This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago Bears, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chicago BearsWikipedia:WikiProject Chicago BearsTemplate:WikiProject Chicago BearsChicago Bears articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Southern California, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of Southern CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of Southern CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of Southern CaliforniaUniversity of Southern California articles
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. Feel free to renominate at some point in the future if the football player's significance continues to increase. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– As mentioned in the requested moves section, this page garners significantly more traction in terms of daily views and Google searches than any other page related to the name 'Caleb Williams' (914 daily views vs the average of 48 for all other pages). Discussion over whether this traction is due to WP:RECENTISM began, both I still believe this page is far more notable, but currently and long-term than any other page. Opening up the discussion here. Debartolo2917 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: Ping participant in the WP:RMTR discussion. (And, for the record, I'm neutral.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pasting in comments from WP:RMTR below to avoid feeling the need to repeat them: — BarrelProof (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one may be a bit more complicated since the disambiguation page Caleb Williams seems to list only 1 entry that is not a WP:PTM: Caleb Williams (American football). The disambiguation page probably needs to be wholly deleted for this move to make sense. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. "Caleb Williams" is also the name of the protagonist of a novel about him, and the novel itself is also apparently often referred to as Caleb Williams (as noted in the opening sentence of the article and in quotes within it from reliable sources, and as also observed by the all-caps large font on the cover of the book, and that is the title shown for the book on Project Gutenberg). The popularity of the football player article seems to be primarily a matter of WP:RECENTISM. The football player is 19 years old and the novel is 228 years old. The football player is a teenager playing at the college sophomore level, and there is no guarantee he won't be sidelined by some injury or personal issues before he reaches the professional level, and he may not become a real enduring star even if he eventually gets to the professional level. Meanwhile, the book and its main character will continue to have enduring notability. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why he is significantly more popular. This is not a case of a recent individual event causing traction, this is a long-term trend that likely will only accelerate. The book also only generates 42 views per day to the hundreds the football player does. I don't see why youth or potential for injury negates this, the data clearly shows he generates a significant amount more traction than any other potential link. Sure, a lengthy career will help, but Garrett Wilson (American football) was changed to Garrett Wilson, who is also quite young and has the same potential for injury. He is simply by far the more popular page for the namespace of 'Caleb Williams'. Debartolo2917 (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two basic considerations for determining primary topic status – usage and long-term significance. This teenage college football player has been more popular than the historic novel for about a year, but has no obvious great long-term importance. As for Garrett Wilson, that football player is in the professional National Football League and the only competition for that title is another fairly recent sports player who does not seem especially highly noteworthy in that capacity. Also, I see no record of an RM consensus establishing the selection of that title for that article. — BarrelProof (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Debartolo2917 This is not a simple technical request, and hence should go to a full WP:RM discussion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As noted above, "Caleb Williams" is the conventional short title of a historic novel and the name of its protagonist, and the novel has far greater apparent long-term significance than the teenage college football player. The current relative popularity of the article about the football player is pure WP:RECENTISM at this point. Maybe someday he'll become a legend of football history, but at this point he doesn't seem especially notable. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment I do not believe this is recency bias, driven by the fact this football player is by far the most notable topic of the name 'Caleb Williams', and is notable in the American football space. Agree with length, but do not believe longevity outweighs this significant traction difference. Debartolo2917 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a minor edit to OP's comment above to strike the additional !vote. 162 etc. (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the "914 daily views", please note that there is a very high degree of fluctuation of the daily views of the football player article. The six-month median number is less than one third of that (253 daily views), and the article hasn't even existed for a full year yet. The general viewing trend since October of last year is downward, not upward. No doubt the fluctuation will continue to be very volatile based on whether this person plays in each game, the popularity of each individual event, how well he plays in that event, whether he is involved in disciplinary action, etc. There is no indication of long-term notability whatsoever, and it's not even clear whether he is on the starting lineup of his college team. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this move is just too early. I significantly disagree that there is no long-term indication of notability, based on almost every single other type of page like this one. A quarterback at a major football university gets a page created, plays, plays well, then is drafted or signed into the NFL. The claim of "not even clear whether is is on the starting lineup of his college team" is unbelievably inaccurate. He has started both games and is currently third in odds for the MVP of college football. He's a starter, a good one at that. All indications point upwards due to his significant NFL traction and potential for major accolades, as well as in-game performance, which will continue barring a death or injury. Debartolo2917 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. This is not the latest six-month median number. Six month median for the latest six months (3/14-9/14) is 267, not 253. Daily average over the whole course of the page existing is 718 with a median of 318. Trends over this six-month interval have increased, not decreased, and likely will only continue to do so. Debartolo2917 (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I wrote, not your own thoughts about what you think I am saying. I referred to the trend "since October of last year", not the trend in the last six months. Please have a look at this chart. Does that look like the number of viewers since last October has basically been going up or going down? And 267 versus 253 is a trivial difference. Both of those numbers are less than one third of 914. As for his current status on his college team, the US Trojans website currently says he "will compete to be the starting quarterback at USC in 2022", so it does not call him their current unquestioned choice as starting quarterback. That is what the team he currently plays for is saying right now on their website. Thank you for your prediction of the great career that you think he will have in the future. I hope it will all come true someday. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The six-month median number" is a direct quote from your comment on September 15th @15:36. I found the more recent six-month median and it is higher. By dynamics of collegiate football, less traction exists during the offseason and more will occur in the season. We're currently in the season and he is the unquestioned starter. Yes, the website says that... but the website also says that he has started the last three games and played almost all the snaps (a few to the backup in garbage time in week 1). Of USC's 196 total offensive snaps, he has played 180. He has accounted for 90% of total passing yards. He is no longer competing for the starting position (and never was), he is the starter (see here). His pageview trajectory will certainly increase as the season continues. Median number over the last three weeks is 819 and daily average is 2050, which is more accurate to what his pageviews will be long-term. Median ninety-day is 310 and average is 698, and regardless these are significantly higher (accounts for 99.3% of pageviews). Makes no sense why he does not have the non-disambiguated page. Debartolo2917 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Yes, it's just recentism. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – this is the only page that uses the title Caleb Williams. Caleb Saleeby does not count, the base name is Caleb Saleeby. Hatnotes should work to disambiguate. cookie monster755 03:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The novel primarily uses this title – e.g. please take a look at the photo of the first edition's cover (which has "CALEB WILLIAMS" in all-caps and larger font than the rest), and also see how the novel is referred to by critics and literary historians (as the full title of the novel is rather lengthy, cumbersome and hard to remember). Note that the protagonist of the novel also has this name. Also, disambiguation is meant for topics, not just to avoid the technical problem of exact matches of Wikipedia article titles, per WP:DAB. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2022 (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.
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.
– Ok. I waited a few months since the last request/nomination for movement, and since then the football player's notability has only increased and shown longevity. Over the last year, his page now averages 1863.5 daily views, up from 706 in the prior year when the previous discussion was closed. In the previous four months, the daily average is 4580, compared to just 581 in the four months prior to the previous closing. The median views is 1196, up from 272. His views account for 98.84% of total views on pages with 'Caleb Williams' in the title. He was already the primary topic, and has cemented that status. In terms of edits, there were 169 in the past four months to his page, compared to only 28 in the four months prior to the previous discussion closing. This shows relevance beyond any particular period, as there has been continued editing (although somewhat rhythmically surrounding the football calendar). And finally, Caleb Williams won the Heisman Trophy, awarded to the best college football player in a particular year, showing his importance and relevancy, especially now cemented with a prestigous award. Debartolo2917 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This is the only article on WP titled Caleb Williams, getting thousands of views per day. The novel with the partial title match gets fewer than 1% of that number.[1] The dab page should be deleted per the original proposal, as a WP:ONEOTHER situation, but that is relatively unimportant. Station1 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, he is the only person on Wikipedia with an article titled Caleb Williams, and would be getting the most visits by far even if he weren't. DaveTheBrave (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, though I see no reason to delete the disambiguation page rather than moving it. BD2412T 20:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, Williams has clearly established himself as the most notable article in the disambiguation page. His page views and relevance are likely only increasing as well, given that he is the projected #1 pick in the 2024 draft.--Newtothisedit (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The only others on the list are what is today a relatively obscure novel and someone who wasn't even called Caleb Williams. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2023 (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.
