Talk:Lucas Horton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Lucas Roberts)

Relatives[edit]

Need to create a Horton Family page and then remove all of Lucas' relatives, which I agree should be removed after a family page is created. 17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Should consolidate into Days of our Lives[edit]

This material should be consolidated into Days of our Lives.

While the soap opera Days of our Lives is clearly noteworthy enough to be in an encyclopedia, the characters from the story are not noteworthy enough to warrant encyclopedia entries.

In addition, the material about Lucas Roberts does not cite any references and seems to rely upon the editors' memories.-- Mumia-w-18 01:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Lucas has been a major character for over 15 years. As much as I personally do not like the character at times I would never purpose his article be deleted. He is highly notable in regards to the Soap Opera project and there is no reason to delete or consolidate his article. As to the "memory" comment, you are obviously not well versed enough on the subjects to understand how these articles come about. IrishLass0128 15:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC

Wow! Can anyone make a suggestion about anything without you having a snide remark? You do not own this,or any other day,s of our lives article. Do you realize that? --99.177.250.140 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That user has not edited here for quite some time, at least not under that user name (if she has continued to edit here at all). Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Horton[edit]

Should Lucas' named be changed? On Friday, he refered to himself as "Lucas Horton". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm087 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO! His common name is Roberts and it is not official. He actually called himself both. CelticGreen 23:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His common name is Roberts, and even he can't get it right, he changes it every other day. Common name policy prevails on this. Additionally, his name is not hyphenated and for sure, never will be. References or changes that indicate a hyphenate will immediately be removed. IrishLass (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should it now be Lucas Horton? Do WP:COMMONNAME still apply? What do other editors think? Rm994 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common name, of course, still applies. He has apparently been known as Lucas Roberts for years. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas is Hong Kong[edit]

Isn't Lucas in Hong Kong shouldn't his last appearance be displayed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.5.105 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary is way out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Horton → Lucas Roberts –

  • Regardless of the truth within fiction, "Lucas Roberts" is his common name since his debut, and many sources refer him as "Lucas Roberts". George Ho (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons stated above. Plus, per research, more results go to "Roberts" instead of "Horton". MusicFreak7676 TALK! 03:30, 15 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

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: Procedural closure. The consensus already reached. George Ho (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Lucas Horton → Lucas Roberts – Per the same reasons above. Per WP:COMMONNAME and the sources found, Roberts is still is WP:COMMONNAME and should not have been moved for no reason. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 71.233.227.127 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 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.
  • Thank you for closing that, I meant to do that after moving the page and it slipped my mind. I concur with the close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latest move of this article[edit]

BDD and BD2412, this article was very recently moved, but, per the past move discussions above and what WP:Requested moves states about moves that are likely to be contested or controversial, shouldn't this article go through the WP:Requested moves process first...again? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Use WP:RM#TR, under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". --BDD (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. It says be bold and move the page. Not every little thing needs to be a long drawn out boring talk. It's been 4 years since the last drawn out boring talk. The character's name is Lucas Horton and it's not getting changed back to Roberts. Cebr1979 (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Schmitz123 (talk · contribs)'s move of the page; see here. I'm going to get this article WP:Move protected now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the page was move-protected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On November 21 2016, Oshwah move-protected this article because of the repeated undiscussed moves that go against the previous consensus. See above. Recently, King Gemini, who has been warned on his talk before about moving this article, moved it again anyway. I reverted the move. Oshwah, because of the constant moving of the article, will you indefinitely move-protect this article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts) and Will Horton (Will Roberts)[edit]

As an active editor at Will Horton I've been very amused to see this article bouncing back and forth and back and forth between Lucas Roberts and Lucas Horton! It's funny if you're not involved! And I totally see both sides! For the first 14 years the character was Lucas Roberts, and there is *huge* amounts of story and history attached to that name. But now the official name *is* Lucas Horton, and it has been his name on the show for *nine* years now. There's such an easy solution to this - call the article Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts). Surely that would be end-of-story and make everyone happy! It makes sense to me! Plus, I'd be very happy to see Will Horton moved to Will Horton (Will Roberts), and if we moved both together then we'd have accordance between the two, which, as they're father and son, and their names were changed together, it would make sense that they match, and it would be very cool. I do think the name Will Roberts needs greater prominence at Will's article, because it *was* the character's name - and credit name - for the bulk of his onscreen "life", and this proposal makes sense for that article too. And it totally makes sense that the Will and the Lucas article both have the same form, and this proposal can make this happen! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation - where the article is called Lucas Roberts, but opens "Lucas Horton ..." and the Infobox name is also Lucas Horton - is not a defendable situation. I recommend the proposal I've put forward here as a way - and indeed the best way - out of this impasse. Let's locate the article at Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts), and open it with Lucas Horton (also known as Lucas Roberts) ... Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Today "Days of Our Lives" "Lucas Horton" gets me 11,500 results on google, more than "Days of our Lives" "Lucas Roberts" which gets me 8640. The show calls the character "Lucas Horton", and has done for nine years! Their official web-page credits the character as "Lucas Horton". The character's son is most-commonly called "Will Horton". Previous discussions about the location of this article don't seem to have taken into account the value of having correspondence with the articles for the character's children, and this is a mistake. The character's daughter has always been called "Allie Horton"! Also, the character of Lucas was designed from the start to be a Horton - it was one of those incidents where the show has decided to add a character to a core family by having creating a new character, and then having a paternity reveal! It was a deliberate thing to add a new Horton family member. Having the article just called "Lucas Roberts" is no longer defensible. I recommend my suggestion of Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts), because of the importance of both the current name and the original name, with Lucas Horton going first because of all the reasons above. There is no consensus for Lucas Roberts - not any more! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 February 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Hardly the first person to suggest this sort of compromise, but it's not how things are done here ever since we moved away from football (soccer). Jenks24 (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Lucas Roberts → Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts) – This is a good solution to the move war that has happened here, where the article location has alternated between Lucas Roberts and Lucas Horton. The current name of Lucas Roberts is no longer justifiable - the character name has been Lucas Horton for nine years now, and "Days of Our Lives" "Lucas Horton" get 11,500 google results - more than "Days of Our Lives" "Lucas Roberts" which gets 8640. Nevertheless the original name of Lucas Roberts remains very important (as evidenced by the number of results it gets), and its inclusion in the article name makes sense and is helpful to the reader. The character was originated as Lucas Roberts, and had that name for 14 years, and major narrative history happened under that name. Moreover, Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts) will be in concordance with the article for the character's son Will Horton (Will Roberts) whose name was changed in the show at the same time. Horton should come first as it is current, and has been for nine years, and the character's daughter is called Allie Horton. The indefensibility of the current position of Lucas Roberts is demonstrated by the article being called Lucas Roberts, but opening Lucas Horton ... and the Infobox name also being Lucas Horton. There is also an article for the supercouple Lucas Roberts and Sami Brady, and the name for that article makes sense as the bulk of that relationship happened in the time of Lucas Roberts (and they were married as "Roberts"). Therefore, putting both names in the article name - Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts) - allows this article to match with both the articles for the character's children *and* the article for the supercouple pairing. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I do not believe this falls within proper naming/disambiguation guidelines at WP:ATDAB and elsewhere. One name should be chosen as the primary (probably Lucas Horton), the justifications otherwise are all based on in-universe trivialities. I also object to the undiscussed renaming of Will Horton (Will Roberts), which you seem to be using to bolster this move.— TAnthonyTalk 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your comments about me: the move of Will Horton was based on previously-given open-to-discussion reasons in a talk section that I opened there for the purpose of discussion. Your words suggest otherwise, and that is unfair to me. To be fair to you, it is true that no one else entered that discussion until after I took action. Also to suggest that I am "seeming" to do something when I have been quite frank in expressing the reasons of both my opinions and actions at both articles is again unfair - especially considering that I explicitly stated reasons at Talk:Will Horton why I thought the move of Will Horton was appropriate for *that* article, to suggest here that it was made for another purpose is, to put it politely, again unfair. "Assuming good faith" would be nice.  :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading below, I note that this seems to be an honest mistake on TAnthony's part. Fair enough. I get cross because I really dislike being misrepresented when I have put time and effort into TALK in order to reach a good decision for which everyone can see the reasons for.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't challenge the consensus on the irregularity of the proposal, but as your comment about the rationale I have put forward, I say this: decade-long credit names are neither "in-universe" nor "trivial". Aliveness Cascade (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aliveness Cascade, I certainly apologize if I have come off as dismissive, disrespectful or snarky in my comments here or re: Will Horton. I never intended to insult you or belittle your arguments in any way, but I can see how it may have seemed that way. These moves are obviously an unconventional use of disambiguation, and my comments regarding the triviality of the character name progression was in the specific context of disambiguation in article naming, not the article itself or its contents. Your proposal suggested that this move would put the article "in concordance" with the Lucas article, but I think that was misleading because you were alluding to the renamed Lucas article as if it set precedent, but it was boldly moved by you. Again,I'm sorry if my comments seemed combative, that was not my intent.— TAnthonyTalk
Thank you for your remarks. I apologize for getting off-kilter. :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do vote for concordance between the articles, which, now this proposal is off the table, would take the form of Lucas Horton and Will Horton. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I reverted the move of Will Horton to Will Horton (Will Roberts), a separate discussion can be opened about that, but the result of this one should inform that move.— TAnthonyTalk 18:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A talk section already exists for that for goodness sake. It was created beforehand.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. There's no need for parenthetical disambiguation, because there is no other notable Lucas Horton. The article can be located at Lucas Horton without issue.  ONR  (talk)  17:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Parenthetic disambiguation is to be used only for disambiguation - there is no need for disamibiguation here. No opinion at this time on which of the two names meets WP:CRITERIA better - but whichever it is should be the title, period. --В²C ☎ 20:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per arguments above. Also, a Google web search provides "Lucas Roberts" with 27,900,000 results, while "Lucas Horton" has 685,000 results; this would suggest that "Roberts" is still the common-name of the character. That being said, "Roberts" under a Book search produces 472 results, while "Horton" results in only 104. livelikemusic talk! 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to challenge the consensus of rejecting this change because the form of it is considered inappropriate, but I want to underline that the intention of this proposal was made as an act of goodwill as a solution to an unsatisfactory situation which I hoped would satisfy both sides, as well as being (what I believed) a good name for the article. It was made in good faith and with the best of intentions.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one here ever thought otherwise, thanks for opening this discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 14:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood and understandable. Others have proposed similar solutions in similar situations. But we shouldn't pay attention to "sides" in deciding titles... only WP:CRITERIA. --В²C ☎ 17:01, 28 February 2017 (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.

Lucas Horton then ...[edit]

As my compromise suggestion of Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts) has been rejected as improper, then I re-iterate that there is no consensus for Lucas Roberts, and the facts favor Lucas Horton.

livelikemusic - the results that "Lucas Roberts" and "Lucas Horton" get without "Days of Our Lives" are irrelevant. Any relevant article will also include "Days of Our Lives".

For all the web today on google:

"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives" : 11,900

"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives" : 8,620

For books today:

"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives" : 95

"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives" : 98

It's important to realize, that many sources which actually name the character as "Lucas Horton" will also include the former name, so one should expect an *irrelevant* over-reporting of "Lucas Roberts". I have stated above the many reason why I think Lucas Horton now has the priority, and I think the value of matching with Will Horton and Allie Horton, which does not seem to have been considered before, should now be considered an important factor. Therefore I vote most definitely for Lucas Horton, with a lead like Lucas Horton (first known as Lucas Roberts) is a fictional character ...

Whatever is decided, the status quo of Lucas Roberts with a lead of Lucas Horton ... and an infobox name of Lucas Horton is not okay.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the tide is against alternative names in the opening sentence, the article could begin Lucas Horton is a fictional character..., and in a following sentence something like Introduced in 1993 as Lucas Roberts ... I think that would work well. I'm all for lean and user-friendly openings! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, the number of hits we get with "Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives" over-estimates the relevant uses of the original name, because some of these occurrences will be in mentions that name the character as Lucas Horton, but also include mention of the original name. This is why the "usage" evidence really does firmly point in favor of "Lucas Horton". And to be honest, I don't even think the usage evidence is even necessary to the discussion. The character's name was changed nine years ago to Lucas Horton. How many years will be enough? 10? 12? 15? In a 2017 encyclopedia it should be listed as Lucas Horton in my view. I also think very strongly that Lucas Roberts should be mentioned prominently and early on in the introduction, as it was the role-name for the first fourteen years.
For books on google today:
"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives" -"Lucas Horton" : 77 (this indicates the mentions of the character solely as Lucas Roberts).
For all:
"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives" -"Lucas Horton" : 6530
Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion/advice[edit]

As someone who knows nothing about the show let alone the character, I suggest adding a section to the article that clearly explains the story about the two names. The origin of each name, when and why the switch was made, what "he" uses now, whether he's dropped the original name entirely or it still gets used, etc. That said, let's also remember that the whole point of WP:COMMONNAME is to put articles at titles most likely to be sought. If the character is using X today and hasn't used Y in years, then searches today are much more likely to be for X than Y, regardless of what the Google hits show. --В²C ☎ 19:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection expired[edit]

Ferret's move protection recently expired. Per above, if this article is moved to "Lucas Horton" again without WP:Consensus, it will be moved back to "Lucas Roberts," and I will seek to get it move-protected again. As far as I'm concerned, it should be indefinitely move-protected because of the undiscussed moving of the article and repeated moving of it against consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 May 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus Page moved - on the basis of a review request, I've realized that the support side had slightly better arguments to support the move. The oppose was primary based on view counts and IMDB usage. These arguments are not helpful in move requests. The move was supported by good policy based arguments. (non-admin closure) - Yashovardhan (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)(updated:Yashovardhan (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Lucas Roberts → Lucas Horton – The character name has been Lucas Horton for NINE YEARS now! Lucas Horton is the show's name for the character, and is what is used on the show's own website. Lucas Horton is also now the more prevalent name on the web. From google today:

"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives" web results: 19,600
"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives" book results: 232
"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives" web results: 10,800
"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives" book results: 211

The difference is even more markedly in favor of Horton when you leave out sources which have both names.

"Lucas Horton" -"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives" web results: 16,000
"Lucas Horton" -"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives" book results: 216
"Lucas Roberts" -"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives" web results: 7160
"Lucas Roberts" -"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives" book results: 188

There is no contest - Lucas Horton wins!

It's also total nonsense to have him at Lucas Roberts whilst his children are at Will Horton and Allie Horton. In the show, Lucas changed his and his son's name to Horton AT THE SAME TIME - this was in January 2008 I believe October 2007[1][2] - and Will's article (originally at Will Roberts) was moved to Will Horton back in 2010. Lucas's article should be moved too, so that they are in accordance. And Allie Horton has always been Allie Horton because Horton *is* her father's name! Also, the character was always conceived as a Horton, with the story of him finding out the identity of his real father kicking off on the character's entrance to the show. The indefensibility of the current position of Lucas Roberts is demonstrated by the article being called Lucas Roberts, but opening Lucas Horton ... and the Infobox name also being Lucas Horton. This also demonstrates that there is no consensus for Roberts, despite one person's (hah!) insistence that there is! But that's immaterial. The evidence above says Horton Horton Horton. Case closed! (Of course Lucas Roberts will always be very important to this subject, as it is the original role-name, and this is why it shall continue to have prominence in the article. But today, this encyclopedia article belongs at Lucas Horton, with Lucas Roberts as the redirect) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. I reserve the right to change my mind if someone presents compelling evidence to the contrary. --В²C ☎ 00:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see how Aliveness Cascade is using the WP:GOOGLEHITS test, but when I look at "Lucas Roberts Days of our Lives" on regular Google, I get 976,000 results. When I look at "Lucas Roberts Days of our Lives" on Google Books, I get 6,990 results. When I look at "Lucas Horton Days of our Lives" on regular Google, I get "534,000 results" and this is mixed in with name combinations like "Lucas (Roberts) Horton" (see here) or "Lucas Roberts Horton" (see here). This inflates the "Lucas Horton" count. When I look at "Lucas Horton Days of our Lives" on Google Books, I get 5,610 results. So, from what I'm seeing, "Lucas Horton" does not win. I'll go ahead and alert WP:SOAPS to this discussion. The bot already alerted that project. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The results I've listed are genuine and checkable. They are searches on the strings exactly as I've printed. Anyone can easily copy them into google and check them. It is necessary to put the character name in quotes "Lucas Horton" and the show name in other quotes "Days of Our Lives". Searches on any of these words separately (which is what you get from google if you don't tie the forename and surname together with quote marks, and the show name together with quote marks) is totally irrelevant to this debate - because they will include all results where they don't occur together - and there are many Lucas's, Roberts, and Hortons, in this world (not to mention "days" and "lives") which have nothing to do with Days of Our Lives. Don't be misled by the fact that google puts hits where they occur together at the top of its results - if you don't bind them together with quote marks, the number of results includes all the hits where they aren't together - and they are irrelevant.
"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives"
"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives"
Aliveness Cascade (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because many hits which use the name "Lucas Horton" will naturally also include mention of the previous name, it is Roberts whose significance is going to over-estimated by the number of hits. Hence the importance of getting the results of the occurrence of one name without the other, which you can do with the minus sign.
"Lucas Horton" -"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives"
"Lucas Roberts" -"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives"
(And if you don't even use quotes you will get Roberts hits from Kate Roberts being co-mentioned, which will also inflate the results).Aliveness Cascade (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not necessary to put the character name in quotes. I also see that you are looking at the matter via Google UK, which might also be affecting your search results. Either way, the fact that we've come back with two different sets of results is why WP:GOOGLEHITS cautions against relying heavily on Google hits. That stated, I'm not as opposed to the move as I was years ago when the name "Lucas Horton" was still fresh. If the article is moved to "Lucas Horton" via this appropriate move request, I won't care much. I don't even watch the show. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 2012, I see that Fuhghettaboutit, like you, used quote marks for both the name and show when doing Google searches. I'm not sure that using the quote marks are that important. But I do know that they resulted in less results for some topics I've Googled. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quote marks are vital for getting useful stats for the reasons I have already laid out. They mean "search for that exact phrase" (as explained on google's advanced search page). Hits which do not contain these exact phrases are irrelevant. Ugh, I can't change my location, but these are "all countries" results. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as for Aliveness Cascade's claim about the lead and infobox, that is because registered editors and IPs, mainly IPs, keep changing it/edit warring over it. The lead even currently states "commonly Lucas Horton." And as for Aliveness Cascade's claim about WP:Consensus, the previous WP:Consensus has been repeatedly against moving this article to "Lucas Horton"; this is shown above on the talk page. So it's not just one person's insistence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's face it. Who is likely to be searching for this character? People watching the show today, right? What name are they most likely to use? The name the character has today? Or the name the character had 10 years ago? --В²C ☎ 05:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that sources still list and call the character "Lucas Roberts" or "Lucas (Roberts) Horton" or "Lucas Roberts Horton," it's clear that many people still remember and/or refer to the character as "Lucas Roberts." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And many know the character as Lucas Horton. I tried getting both in the article name (see the last move request), but there can only be one! There can only be one, and the argument for keeping it at Roberts no longer holds, because, as time has passed the more common name has become Horton. The stats say Horton! And it *is* the actual name of the character on today's Days of Our Lives - has been for nine, almost ten, years! I just don't get why the current name is not decisive in itself. It's not like it's a female character who is going to get married and change her name again. But no matter. The stats say Horton. All that said, my personal impetus for pressing for Horton is that I think both Will Horton and this article should be in accordance. It makes no sense to have one one and the other the other, especially as Lucas changed both his and Will's name at the same time.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I see IMDB is currently using Lucas Roberts[5]. Hmm. --В²C ☎ 16:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB chops and changes how it credits the character in episode pages. It is remarkably inconsistent.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB has Will at "Will Roberts" too! And they've got "Lucas Roberts" as one of Will's alternate names! LOL![6]Aliveness Cascade (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, IMDb is user-updated, unreliable, and not fact-checked, it should never be used as a source or proof of anything.— TAnthonyTalk 18:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASTONISH also bears on this. The show and its publicity has been using Lucas Horton for 9 years! The characters' children are Horton, taking their names from him! This makes a clear choice to fulfill WP:ASTONISH and have maximum clarity: have the article at Lucas Horton (duh!) and begin it Lucas Horton (originally Lucas Roberts)...- which communicates *exactly* what the situation is from the get go. WP:ASTONISH fulfilled! And more to the point, the *reader* informed and armed with actual info of the actual situation - and whether they have come to the article from either entering Roberts or Horton they will be equally informed and enlightened! In contrast the current situation of title Lucas Roberts, and then beginning Lucas Horton (commonly Lucas Roberts) ... and infobox title of Lucas Horton does nothing to help and enlighten the reader - on the contrary it's a baffling fudge that serves no one. Later in the lead (possibly in the second sentence) the situation can be filled out with something like introduced in 1993 as Lucas Roberts ... and then something equally brief about the change to Horton. Job done! And sensibly done! This is the sensible way to go, and blimey, I am quite amazed about how much I have to type to champion the common sense solution! :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason ever given when people revert moves of this article to Lucas Horton is that it is not the most common name. But it is! Lucas Horton *is* the most common name, and assertions to the contrary spring from people either not understanding how to use google to get the relevant statistics, and/or not appreciating that the stats now favor Horton.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that the stats show that "Lucas Horton" is now the common name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move Neutral. It hasn't been long enough since the last RM for me to change my mind. This should be rejected on procedural grounds - if at first you don't succeed, wait a few more months before trying again.  ONR  (talk)  17:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's neither factual or rational. It has been a few months (Feb->May) and the last proposed move to was a different place - and the general reasons for rejection (non-standard form) are not relevant to this proposal. Can anyone opposing this bring any rational argument? This is *your* reason for rejection "last time": "There's no need for parenthetical disambiguation, because there is no other notable Lucas Horton. The article can be located at Lucas Horton without issue." See the utter absurdity of your statement just now? Not only is your reason for rejection (which you are "not changing your mind from"), irrelevant to the current proposed move - I'm arguing for it now to be *put* at Lucas Horton! - which you said last time it can be put at "without issue". LOL! So, you have actually just argued for "support". It would seem you haven't actually considered or read the proposal, but you decided you'd throw in a vote anyway! Bravo! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Neutral.  ONR  (talk)  23:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Old Naval Rooftops means is that repeated move requests with only a few weeks or few months between them can be considered disruptive. See what WP:Forum shopping states, for example; such frequent requests are like that. That stated, I think that your move request and the timing of it is reasonable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Books of this century use "Roberts", not "Horton". Notice that Blasting News uses Roberts and Horton. WP:NAMECHANGES says a "common name" should be used, even when the character changes his name. In this case, "Roberts" is used more than "Horton". --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC); struck Digest. 19:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That 21st century option on google is extremely dodgy. If I search on books without date limits I get the figures I already reported at the top of the section - figures which give Horton as most common. If I apply the 21st century limit loads of 21st century books are removed from the results. Something is awry there with google and it is clearly faulty and the time limit cannot be used to produce honest stats. In addition, if I apply any time limit at all, google stops reporting the number of hits for me - which begs the question as to why are you using time limits if they don't return number of hits? The searches I laid out above remain the most reliable indicators - and they return Lucas Horton as the most common. No one is saying that Lucas Roberts isn't still used and is not important. It is used and it is important. But Lucas Horton *is* now the most common name. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change to neutral. Well, Google is... I don't know. However, even the search results don't highlight the character's name. Rather it includes secondary fictional books, like novels, unrelated to Days. Oh... I see Alison Sweeney wrote a novel. Anyway, right now, I'm torn between Roberts and Horton. Lucas had used "Roberts" as often, but then he accepted "Horton". Still, we can't use just primary sources to just verify the commonality of either name. After seeing more discussions since the 2012 RM, I guess I'll let the consensus decide then. --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Despite the Google results, Lucas Horton feels like the common name to me based on the factors Aliveness Cascade has pointed out, including its use for the last nine years or so. George Ho, your SOD example above is a reprint of a 1993 article, and I think recent web articles most likely start with Wikipedia as a basic source, so we're sort of creating the Google hits ourselves. Also ONR, in the last discussion you rejected the suggested unusual disambiguation (as did I) but you actually suggested Lucas Horton as the destination. Not sure if that was a mistake or you've since changed your mind.— TAnthonyTalk 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TA.
Changed my Oppose to Neutral.  ONR  (talk)  23:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish folks would pay more attention to the argument I have put above regarding WP:ASTONISH, namely the best and quickest way to inform and educate the reader about situation regarding the character names - doing so in the most straightforward and least confusing fashion possible - is to call the article Lucas Horton and have it begin Lucas Horton (originally Lucas Roberts) is a fictional character ... and then introduced in 1993 as Lucas Roberts .... he changed his surname in 2007 to Horton .... OR SOME SUCH. The result is that the reader is instantly informed from the get go. How, how, how is this not the most attractive option???!!!! It is plain common sense!
Our emphasis and priority should be on informing the reader in the best and most straightforward fashion. The common name argument is largely academic - as the article will be equally found as easily whether the article is at Lucas Horton and the redirect at Lucas Roberts or the other way round. (The stats do now favor Horton though, as laid out clearly by me at the beginning of the section). Nevertheless the real issue is what is the clearest presentation for the reader - and the answer is as I have just described - with the location at Lucas Horton, the current name.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What arguments? The single argument that you have made up-page is based on totally invalid search data - searches without quote marks! As I have already explained, the only searches that have any relevance are ones that have "Lucas Horton" in quotes and/or "Lucas Roberts" in quotes, together with "Days of Our Lives" in quotes. Roberts is an extremely common surname. If you plug it into google in a "find any results with this word in it search" (which is what a search without quotes is) google is of course going to come back with masses of results. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to vote against without even addressing the arguments, evidence, and logic made in the submission (and its defense) smacks to me of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's more "echoing the sentiments of Flyer22 Reborn!" is classic WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Per others Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts is a *much* more common surname than Horton. Google finds 467 million articles with an occurrence of "Roberts", and just 60 million articles with an occurrence of "Horton". That makes the Roberts surname almost eight times as common as Horton! This is why we must use quote marks to get our stats. We must search on "Lucas Horton" and "Lucas Roberts" and "Days of Our Lives" in quotes (i.e. an exact phrase search, to only find articles with those exact phrases). Searches without quote marks are absolutely invalid and have no bearing at all on this debate.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out how much the google stats have changed since February (see up page) when this was last discussed. They have shifted markedly in favor of Horton. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References:
"Lucas legally changed his last name from Roberts to Horton in fall of 2007 to distance himself from his mother, Kate."[1]
"Changed his last name from Roberts to Horton October 29 2007"[2]
http://www.nbc.com/days-of-our-lives/credits/character/lucas-horton
Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ a b "Lucas Horton". SoapCentral. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
  2. ^ a b "Lucas (Roberts) Horton". SheKnows, LLC. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
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.

Invalidity of non-phrase searches in determining the notability of names with more than one word.[edit]

What a waste of my time it has been to put in a careful and extensive argument for moving this to Lucas Horton, when opposers insist on using non-phrase searches to determine the notability of phrases, and the closer seems to think non-phrase searches have value too! It's ridiculous!

Here is what wp policy currently says on the matter: From WP:SET#Notability:

Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.
Additionally, search engines do not disambiguate, and tend to match partial searches. (However, as described below, you can eliminate partial matches by quoting the phrase to be matched): While Madonna of the Rocks is certainly an encyclopedic and notable entry, it's not a pop culture icon. However, due to Madonna matching as a partial match, as well as other Madonna references not related to the painting, the results of a Google or Bing search result count will be disproportionate as compared to any equally notable Renaissance painting. To exclude partial matches when Googling for the phrase, quote the phrase to be matched as follows: "Madonna of the Rocks".

For goodness sake "Roberts" surname is almost eight times as common as "Horton" so of course non-phrase searches are going to produce masses of results for "Roberts"

This is a ridiculous bad decision, which has done nothing but waste people's time.
@Yashovardhan Dhanania:@Born2Cycle:
Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review request. I've realized that the consensus was indeed to support the move. While you could've been a little more gentle in this request, i don't take offense to your words as I understand you were clearly frustrated by my bad close. I've updated the closing statement above. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the move request. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, Yashovardhan was correct to close the RfC as no consensus. Aliveness Cascade, who is going on one interpretation of the search results, simply really wanted this article to use the name "Horton." The close should have been taken to WP:Close review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that Yashovardhan Dhanania is a very new editor. Sorry, but I'd rather have an experienced editor making this close. I'll be listing this as a close review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I provided multiple cogent arguments for why this article is best located at Lucas Horton. For Flyer22 Reborn to say I "simply really wanted this article to use the name Horton" appears to intentionally denigrate that (and seeing as this was not my original choice of location, it is a bit out-there as an accusation, LOL!). Why not actually address the arguments *and* actually explain your position Flyer22, that non-phrase searches are a valid indicator of the notability of a phrase, *and* explain why exact-phrase searches are not. And actually provide a real argument why you think "Lucas Horton" is not WP:COMMONNAME today when exact phrase searches on "Lucas Roberts", "Lucas Horton", and "Days of Our Lives" say that it is! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted the article moved to "Lucas Horton." And you wanted it badly. This talk page shows that. I don't buy your search arguments; I see no need to state more. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem not to grasp that it is evidence and reason that counts. You dismiss it so lightly! And when the nominator here puts forward good arguments, you denigrate it as "wanting it badly", and dismiss them out of hand. Your editing here is disruptive and not in the spirit of wikipedia. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm letting Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 May#Lucas Horton handle this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, WP:SET#Notability is not a policy; stop treating it like one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SET example of exact-phrase searching, and its relevance to Lucas Horton[edit]

Google all-countries results today for:
"Madonna of the Rocks": 214,000
"Virgin of the Rocks": 3060,000
Hence article is at Virgin of the Rocks, redirect at Madonna of the Rocks

The fact that non-phrase searches bring up more for unquoted Madonna of the Rocks is irrelevant:
Madonna of the Rocks: 7360,000
Virgin of the Rocks: 5920,000
... because non-phrase searches report hits if Madonna and Rocks are not together in the phrase "Madonna of the Rocks", and, after all, Madonna rocks!
This is the very article given as an example in WP:SET#Notability, which is given as guideline of use for search engine searches to measure notability.

Hence, with today's all-countries, all-times, all-results from google:
"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives": 10,700
"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives": 20,200
gives Lucas Horton as the predominant name. Hence the evidence from google is that Lucas Horton is the correct location for this article.

If you're in a different location to me your results will likely differ a bit (due to google mirror sites not being in-sync) and the results change with time too - but they're going to be in the same ball-park.

If you don't use quotes you are pulling up articles with the words scattered about and unconnected with each other. Don't be confused by the fact that google will bring up results where they are together first, the hits score will report all articles whether they are together or not - which is why such searches cannot be used to measure notability of article names comprising more than one word. Non-phrase searches will skew towards Roberts, because in the real world Roberts is a much more prevalent name than Horton, plus on the show there is another character - Kate Roberts - who is likely to be co-mentioned in Days of Our Lives articles with Lucas (she's his mother), plus his old surname could be mentioned. Which way they skew it does not really matter - the fact is non-phrase searches will skew, because they measure the world-wide frequency of unconnected words, and so they cannot be used to measure the notability of phrases.

It's very simple really. If you want to measure the notability of a phrase (ie. a multiple-word name) with a search engine, an exact-phrase search is essential to do so. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casting: propose major cutback of section[edit]

The casting section seems way over-large to me. There's been only one actor playing Lucas, but the casting section is bigger than the casting sections for characters who have had multiple actors! Lucas's casting section is almost twice as big as Will's - and seven actors have played Will! Bottom line is the article is about the character Lucas Horton and *not* about Bryan Datillo, let alone the ins and outs of his career. I don't like removing well-sourced content, nevertheless this section is inappropriately large and detailed, and more-to-the-point, not pertinent to the article. What's more - how about we give Bryan, who's a great guy - a break, and not have a big quote box right up front talking about a not-so-great moment in his career?

As it would be considered major change to cut this section down, I'm raising the matter here prior to edit. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucas_Horton&oldid=1208609600"