Talk:David Jack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of birth David Jack[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on David Jack. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on David Jack. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First transfer wasn't a world record[edit]

  • "In late 1920 he returned to the town of his birth, signing for Bolton Wanderers for a then world record fee of £3,500 (£129,000 in 2018)." [1]
  • The transfer took place on December 27th 1920. Two weeks prior, David Mercer moved from Hull City to Sheffield United for £4,500. [2]
  • The first link doesn't explicitly state what sort of record it refers to - probably just a Bolton Wanderers F.C. record. This causes multiple problems with this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.200.21 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 July 2020[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 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. Decent arguments made on both sides about what determines a primary topic, but ultimately there was no consensus on whether it's pageviews (which favour the footballer) or long-term significance (which some claim favours the pharmacologist and is probably less easy to quantify). Number 57 18:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– No indication that the 1920s footballer left such an oversized footprint upon the game that his historical notability dwarfs the combined historical prominence of the remaining five men named David Jack who are listed upon the David Jack (disambiguation) page. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous close, overturned at move review

The result of the move request was: Moved - Just because there is a winner in page views does not mean that the winner is the primary topic. If we were forced to pick a primary topic, the footballer would probably win, but we're not forced to make such a decision; so my view of the dicsussion below is that the long-term significance arguments from the supporters of the move are strong enough to overcome the usage based arguments from the opposers in this case. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 22:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 10:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, no PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 10:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The footballer article is the clear primarytopic by usage, with 76% of pageviews. No indication that the other David Jack articles have enough long-term significance to dislodge this article from primary. Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No clear primary topic. Not overwhelmingly better known than the others, two of whom were so prominent that they were knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear primary topic per Dohn joe and longer span too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Opinions are interesting, but stats tell a different story. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long-term significance is also a factor, not just viewing figures. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there doesn't appear to be a standout, long-term significance-wise. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Precisely. There's no primary topic. So I'm not sure why you argued above that the footballer was! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Click on the links provided. The footballer has long-term significance and is not dawrfed there by any of the others', and eclipses the others on usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A classic case of the the problem with page views... it shows what people found but not necessarily what they were looking for. We have a six-way DAB including two knights of the realm and an award-winning musician currently on the road, and yet some old hands still think a footballer who died fifty years ago is much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term and/or has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Really? I can't see either of those applying here. It just confirms how badly busted Primary Topic is. Andrewa (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see it as confirming how well Primary Topic works. You wouldn't have looked for any of them, so it's not what first (doesn't) come to your mind, but what arrangement best serves the readership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is surely making none of them the primary topic! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely not, per the multiple stats linked above showing the readership served by landing at the page sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. I have reopened this following the move review. As I said there, I strongly recommend an admin experienced in RM work to close this, with a detailed rationale, to avoid further uncertainty. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Page view stats indicate a clear primary topic, and that the current setup is most beneficial to reader navigation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support David Jack was one of the leading pharmacologists of the 20th century and the head of research of the 3rd biggest pharma company in the world. He is famous for developing ventolin, the most widely used treatment for asthma. He also discovered ranitidine, which quickly became the world's biggest-selling prescription drug. Therefore, he is at least as long-term significant as the footballer, probably more. Google Books does not suggest that the footballer is the primary topic either. Neodop (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A mere average of 40/veiws per day is not consistent with having long-term significance to be WP:PTOPIC. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY does not mandate blindly elevating the one with the least paltry traffic.—Bagumba (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should propose whatever minimum views you think are mandatory for having a primary topic at WT:D. I do not believe there is any such minimum. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too daunting when current WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY reads: "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors ..."—Bagumba (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. So a "mere" average of 40 views/day is consistent with having long-term significance to be WP:PTOPIC, if you're going to try in this discussion to measure significance with page views, since 40 views/day is far more significant than all the others combined (that is, you've effectively boiled it down to the usage argument by using usage to measure significance). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, low page views—even if it's the highest among a group of lows—does not show "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". The raw view count is too low to make the ratio significant. Keep the PT open for when someone else more substantial comes along. Feel free to change the guideline. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The ratio accounts for the low value of one vs. the even lower value of all the others combined. That's how ratios work, and it's exactly as significant as any other ratio. When in the future someone else more substantial comes along, then in the future the articles can be rearranged again. No need to change the guideline, just apply it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. During the period when the article was at David Jack (footballer), the athlete got more than 76% of the page views.[3] The dab page got more page views than any other topic, suggesting that a number of readers looking for the soccer player were being misdirected. To my mind it looks like there's also a good argument for long-term significance based on his prominence in the game in his day and the fact that he's still the top "David Jack" in readers' minds 65 years after retiring.--Cúchullain t/c 15:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear PT here per Dohn joe, Shhhnotsoloud, JHunterJ, Yaksar, and Cuchullain. Support has no argument here. I mean, nothing based on policy anyway. The use in question needs to “dwarf” the others in terms of historical significance to be the PT? That’s a new hurdle. “Not overwhelmingly better”? That’s a new one too. And Andrewa’s “problem with page views” argument was annihilated by JHunterJ. In short, the page view numbers make a clear case here that anyone searching with “David Jack” is more likely looking for the footballer than all of the other uses combined. Sending all of them to a god forsaken dab page would not be an improvement. —В²C ☎ 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (no primary topic). Page views are raw statistics, and Wikipedia is not a search engine. The pharmacologist outshines the footballer for long term significance, but more important is that people interested in David Jack footballer and David Jack pharmacologist are two very different sets of people. Page view data are massively prone to systematic biases, such as which group is more prone to fiddle on their mobile device for unimportant information, and do it repeatedly. A "no primary topic" decision carries the huge advantage that anyone looking for any David Jack can tell immediately what they are getting (except for the DAB page itself, which would be solved by repudiating DABNAME and having David Jack as a redirect to David Jack (disambiguation)). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: I look forward to the change in primary topic criteria to prioritise the needs of erudite enquirers over those of feckless football fans (joke!). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • “No primary topic” prioritises no one. The parenthetical disambiguation only helps. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. SJ, like the nom and other supporters, provides only non-policy reasons in support of their position. —-В²C ☎ 08:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • B2C obsessive with his weird theories, has no genuine interest in the encyclopedia, and has no concept of the reader experience. He misconstrues Wikipedia as a search engine, and is obsessed with making it work like his idea of how a search engine should work. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now you’re referring to the policies on which the opposers here base their arguments as my “weird theories”??? The fact that you resort to such a ridiculous strawman as me misconstruing WP for a search engine is telling. Of course WP itself is not a search engine, but what you don’t seem to realize and appreciate is that the effectiveness of the internal search function on WP depends on how our titles are arranged, and recognizing and putting primary topics at their respective base names is key to improving WP internal search effectiveness. In fact, that’s why we bother with primary topics. We don’t put Paris at the Paris basename because it’s more important or even because it’s better-known than the other uses which make “Paris” ambiguous; we put it there because we know from page view statistics most people searching with “Paris” are looking for that article. That doesn’t affect the majority coming there from external searches; they’d get there directly regardless of how we titled the article. We do it for the minority getting their via our internal search engine. Why send all of them to the Paris dab page when we know the majority (in particular the majority of the minority using internal search) is looking for the article on the city in France? No reason to do that, and the exact same logic applies here. Page view stats show most people searching with “David Jack” are seeking the footballer. So we put the article about the footballer at David Jack. That’s not a weird theory. That’s the point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —-В²C ☎ 16:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If David Jack (footballer) is such a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, why are there only six votes in favor of his primacy, while seven votes argue in favor of no primacy? Surely, Paris would be a unanimous primary topic. The discussion at Talk:John Nutt#Requested move 5 August 2020 closed yesterday as "No consensus. No clear consensus whether the pirate is the Primary Topic or not", with eight votes in favor of the pirate's primacy and seven (one of those weak) on support of no primacy. Is "no consensus" the best we should expect of a primary topic?
Only a troll would waste everyone's time by nominating Paris for "no primary", but if David Jack or John Nutt were not already grandfathered as primary topics and were nominated for primary, would they succeed or would they end as "no consensus"? Since it appears to be "no consensus" then they not only lack a Paris-style mandate to remain as primary, but can barely even manage to break even. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting case[edit]

Raised at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#David Jack. Comments there welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 15 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Jack&oldid=1207667839"