Talk:Scott Brown
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Scott Brown Article Added to Text[edit]
Amusing? Yes. Appropriate? Probably not. When is it going to get cleared up? --Muchado (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Scott Brown, the politician[edit]
Should Scott P. Brown (the Massachusetts state senator and U.S. Senate candidate) be a little higher than 2nd to last on the list seeing as how more people will be looking for his article during his campaign? (No, I'm not a part of campaign, I'm not even within a 38 hour drive of him.) I'm sure his low ranking is most likely not Wikipedia bias, but since his article will receive more traffic for a short period of time I'd suggest moving him closer to the top until the end of the election and then moving him down again later. What do y'all think? Invmog (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be in alphabetical order at the moment, and so I probably wouldn't bother moving it, especially as there aren't too many on the dab. However, I've never heard of him - if you're convinced that people would find it difficult to find him on the dab and would move it back later, I wouldn't object. Boleyn (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now that he's been elected senator, I've moved this page to be disambiguation, and the politician to "Scott Brown".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this change. I think it gives undue weight to recent news; the Scottish footballer is at least as prominent as the politician IMO. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- He will be a senator for at least 35 months. Scotland didn't even make the World Cup. I don't think there is a question here. If you want to, you can join the discussion at Talk:Scott Brown.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's inconsistent with Gordon Smith, for example. I realise it's no use opposing this now, while the politician is the centre of attention, but I will monitor the situation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- He will be a senator for at least 35 months. Scotland didn't even make the World Cup. I don't think there is a question here. If you want to, you can join the discussion at Talk:Scott Brown.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this change. I think it gives undue weight to recent news; the Scottish footballer is at least as prominent as the politician IMO. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Jmorrison. This man could even drop dead tomorrow and never become senator. There are a lot of Scott Browns, so the decision that he was far more prominent than all the rest, when this is an international encyclopedia, should have been open to discussion. Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- If the situation changes, I'll be happy to revert. Yesterday, the politician article was viewed 23,500 times. The footballer, 1,800 and I suspect that was mostly either in error or people wanting to look at other Scott Browns because of the senator elect, because on a normal day this month, the Scottish footballer was averaging under 200. If you look at the stats server, every Scott Brown has been showing a dramatic increase in views over the last four days, but the politician has gone from a few hundred to over twenty thousand (we won't know about today until the Greenwich day closes, and remember he didn't win until after midnight). I think right now, and for the foreseeable future, this Scott Brown will be viewed by many more readers than any other, and putting him as the main article is serving the user well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- There was a relatively big (speculative) news story in Scotland about the footballer today. He has not been playing for the last three months due to injury, which may explain a lower level of traffic than normal. For example, there were 1900 views and then 700 views in successive days in September 2009, due to him scoring a goal in a World Cup qualifier. I think we will need to see what sort of activity level the politician is at once this initial bubble of excitement settles down, there are a number of ways it could go for him (WP:CRYSTAL). For example, the senator I was referring to above has been viewed less than 500 times this year. There are two Scottish footballers, both of whom have retired (one has been dead for >5 years), who currently have similar activity levels. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- If the situation changes, I'll be happy to revert. Yesterday, the politician article was viewed 23,500 times. The footballer, 1,800 and I suspect that was mostly either in error or people wanting to look at other Scott Browns because of the senator elect, because on a normal day this month, the Scottish footballer was averaging under 200. If you look at the stats server, every Scott Brown has been showing a dramatic increase in views over the last four days, but the politician has gone from a few hundred to over twenty thousand (we won't know about today until the Greenwich day closes, and remember he didn't win until after midnight). I think right now, and for the foreseeable future, this Scott Brown will be viewed by many more readers than any other, and putting him as the main article is serving the user well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress[edit]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Scott Brown which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress[edit]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Steven Cook which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)