Talk:Charlotte Moore (TV executive)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlotte Moore (TV executive). 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/20130921232715/http://www.griersontrust.org/about-grierson-trust/trustees.html to http://www.griersontrust.org/about-grierson-trust/trustees.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bbclinksmachine.appspot.com/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/tvfactual/charlotte_moore.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as per Dekimasu's proposal. No consensus on whether the TV executive is the primary topic or not. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Charlotte Moore (TV executive) → Charlotte Moore
Charlotte Moore → Charlotte Moore (actress)

Primary topic as indicated by all-time viewing figures for pages, 46,561 for executive and 7,677 for actress. Matt14451 (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There is another option, which is to move Charlotte Moore (disambiguation) to the base title; the request ignores the fact that there are several other people on the disambiguation page. Despite this and the fact that the proposer is currently indef blocked, the proposal itself seems to be reasonable per pageview data. Support either this change or the less radical shift of moving the dab to the base title. Dekimasuよ! 21:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Relisting note: it seems there are three options:

1. 1. Keep things as they are. (0 !votes)
   2. Original proposal. (1 !vote or maybe 2?)
   3. Move dab to base title (1 !vote)

Matt14451, is Dekimasu's alternative proposal okay by you? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Just read the blocked bit... still, a relist wouldn't hurt... SITH (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• I support moving the actress anyway per the views, maybe support the full proposal but at least putting the DAB would be an improvement since its clear that the current PT is incorrect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Let's just do that, I think. Moving the actress and the dab seems like the least disruptive option and clearly better than the current setup, as Crouch, Swale notes. Dekimasuよ! 15:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Dekimasu: Agreed, since per User:Andrewa/Incoming links there will probably be external links to the actress and we'll confuse them if they land on the TV executive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Requested move 13 April 2019

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, leaning towards consensus against the proposed move, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 13:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Charlotte Moore (TV executive) → Charlotte Moore
• Charlotte Moore → Charlotte Moore (disambiguation)

– The TV executive has had the majority of views for a while, as seen at https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wiki.x.io&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2015-07&end=2019-01&pages=Charlotte_Moore_(TV_executive) Andysmith248 (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the actress has only recently been moved. Leave alone In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. There are five entries at the Charlotte Moore disambiguation page which list women from three major countries across the English-speaking world. A television executive in one English-speaking country does not rise to the level of an objectively-considered WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is an inaccurate description of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's about relatively notability -- there is not some special standard of status a subject must be to be considered notable, whether they are a television executive, a janitor, or a politician.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

If the primary topic candidate is intended to be evaluated on the basis of "relatively notability" and such a candidate is not an obvious world-renowned celebrity, has no entry in any other Wikipedia, and has notability which rests upon an executive position with one broadcaster, among many others, in one English-speaking country, then an evaluation can hardly be accomplished without resorting to "some special standard of status". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are using some arbitrary metric under which pages must meet your personal special standard, which is simply not how this works at all. It's about relative notability -- it can be the most minor person in the world in your view and still be a primary topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Per Roman Spinner and views [[1]] do not show an overwhelming PT especially considering incoming links to the actress. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The TV exec gets more than two thirds of the page views and consistantly outperforms all other entries. Looks sufficiently primary to me. PC78 (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps I'm missing the arguments above, but page views indicate a very clear primary topic--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I prefer a higher threshold when dealing with a collection of relatively obscure people, because it takes more to rise above the noise. I don't regard 2/3 as enough in this case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Page views are persuasive. The arguments against are not. Calidum 19:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Calidum: isn't the argument about incoming links for the actress relevant since if this move goes ahead it will land those on the wrong article. Although it is juts my opinion I'd usually hold that to make a topic primary it should be more like at least 90%. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose this move 2601:541:4500:1760:252E:3B42:3768:6436 (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Closer: note this is from an anonymous IP and includes no reasoning... I accord such participations zero weight in my closes. --В²C ☎ 21:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per nom and because it clearly meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria with 2/3rds of page views. No, the threshold is not 90%, it's "more likely to be sought than all the others combined". Yes, the incoming links have to be fixed. --В²C ☎ 21:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  I was referring to the incoming (external) links, not the internal ones (which have already been fixed). Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Well, we can't worry about those. Google adjusts its search results very quickly. We'll have hatnotes at the previous titles to help manage the external fixed links. --В²C ☎ 16:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yes we should worry about incoming links from external sites, indeed Google changes quickly but many websites won't since they probably won't be notified. Landing on the wrong article to where a link was supposed to go is even more confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  That's an argument to never change any title. Like I said, we can't worry about that, beyond providing the hatnote links which are more than adequate mitigation for incorrect external incoming links. The opposes in this RM discussion exemplify the amazing capacity of humans to rationalize just about any irrational position. --В²C ☎ 17:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  Mainly an argument not to swap PTs, see User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Primary topic swaps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is close to the threshold, but the more I look, the more I find other notable "Charlotte Moore"s which I've added to the DAB - some of which should likely have articles created for them. I feel like the DAB wasn't doing a very good job, so the view comparisons may be skewed a bit. Prefer to wait and see, and err on the side of clarity by keeping all disambiguated per WP:NOPRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 10:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies, but wait and see if what happens?--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - IMHO there's more notable Charlotte Moores on the DAB page certainly more notable than the TV exec. –Davey2010^Talk 13:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That’s nice but notability on WP is mostly determined by criteria, not opinion. And relative notability is not even a consideration for determining primary topic. —В²C ☎ 13:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Badgering everyone (and picking apart my comment) really isn't productive, I would kindly suggest refocusing your energy on articles where they'll be appreciated. Davey2010^Talk 18:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    • PT#2 does look at "enduring notability" although В²C and Yaksar are correct in that its a relative test. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.