Talk:Meg Johnson

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

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meg Johnson (poet). 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 2021[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: pages moved. Arguments to not move pages aren’t convincing. (non-admin closure) Muhibm0307 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Consistently higher page views deeming the poet to be the primary topic. – DarkGlow • 21:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment DarkGlow, please add a link to the nom showing the relevant page view stats supporting your claim so others can just click to confirm instead of starting from scratch. —В²C ☎ 15:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, clear primary topic per page views I link here for your convenience. At age 84 the apparently retired actress is highly unlikely to grow in relative likelihood of being sought by users. —В²C ☎ 16:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that she is not apparently retired at all. Andrewa (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. With 98% of the pageviews, this is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (Just be sure to update the actress's 50 or so incoming wikilinks before moving the poet.) Station1 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support 2nd if anything the poet is primary but I'm fine with a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, Support second move Meg Johnson (disambiguation) inward, swapping articles around unlike to help readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your ideas about how to “help readers” are contrary to community consensus as expressed in title policy. Just because you think it helps readers doesn’t make it so. —В²C ☎ 18:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, Support second per In ictu oculi. No primary topic here. The (only semi-retired) actress has appeared in one of the most popular British soap operas for eighteen years. Long-term significance cannot possibly therefore be said to favour the poet, who has only been known for seven years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Long-term significance has nothing to do with who happened to be born first (see Anne Hathaway). Seven years is a long term, and the poet has been consistently far more significant than the actress from the very beginning of that term, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Station1 (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How are you assessing this significance? None of the poet's listed awards seem to have articles, for example. I'm a fan of poetry and not of soap operas (although my own poetry and my one published soapie script have been favourably received, just not nearly enough to get them or me anywhere near passing the notability guidelines), but even so I don't follow your logic here. Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear and cut case of an overwhelming primary topic per the page views. WP:RECENTISM ("only seven years" said above is hardly just "only") cannot be used because her poems started appearing since 2012 in the magazines (and if we stretch it to the books, 2014). The "swapping articles" argument above doesn't make any sense at all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The actress is not retired as stated but expected to resume the role of Pearl Ladderbanks as soon as COVID19 restrictions allow. The poet on the other hand has received only obscure awards and published obscure books. A classic example of the problem with page views. Andrewa (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2021 (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:Meg_Johnson&oldid=1207844294"