this dab page in order for "Tom Peterson" (without a disambiguation) to be the title of any individual's page." What???? John Williams has a primary topic. John Turner has a primary topic. It's silly to suggest that since a name is common there cannot be a primary topic. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- John Turner was the Prime Minister of Canada. John Williams is probably the most recognized film composer in the world, and is widely regarded as the best. In other words, there's a reason why those pages have a primary topic. bd2412 T 16:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I know comparing them is a little weird. I'm more responding to the fact that the nominator claims that if a name is common, a primary topic is impossible. There are 25 bluelinked John Turners and a lot of John Williams (yeah I'm lazy today). By comparison, there are 3 Tom Petersons, along with 3 partial matches. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify my position – Move the dab page to Thomas Peterson (a redirect already exists). Expand the introductory text to specify which spelling variants are covered, and remove any entries which don't qualify. As for the other move, it would be best to leave well enough alone. It's almost as if someone never heard the adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" or variations thereof while growing up. Tom Peterson does have a reach outside of Portland, albeit fairly minimal. I see nothing which suggests a need for moving that page. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 05:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Keep Tom Peterson at the undisambiguated page. His page has been viewed 2882 times in the past 90 days. Tom Peterson (cyclist) has been viewed 318 times in the past 90 days. Thomas Mundy Peterson has been viewed 1128 times in the past 90 days. The others are partial title matches where a hatnote will suffice. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Taylor Trescott above. I came here predisposed to Support, but the page view stats convinced me otherwise. YBG (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I came here because of a notice posted on WikiProject Oregon, which was unfortunately presented in a less-than-neutral POV manner, which caused me to be predisposed against the opinion of the editor who posted the notice. However, my opinion changed after reading both the Support and Oppose listings here. YBG (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thinking about the stats Taylor Trescott reported, it seems to me that there is similar reader interest in the retailer and the cyclist. For one thing, the difference between ~~1128~~ 318 views vs. 2882 does not strike me as enormous. But beyond that, we should consider the inherent bias the statistics will have in favor of the one who is currently at Tom Peterson -- that is, the retailer. How many of the people looking for the cyclist first landed on the retailer's bio, and then had to click through -- thus adding to the page view stats of both? As far as I know, it's impossible to know for certain; but to me, that seems like a very likely scenario. This line of reasoning also applies to Thomas Mundy Peterson, and according to his bio he is sometimes referred to as "Tom." I'm inclined to support this proposal, but I don't feel too strongly about it. -Pete (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cyclist's views have barely scraped past 300, while the retailer has had over 1900 more than that. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- we're in agreement about the numbers (after I corrected my initial error, anyway!) But we differ in the evaluation. I do not think the difference between 300 and 2900 is tremendous; there are Wikipedia articles that have hundreds of thousands of hits over a 90 day period. Furthermore, as I said, there is built-in bias for the statistics of whoever's bio is at Tom Peterson -- that is, for the retailer's stats. Many people looking for the cyclist will inflate the retailer's stats first, by going to his page on their way to finding the one they seek. -Pete (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had more comments, but they will have to wait; too many things on my plate and not enough time. I just wanted to point out that prior to the creation of the current article Tom Peterson, that place was held by an article about a television weatherman in Iowa who was killed in a car accident. This was so long ago, I don't remember why that article was deleted and I don't feel like spending the time necessary to figure out why. I do see some Google hits which appear significant enough. Should we factor that in when comparing the various Tom Petersons? RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 21:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support but better to rethink the whole DAB structure for this and related names. IMO people who come here are more likely to be looking for Tom Petersson or Thomas Ring Petersen. If I had to pick the best candidate for primary topic of the three currently on offer, I'd go for Thomas Mundy Peterson on grounds of greater enduring notability and educational value (see WP:PTOPIC of course). Andrewa (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It certainly won't take much work to knock the Portland pitchman off of primary topic. Just List of people from Oregon, KPTV and Pacific Northwest Wrestling and Portal:Oregon/Selected biography/40 link to his article, besides disambiguation and hatnotes. I just spent more than double the time this will take fixing links to Thomas Peterson, the former title of the cyclist's article. Hey, when you have to go out 90 days to get a respectable sounding pageview count, the pageviews are anemic. The average is just 35/day. Both Tom Petersson, as an {{R from misspelling}} (over 100 views/day), and Thomas Mundy Peterson, on grounds of greater enduring notability and educational value rank above this guy in the competition for primary topic. Ever hear of Fred Ricart, another pitchman from a similar-sized metro area who was all over local TV about the same time as this guy was? He doesn't even have an article. Sorry if I'm sounding a bit harsh, but in 30 years even most of Portland won't remember this pitchman. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.