Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who)

Disambiguation
I would have recommended starting a discussion before you requested the page moved to gain consensus, but here we are, so I'll start it. These are the pageview numbers for this year (Last year for comparison). As you can see, Bill Potts the musician has extremely minimal page views, and as given by the pageview numbers for this year, those numbers only started going up because of the character for Doctor Who. That indiciates that this particular topic, the character, will clearly be the primary topic for "Bill Potts", hence the reason behind why I moved the draft from the draftspace directly to Bill Potts (after moving the musician page away from this location). I see no reason to keep it there. A disambiguation page is not required for two articles where one is clearly the primary topic, and the second is a page that has received a maximum of twenty view in a day. If you are not opposed to this, I plan to move the page back for these very reasons, else I may suggest that we open an RfC or a Requested Move for further opinions. --  Alex TW 01:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical of the argument that the primary topic should be determined by the number of pageviews. While this has a nice user-friendly ring to it, it requires updating and maintenance that's very cumbersome. If the primary topic changes, an enormous amount of shuffling has to take place, especially in terms of re-disambiguating everything, work that was not done prior to this pagemove; the old page was booted and this one substituted in its place, without a hatnote even being added to indicate that there was anything else in the world called Bill Potts. (I have taken the liberty of disambigging everything myself.) The character, as I understand it, hasn't even appeared on television yet, though I grant that the mere hint of something so ubiquitous as Doctor Who will instantly dwarf the popularity of any jazz musician outside of maybe Kenny G. So this is, at minimum, premature. I'm of the opinion that, in general, disambig pages are preferable to primary-topic determinations, though I understand that the Wiki community at large probably does not share this belief (as with so many other things). If there is a community consensus to move, I will of course abide by it, so you're welcome to punt it up the chain if it's important to you. Chubbles (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It should not be determined primarily by the number of pageviews, sure, but it is the most obvious determinant to determine the level of popularity of the article - the musician's article gained twenty a day maximum, while this will be receiving thousands for the next several years. Especially the fact that, yes, with Doctor Who being as large and important as it is, this article will be the primary topic for those many years to come, nullifying the requirement for any of the maintenance that you previously mentioned, meaning that this article should be located at the title of the primary topic, with the singular far-less popular topic located where it previously was, as the only article with disambiguation in the title. It is not necessary for both articles to require disambiguation. If it is really necessary, then while this article lives at the title of the primary topic, then a hatnote could be added to this article, but that's all that would be needed. A discussion and consensus should have been started and gained to move it first, before moving it, as you mentioned that that is your personal view (I'm of the opinion) which appears to be in contrast to everyone else (though I understand that the Wiki community at large probably does not share this belief). The consensus that seems to run mostly community-wide is what should be executed first, and then consensus's gained to modify or run against this. --  Alex TW 03:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I acted rashly in requesting a move and disambig page for a television character that has yet to debut; even granting that this apparently changes tomorrow, the need for the change, so soon, escapes me. I spoke as I did because I don't actually know what Wikipedia's consensus would be on a topic such as this; I don't do a ton of disambiguating, so the likely community decision here isn't obvious to me. (Nice job turning my humility against me, though; never show your weaknesses, my daddy always told me...) Requested Moves sounds like the appropriate venue to move the discussion if you wish to pursue it. Chubbles (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The character's premiere episode is broadcasting in about fourteen hours; whether or not she has appeared or not is barely a point here, given that it will be nullified so soon. And personally, I don't believe that whether she's appeared or not really has any relevance to the title and necessity of a disambiguator in the article's title; this is based on the statistics of the two articles themselves, and not the topic of the articles. I do plan to pursue it, however, I believe that another path should be taken to determine the result of this. I would recommend that the article be moved back to where it was originally (I am easily able to do this, having the page mover flag), adding the hatnote to the musician's article to this article if necessary, and then a Requested Move or Request for Comments should be started here to gain a consensus to see if the disambiguation is indeed required in the title of this article. And then we go from there. --  Alex TW 03:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you've been active since I last commented here. Any further opposition to moving the page back to its original title, and then opening an RM if necessary? --  Alex TW 06:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well...yes. It's not at all clear to me that the presumption is that this article should be at Bill Potts; my comments here are to indicate that I would like community consensus on that point. Perhaps I should have started with a formal RM request, rather than requesting a technical move; Doctor Who fanhood is famously fervent, and I suppose I should have expected pushback. But as you said...here we are - essentially, where we were before this article existed, which is a perfect place to start the conversation with people who are regulars at RM. Chubbles (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as you yourself mentioned, community consensus seems to be that disambiguation isn't always necessary. And I know all about the Doctor Who fandom being fervent; I'm forever trying to get editors on related articles to apply to the rules and guidelines given by WP:TV, which they all seem to think doesn't apply to this one particular series. Anyways, I digress. If you want to open an RM, by all means, go for it. I just believe that it should live at its original title until another consensus states otherwise. --  Alex TW 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I request that you seek the consensus of the community before doing any more unilateral moving of pages. Chubbles (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that not what you should have done before you filed request for a technical move...? --  Alex TW 02:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believed I was solving a problem, not creating one. I believe the problem is still, at this juncture, solved. Since it's now clear to both parties that any moving would be contentious (which was not clear to either of us from the start), I ask that you seek consensus at WP:RM to do any further moving. I would be a bad-faith move for you to revert me and then go to RM, after the fact, to vindicate your unilateral decision. Chubbles (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, to summarize... You yourself initially claim that the community consensus is that not every article needs disambiguation (I'm of the opinion that, in general, disambig pages are preferable to primary-topic determinations, though I understand that the Wiki community at large probably does not share this belief)... And in the same discussion, you then claim that I need to gain a consensus that supports this very proposition, that you stated, against a move that you had no consensus to execute based on your own opinion. You definitely created a problem; it was fine where it was originally. --  Alex TW 03:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I claim that I don't know what the Wikipedia consensus is, but because I am so used to the site making backwards decisions about content, I assumed that it probably contravened me. You're overemphasizing the importance of what was ultimately a jaded, sarcastic aside. Even if the consensus is that not all pages need disambiguating, I am asking you to get consensus as to whether it is not needed in this particular case, which is not in any way transparently clear. To be honest, this is WP:BRD in action; you were bold, I reverted (or tempered the boldness), we have discussed...now is the time the community ought to weigh in, if you wish to pursue further changes. Chubbles (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If WP:BRD applies at all, it is most definitely to you. I simply moved the article from the draft space, after working on it myself, to the mainspace, which is far from a bold edit. Your bold edit was to move it to a location with disambiguation, which was nothing of a revert at all; if I wanted to apply BRD, it would be up to me to revert, and then a discussion unfolds as to what the consensus is. But I don't want to cause any unnecessary tension, hence why I haven't reverted your bold move. If you want the community's view, again, by all means, go for it. --  Alex TW 03:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The BRD cycle here starts with you. You acted, I responded. I think the arrangement of pages is fine as is; the onus is on you to seek consensus at RM if you want it changed. (My technical-move request was only done because there was material at this article's current title which prevented the pagemove; otherwise I'd have made the move myself. Involving RM from the start only looks like a good idea in hindsight, because it would have obviated the need for the discussion here. Again, please don't misunderstand what I meant to be a wry aside.) Please do seek that consensus before changing it; to do otherwise would, I believe, contravene WP:AGF and WP:EDITWAR. My reading of WP:DISAMBIG is that the long-term significance of both topics is not such that a primary topic is obvious here. The pages are where they should be, and I hope the community agrees with me on that; I think it very well might. If I am wrong, it is a simple matter for you to ask them to look it over. I'm going to bed, and I shall resume this conversation in the morning if you'd like to talk further. Chubbles (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I most definitely believe that you are misreading BRD, as it does not apply as you believe it does. The secondary move was the bold edit, not the revert. To revert is to undo another's actions; this is not what happened. When you say "acted", all I did was move the article from draft to article space. The onus was and should have been on you to gain consensus for your move, but you did not, so here we are. If I really wanted to move it back, I could easily do so, having the page-mover flag which would allow me to move it back over any redirects/disambiguation pages. But I haven't, so assuming that I would and that it would contravene good faith and edit-warring is borderline rude. But it is you who needs to gain a consensus to support your move, as that it was is under dispute here. The primary topic is clearly obvious here; there is only two options, the musician (which gained less than twenty views a day since its creation), or the character (the only reason why the name of this article has become popular), hence the primary topic here is clearly obvious. If you want the community's involvement and opinions, that's up to you to get it, to support your move. However, if you do not within a reasonable amount of time, then I will assume that you did not want their involvement, will note that you have no support for your contested move, and will be forced to move it back. Not in bad faith or to edit war, but against your lack of any consensus. --  Alex TW 03:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that you clearly have the upper hand here is disingenuous. I contested it; I still contest it. A topic which was introduced to the public yesterday may have more hits today, but that does not make it the clear long-term primary topic. You assert that consensus is in your favor; I assert that there is no consensus right now, which, I'd say, militates in favor of Bill Potts remaining a disambiguation page (I have, at no point, argued that the musician ought to be restored as the primary topic). You do not have consensus to declare the primary topic unilaterally; you gain that by asking someone other than the two of us, disinterested parties. You will find them at WP:RM. Again, a unilateral use of your PageMover privileges to move the article back to the primary topic, coming after this extended discussion, would constitute a bad-faith abuse of those privileges. Please note that all I am asking you to do is ask other people for a wider consensus in a venue specifically set up for it before acting. If you're confident they will find in your favor (as I imagine you would be if you are so thoroughly convinced of the obviousness of Doctor Who's primacy), you should have no trouble doing that asking. If they agree with you, the matter will be swiftly settled; I will of course abide by their judgment. Process is important. Chubbles (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Nobody disagreed with the page title until you decided to move it without discussion or consensus. And you are still the only one. Many Doctor Who articles remain popular articles even after their time has passed, so it is clear as to which article is going to be the primary topic. The musician never was the primary topic. You executed the bold move of moving the article; therefore, it's up to you to request alternate opinions, and if I decided to, it'd be up to me to revert given WP:BRD, given that I made no such bold move. You continue to make accusations such as "bad faith" and "abuse", which is bad faith in itself given that I have done nothing but contribute to this unrequired discussion. Given that you performed the move, it is up to you to required alternate opinions from the community, and it is up to you to support you consensus for the requirement of a disambiguation page between an obviously popular topic and an almost dead article. --  Alex TW 06:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know you disagree. There is a controversy about where the articles should be moved. That is what WP:RM is for. It makes no sense for me to go there, because the articles are where I think they should be (and they got there before it was clear there would be an extended debate). It would be silly for me to propose a requested move and then argue against it. But if you unilaterally move the article, you will be performing a controversial move, after that extended debate. You need WP:RM's blessing to do the move now, regardless of your pagemover privileges. (As for abuse...I'm looking at the "Criteria for Revocation" at WP:PAGEMOVER, and this conversation kinda feels like you're heading in that direction, dangling your special rights over my head and pointing out how you could use them but aren't.) Look, I'm sorry if you think that's unfair, but I am really not asking much of you - I just want you to get the community to back you up on this pagemove, if indeed they think it is merited. I hope they do not, and I will argue against it, but perhaps they will quickly find in your favor and we can both wash our hands of this. Or, you could just let the matter drop; it's your call. Chubbles (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's all I want you to do as well, given that you are the editor who introduced the disputed content and as the original mover of the article without any prior consensus or discussion, so that is up to you to do. (And I read WP:PAGEMOVER; it seems that this discussion has no relevance to the section that you mentioned, or relevance to what you believe my actions are.) --  Alex TW 09:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are asking me to do is acquiesce to your pagemove and then ask them to move it back. That is not a sensible thing for you to do or to request of me, as I have already argued at length. I made a reasonable, administrator-facilitated move before there was any indication there would be discussion or controversy; now that there is, WP:RM is where you go to continue that discussion. The more I think about this, the more I'm surprised it has resulted in as long a discussion as it has, and the more I realize I had a better case than I thought I had when I first replied to you. You do not have a moral nor a policy high ground here, and the lack of consensus is a reason to reach out and ask other people, not browbeat me into yielding to you. It seems you have three options here: (1) drop the issue, (2) take it to RM, or (3) (ab)use your pagemover privileges to move the page unilaterally, at which time I will take it to RM. At this point, you'll have to decide for yourself whether (2) or (3) increases your bargaining power with the community when it comes to their final decision. Chubbles (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You submitting a move request should not be affected by your position on the name of the article. For example, here at Talk:X-Men (film series), you can see an editor submit a move request, and then directly after submitting it themselves, add their opposition to it. You can't use "administrator-facilitated" to support your move, given that it appeared to be a non-controversial move to the administrator, but you still had no consensus or prior discussion beforehand. There should have been a discussion before the move, to make sure that there wasn't any controversy against it; however, it was clearly obvious that there would be, given that the page had just been moved to a specific title when being moved into the mainspace earlier that day. Your "higher-than-thou" attitude is not appealing whatsoever to this discussion, with your personal self-based claims of "I had a better case than I thought I had" and "You do not have a moral nor a policy high ground here"; and you wonder why this discussion came to be. You had the lack of consensus to move the article, and did so boldly, so me moving the article back would not be abuse, but the revert stage of WP:BRD, completely acceptable within the parameters of this discussion. However, I get the feeling that as soon as I did so, you would scream abuse and run to some sort of administrator or request some formal action against me for my own acceptable actions. --  Alex TW 00:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't point out the administrator facilitation to support the move; I point out that someone else had to look at the page and do the move. I didn't act alone, and I didn't misrepresent anything. There was existing material at the (Doctor Who) site, and a technical move was needed to make a disambig page, which, I maintain, was, and is, the reasonable thing to put there. The only reason to think it might have been controversial is that Doctor Who fans are very fervent, something that occurred to me only in hindsight, as I noted above (and which has been borne out in spades here). The fact that your initial action was sloppy (no piping, no hatnote) only contributed to my sense that it just needed a simple straightening out. Can we both agree that we were reasonable people who now see that we both disagree, and that we need the views of others to make a final decision? If I get off my high horse, will you get off yours? Chubbles (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You did act alone, without discussion or consensus, directly after the article was previously moved to the mainspace. But all to their own opinions. Given that you admit that it was your personal belief that a disambiguation page was/is required, and this edit has now been contested and is under dispute, that means it restoring to how it was previously would be the good faith edit to do here. I'm not arguing my case because I'm a "fervent" fan, as you so smoothly put it, but because I believe in my case and don't believe that the article needs disambiguation. If the initial edit was indeed "sloppy", again so smoothly put, you don't override an editor's contributions, but you help contribute to them and fix them. No piping or hatnote? Add piping and/or a hatnote. Easy done. I do notice that you decided to drop the idea of taking it to Requested Moves once I provided an example of another editor starting an RM that they actually opposed, thereby removing any opposition for you to do so. I assume that you no longer plan to go down that road anymore? As I've said: If you want the views of other to support your now-disputed initial move, then you are naturally more than welcome to do so, by all means. --  Alex TW 05:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was actually trying to figure out the genesis of that move you pointed me to; it looks like it was part of a rather interminable series of debates over the proper title. I'm having trouble following the process of how that move request even came to be necessary. I have long been suspicious of your reasons for not simply going to RM yourself rather than insisting (over and over and over again) that the burden falls on me to do so, but I was going to drop mention of that per AGF. Here, you offer me no such courtesy...sigh. Back to the high horses, then. We disagree as to whether your initial move was legitimate or justified; we disagree as to whether my move request was legitimate; we disagree as to who was bold and who reverted. It seems that we even disagree as to whether you moving the page back now would constitute an abuse of a power uniquely granted to you (as in, I am unable to do the move you are insisting you have the moral justification to make, even after this discussion has made clear that disinterested opinions are needed here). Should we get a WP:3O as to who should end the Mexican standoff and go to RM to file the complaint? How WP:LAME are we willing to get here? Chubbles (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Frankly, I'm so sick of this discussion that, regardless of whether the example you pointed out to me is a good one, a common occurrence, or expected at RM, I'm going to be an adult and file notice that there is controversy here. PS...have you considered a career in law? My sense is that you'd find the profession quite stimulating. Chubbles (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3O could have been a valid suggestion, but hey! We got there! And actually, I'm going for a career as a teacher, but thanks for thinking about my future and I! --  Alex TW 06:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2017

 * 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: Consensus is not to move &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Bill Potts (Doctor Who) → Bill Potts – A discussion has been underway for some time (seen above) about the proper location of this article.

There are two noteworthy phenomena called "Bill Potts": a jazz musician and a character from the new season of Doctor Who. Two arguments have been advanced as to how to arrange these phenomena. One is that this article, Bill Potts (Doctor Who), should be considered the primary topic, since the prior Bill Potts article (Bill Potts (musician) was located at Bill Potts until 4/14/17) received minimal pageviews until this month, when search requests for the page skyrocketed (the character debuted on television on 4/15/17). This can be seen at. Doctor Who is also a much more popular cultural phenomenon than 1950s-era jazz, so there is a certain amount of user-friendliness in not having to click through from a disambiguation page for Doctor Who searchers.

The other argument is that there is, as yet, no clear primary topic, and that a disambiguation page at Bill Potts should lead to both articles. (No one has argued that Bill Potts (musician) is the primary topic.) The case for the disambig page is that the Doctor Who character only debuted two days ago and is not the clear long-term primary topic; no doubt interest in Doctor Who will continue to be high, but the persistent importance of this character in the universe (and outside of it) is not yet established, and the musician was not an insignificant figure (he has articles on the French and German wikis, has entries in all major jazz encyclopedias, and released a fairly important Blue Note session in 1959).

I start this RM to obtain community consensus, not because I support the move; in fact, I oppose it, and consider the disambiguation page, with no primary topic, a better solution. (I am the initial author of the page Bill Potts (musician) and am the architect of the current disambig page at Bill Potts.) Chubbles (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong support My reasons have been explained at length in the previous discussion, but for a TL;DR summary... A disambiguation page is not required for only two articles, which consist of 1) a clearly dead-in-the-water article and 2) an extremely popular article. The above editor claimed that a reason behind their initial WP:BOLD move of the article from the primary topic to a disambiguated title (that was done without prior discussion or consensus, after the article had only recently been moved to the mainspace) was due to a hatnote not being included. The latter of the previously mentioned articles should reside as the primary topic, and a hatnote included to the musician's article. No other editor had seemed to have an issue with the move from the draftspace to the mainspace after the move had occurred. How long an article has existed for, and where it exists on other websites, is not necessarily the only determination of the article's popularity. --  Alex TW 07:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This caricatures both my actions and my reasons, but I'm not interested in dragging anyone else through the mud. Interested parties may view the discussion above. Chubbles (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cheers. --  Alex TW 07:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Agree with Alex, this article had about 6,800 more views by readers two days ago (4/16/2017), so disambiguation page is uneeded, just a link at the top of this article to the musician's article, moving this article to Bill Potts. T ed  E dwards  09:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with simply inserting the template at the top of this article to get


 * rather than making a pointless diambiguation page? Readers are 100s times more likely to want to visit this article rather than the relatively unknown musician's article which has had considerably fewer views recently compared to this article, as shown by . T ed  E dwards  13:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing is wrong about that, necessarily, but I think it's premature to say that Doctor Who's Potts is the clear primary topic based solely on a two-day pageview bump. (I mean, there's nothing wrong with a disambig page, either.) If the Who character remains a mainstay of critical discussion and is on the show for a long time, that's a different matter. But the article didn't exist until four days ago, and the character hadn't even been introduced on the show until three days ago. We'd expect a temporary flurry of activity in the wake of her debut, but primary topic determination is not based on a daily popularity contest. Chubbles (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it may be premature, but it's very easy to extrapolate from previous examples and gather an obvious pattern:
 * Sarah Jane Smith, companion from 1973 to 1983, and 2006 to 2010; still averaging 533 pageviews per day.
 * Rose Tyler, companion from 2005 to 2008; still averaging 557 pageviews per day.
 * Amy Pond, companion from 2010 to 2013; still averaging 608 pageviews per day.
 * This sort of trend shows that these sorts of articles do remain popular far past their time, time obviously having very little affect on the articles, and indicate a strong relationship to be the primary topic. This particular article is absolutely no different. --  Alex TW 17:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Those characters were on the show for years. Potts has been in one episode. Preemptively assuming she will be the primary topic doesn't establish that she is the primary topic now. WP:CRYSTAL. This can always be revisited later, when time has made things clearer. Chubbles (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A few one-season'ers, then.
 * Martha Jones, companion in 2007; still averaging 323 pageviews per day.
 * Donna Noble, companion in 2008; still averaging 322 pageviews per day.
 * Wilfred Mott, companion in only two episodes; still averaging 113 pageviews per day.
 * Seems that the pattern is a bit on-going here. First point, I would note that none of these articles require disambiguation in the title. The only companions of the new era that do have "(Doctor Who)" added to their titles are Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who) (disambiguation at Adam Mitchell), and River Song (Doctor Who) (disambiguation at River Song); both of those disambiguation articles have 7 and 9 links respectively. Not a mere two. Mickey Smith is also not disambiguated, and includes a hatnote at the top of the article to Mickey Smith (artist); an almost identical situation to the one we find ourselves in now.
 * Next point, how does this violate the WP:CRYSTAL guideline? I've read through the point, and I'm not linking it to this. For future reference, when you quote something to back up your argument, I would recommend quoting what you're specific line or paragraph you are talking about, not linking to an entire section. --  Alex TW 02:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just found out, Astrid Peth also, who appeared in just one episode 10 years ago almost, has had 118 pageviews per day. I think we can safely say the Doctor Who character is the primary topic, rather than the musician, who didn't have a who has an average of just 5 daily pageviews for 18 months. T ed  E dwards  10:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you've found that people who appeared in only one or two episodes get an average of 100-150 pageviews a day. That's proportionally more than the musician gets (I was never arguing that he would be getting more hits), but it's far from establishing it as primary. Again, pageviews are only one measure, and not determinative. Her relative importance within the series has yet to be solidly established (a season or two on the show would militate much more strongly in your favor there); her relative importance outside the series also has yet to be established (aside from some initial commentary buzz, she's not yet made definitive inroads in criticism, commentary, or public memory). These things may come in time, but they're not there yet, is my point. (thus, CRYSTAL.) Furthermore, the fact that the musician gets few pageviews does not definitively establish him as relatively unimportant; as I noted, he is regularly covered in bio-bibliographies of jazz, and there's plenty of other notice of his life and his passing out there in the literature and in newspaper coverage. (ex: Washington Citypaper longform article, New York Times obit, Washington Post obit, JazzTimes obit). Chubbles (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But why should that matter. It's evident that not many people are interested in the musician, but are interested in the character. And I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here, no encylopedic knowledge is going to be added. T ed  E dwards  20:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean now - the CRYSTAL guideline does speak rather narrowly about addition of content. I meant to gesture toward the general Wikipedia principle that decisions aren't based on projections of future noteworthiness (which CRYSTAL flows from). DW Potts is noteworthy by one measure of noteworthiness: pageviews in the last week. Jazz Potts is noteworthy by another: long-term attention in reliable sources. No definitive primary topic arises from this circumstance. Chubbles (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

But if a user typed in Bill Potts into the Wikipedia search engine, which page do you think they were way more likely to be looking for? That's why the disambiguation page is pointless, as a simple note can be inserted at the top of this article, so in the rare case someone was looking for the musician's article, they could still find the relevant article, but it's easier to access the more popular page. T ed E dwards  21:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed this question rather exhaustively already, so I'll leave the issue for other commentators. Chubbles (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Fine as it is. With very few exceptions (e.g. Harry Potter), fictional characters should never take precedence over real people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a guideline or policy for this? It seems like a very personal-based opinion, which should not affect articles on Wikipedia in the face of opposing and more pressing evidence (for want of a better word) given. Cheers. --  Alex TW 16:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing official, but a longstanding principal in RM discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I was not aware of this. I would, however, be interested in reading up on some examples. --  Alex TW 16:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just thought I'd give one example of the contrary - Ken Barlow (Coronation Street) was moved to Ken Barlow in 2010 following a page-move discussion, despite Ken Barlow (basketball) being a real person. So I'm not aware of any longstanding principles that fictional characters should never take precedence over real people (and I edit mostly fiction-related articles). Fictional characters can be and often are the primary topic. anemone  projectors  10:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also note that concerning the above example of the contrary, it mirrors two other identical situations to this article (i.e. companions of this particular television series, who are the primary topic over a real-world person): Mickey Smith and Mickey Smith (artist), and Jack Harkness and Jack Harkness (footballer). --  Alex TW 10:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ken Barlow is something of a Harry Potter situation; he was a character for over 50 years. The others were not, so far as I can tell, ever subject to requested moves. Chubbles (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the point still stands that the two Doctor Who characters' articles mentioned by Alex seem to not need a "(Doctor Who)" in their title as they are the primary topic, like the Doctor Who character Bill Potts is. T ed  E dwards  19:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there aren't requested moves for those pages active, I don't know what the community at large would decide in such cases, and I am not particularly interested in starting more move proposals to find out; this one has been fatiguing enough. There are lots of pages that are primary topics that probably shouldn't be, just because of the force of inertia. (Fixing this is probably not an intensely pressing problem, after all.) Artist Mickey Smith doesn't even look notable; the Harkness one might be a candidate for a move, if anyone were so inclined. Chubbles (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Artist Mickey Smith doesn't even look notable Just as Musician Bill Potts barely looks notable. Perhaps more comments are required for this RM? It's been open for four days now, and it's probably clear as to what the consensus is becoming. --  Alex TW 01:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to nominate Potts for deletion if you doubt his notability. Chubbles (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: We have to ask whether recognition of this subject as the primary topic is a short term thing, i.e., when her tenure as the Doctor's companion ends. I'd say the current situation is probably the most appropriate. This is Paul (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why so strong? Besides, this case has already been covered and examples provided that this will not be the case. --  Alex TW 02:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So strong, because there is a world that exists outside the Doctor Who universe and its viewers where people don't watch the series, and would not associate the name Bill Potts with the series. The example of Ken Barlow is somewhat different, since Ken Barlow has been in Coronation Street for almost 60 years, and even if you don't watch that series (as I don't) you're likely to know who he is. In other words he's a household name. I don't think the same would be true of Bill Potts (at least not at present), or Mickey Smith for that matter (since it's been some years since he last appeared).
 * An example to consider here would be Grant Mitchell, which remains a disambiguation page, despite the Grant Mitchell of EastEnders fame having quite a high profile, perhaps almost the same recognition status as Ken Barlow. This is Paul (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, for starters, I can definitely tell you that I've never heard of Ken Barlow, and I think it's a bit strong of you to speak on behalf of everyone as to who they do and do not, or should and should not know of. Exactly the same applies to the characters of Doctor Who; some know them, some do not. However, neither of those topics are under scrutiny here - Bill Potts is what we should be focusing on. It is clear through the examples given that she will be remaining the popular topic for years to come, and who is or is not part of the viewership outside of this site is irrelevant, given that if they don't know of the character, it's extremely unlikely that they will be visiting the page, so their knowledge (or lack thereof) has zero relevance to this article. As for your recent contributions to the disambiguation page, I am aware that Bill can be a nickname for William; however, unless the two additions were commonly known as Bill rather than William, then they should not be included, regardless of whether they are under a "See also" section or not. The page is for Bill Potts, not William Potts. Concerning Grant Mitchell, there are four explicit examples of profiles with that particular name, so confusion can be possible and the actual requirement for disambiguation is clear. However, this particular case has two: a clearly primary topic characters, and a mostly unknown article of a passed musician. --  Alex TW 13:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Alex, no offence intended, but isn't it a bit strong of you to speak on behalf of which musicians people do and do not know? My point is that Bill Potts has appeared in two episodes of Doctor Who (one when this discussion was opened), so I'm not convinced she's met the criteria to become a primary topic just yet. That may change, of course, and a few months from now I'd give this my support, but to my mind the discussion is far too premature. We need to satisfy questions like how much media coverage the character has received outside material relating to the series (i.e., Doctor Who Magazine, and various fandom). What if she decides to leave after one series (as others have previously). Does that still make her more notable than the jazz musician? My point about Ken Barlow was that the character has been referenced elsewhere, an example being the actor who played him was involved in a lengthy libel case some years ago that received much coverage, so it was likely that if you didn't watch Coronation Street you'd still be aware of the name Ken Barlow. Hope that explains what I'm driving at. As for "given that if they don't know of the character, it's extremely unlikely that they will be visiting the page, so their knowledge (or lack thereof) has zero relevance to this article", that argument could be applied to any subject, and shouldn't be the benchmark on which we base our decision. This is Paul (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if may be a bit strong. But the evidence is clear when you view the pageviews as linked above (somewhere); the page is barely alive - an average of just 5 daily pageviews for 18 months is really saying something. Yes, I am aware of the very few episode that the character has appeared in, but given the overwhelming number of previous examples given before (including characters who have indeed left after a singular series, as you mentioned), both concerning pageviews and the lack of need for disambiguation for article of identical situations, it's clear that we can extrapolate to this article. It may not be the benchmark of this discussion, but realistically, nothing is - pageviews aren't, popularity isn't, who has knowledge of the character and/or article isn't, fictional or real isn't, what they've appeared in isn't. None of these are benchmarks. They do, however, combine with each other to give a clearer picture of each article. I do get what you're driving at. I just personally don't believe that it really relates here. Cheers. --  Alex TW 14:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Er...I was being ironic when I said it was a bit strong, since you appeared to take offence at my previous post. None was meant by the way. I'm glad you get the point I was making though. This is Paul (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also note that after I brought it up, you never did address the topic of adding the two William Potts' to the disambiguation article. --  Alex TW 00:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like the editor was following MOS:DABSEEALSO #3, "Different forms of Title". I see no reason why this move should be blocked. Chubbles (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I reiterate: unless the two additions were commonly known as Bill rather than William, then they should not be included, regardless of whether they are under a "See also" section or not. The page is for Bill Potts, not William Potts - they are different. --  Alex TW 01:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Chubbles, for confirming what I initially thought was the right thing to do. MOS:DABSEEALSO is fine as far as I can see, and, Alex, I'm sure you'll find lots of instances of Bills and Williams being included together on DAB pages if you take a look. Whether you're happy with this situation is not for this discussion. In fact, I can't help thinking this is probably not the place to address the issue of what goes on the dab page, since it can only serve to distract from the discussion, which is whether or not this page is a primary topic, and that's why I didn't address it yesterday. This is Paul (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Alex, this is an inappropriate argument. The reason I didn't address the topic here is because the correct place to do so is here. I see you have a recent history of edit warring, and suspect your decision to challenge my oppose here has much to do with the fact I reverted you on that page. I hate to say this, but you really need to get over yourself. This is Paul (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you want to discuss my behaviour here, but not the topic at hand. It seems you have your own personal set of rules on what to discuss. And if you believe that I am reverting you simply based on your opinion, it's really you who needs to get over yourself. The quicker you do, the nicer you might find your experience here on Wikipedia. Cheers. --  Alex TW 01:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat? Because it sounds like one to me, albeit a veiled one. Your response only serves to support my last piece of advice. If your behaviour is not in the spirit of Wikipedia then yes, we do need to discuss it. Very urgently. Now, I suggest you take a step back from this discussion and stop trying to WP:BLUDGEON everyone who disagrees with you (as your two responses that follow this particular section of the thread seem to demonstrate quite well). You have an opinion. So do I. So do we all. Whether or not this page is moved doesn't rest solely on who shouts the loudest, which appears to be your modus operandi at present. This is Paul (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again. Not the place to talk about this. Editor's behaviour belongs on their talk page, even as exceptionally incorrect as your analysis is. Try to keep on topic, as you attempted to force me to do. Cheers. --  Alex TW 11:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note to any interested readers (and closing admin) - there is now a second discussion at Talk:Bill Potts about the relevance of including persons named William Potts on the disambiguation page. Chubbles (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I think it's clear from the evidence others shave given about previous companions that the main topic here is the Doctor Who companion, not the musician. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:11BF:1DE3:899D:BEF8 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note that this is this editors first, and so far only, contribution. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that you look up dynamic IPs, and realize that you're probably wrong. --  Alex TW 03:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, I've had a lot of abuse for being an IP, and have held off making this observation before - but this thread i nthe lawst straw. Too many users assume that all IPs are trouble makers, and think that their opinions don't count.  While i have had several disagreements with the way wiki does things (cause quite frankly, it is stupid sometimes) I have NEVER tried to cause trouble, just help out.  I don't create an account, cause I don't use it as often ass others - but I don't see why I should need to.  Admins, please can you remind ALL users of WP:AGF, WP:HUMAN and probably several other guidelines on this matter. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:8D3C:FA9D:F407:4086 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a complicated question. Pageviews matter, and reader convenience matters. On the other hand, we are not entirely TV Guide and don't want to be. We are not set up to maximize clicks and eyeballs. That is not our business model. We do not, for instance, bring up pageview statistics at WP:AFD ("Delete, nobody's interested in some 14th century Turkish poet, as proven by pageviews"). We have an encyclopedic mission also, to bring light to world.


 * So in that matter, we have an actual living person who moved through history, recorded with Lester Young and many others, and had a part to play in the unfolding of our cultural environment (that is Bill Potts (musician). On the other hand, we have a just-now-made-up TV character (that is Bill Potts (Doctor Who). I get that the slack-jawed masses are excited to get the lowdown on this latest incarnation appearing before their befuddled eyes on the telly. But is this going to last? Signs are unsure... let's keep the dab page. Herostratus (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All of this has already been discussed in previous discussions. Every topic. And "slack-jawed" and "befuddled"? Continue to make personal attacks against readers and editors, and see how far it gets you. --  Alex TW 03:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has two prongs, this character meets the first, but I do not think meets the second. It is for editors to decide when these two are in conflict which standard should apply. Out of fear of recentism, I think the correct answer to the current conundrum is to keep both pages disambiguated. The original move without discussion makes this RM difficult to close in lines with WP:RMCI, because a no consensus close could be interpreted as this page being the primary topic without a clear consensus to do so. This would be inappropriate and because of that I am clearly opposing the move. It is simply too soon to determine if this article can be the long-term primary topic, and when you are debating between a fictional character and a real person, long-term is the part that should be considered more than page views. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This is probably one of the toughest applications of guidelines I have encountered (and all over a disambiguation page). WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests that two areas are usually discussed usage and long-term significance - usage seems fairly in agreement by everyone - and the musician also seems to be fairly agreed is not the primary. So the long term significance for the new companion is in question - I will agree it is not immediately clear from the guidelines at this stage appears to rely on consensus to make the decision. So my reason for support on this was by reasoning through a different example, if a "Bill Potts" was elected President, even if they were previously completely unknown, by virtue of being a President (no matter how recent) would have "substantially greater enduring notability" and become the primary topic over the musician. In a similar line of reasoning, I believe that in general "Doctor Who companions" would have "substantially greater enduring notability" than the musician in this particular case. Just to be clear, I am not saying that "Doctor Who companions" have the same "enduring notability" as Presidents - but that "Doctor Who companions" do have more than this musician. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Multiple Bill Pottses, and the fictional character is the least significant.  Page views reflect current popularism, and are not a good way to decide on titles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The argument of "multiple Bill Potts" is barely valid when there was only two before you created the lawyer article most recently, and the most common argument against the most is the recentism of this particular article, which therefore also applies to the new lawyer article. You create the article, then say "the fictional character is the least significant". I do not believe that this is how this works in the faintest. --  Alex TW 06:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do. And I believe that it is important to counter the systematic bias of popular culture and commercial products (the character) overshadowing important legal, cultural and political affairs, such as the Queensland Law Society engaging in matters of public importance, led by then president, Bill Potts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on the latter sentence as well; it has already been covered in this discussion that the difference between fictional and real-world personnel is negligible. There is more information available on the character than the lawyer already, regardless of your personal view on what bias may or may not exist. --  Alex TW 06:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.

Requested move 7 August 2018

 * 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 that the Doctor Who character is the primary topic for "Bill Potts", and thus no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Although it is possible for a fictional character to be a primary topic for a search term, there is no consensus in this discussion that the Doctor Who character fulfills the long-term significance criterion of Primary topic. Dekimasu よ! 02:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Bill Potts (Doctor Who) → Bill Potts – In the above discussion from just over a year ago, the main arguement was WP:CRYSTAL, saying that the article about the Doctor Who character could not meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as editors felt that there wasn't evidence that this article had substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term, as the argued no one could tell what the readership in the future would be. The other articles on someone called Bill Potts are about a musician and a lawyer. However a year on, the Doctor Who article has had 292 average views a day from 1 February to 6 August 2018, compared to the musician and the lawyer which had and average of 3 and 2 views a day respectively, according to, , and. So I think this shows that this article is the primary topic, as it shows readers are most likely looking for this article rather than the other two. While this discussion may seem like whipping the dead horse, I do not believe it has, as the facts have changed. T ed E dwards  00:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. TV show fictional characters should never be allowed "primarytopic" status over real people.  TV fictional characters naturally attract a lot of fan ghits, which makes ghit/pageview stats particularly unsuitable for this sort of case.  The PrimaryTopic test is really based on what readers expect, and people looking for information on the lawyer or musician should be astonished to find the base title takes them straight to a TV character.  As for readers looking for the TV character, they are never hindered, and are helped, by the title's parenthetical "Doctor Who".  What possible advantage to who do you think there is from hiding "Doctor Who" from prospective readers, hiding from the url, hiding it from hovertext assistance?  This ambition for topic fans to fight for a "primary topic" status for their topic is entirely misdirected from a reader perspective.  There is no Primary Topic, the DAB page for the ambiguous "Bill Potts" serves all best.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would simply like to note this appears to be entirely your opinion than referencing any established policy on the matter. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Systemic_bias for example, in particular this section or its converse. Also WP:RS and the fact that ghits and pageviews are not suitable for anything, at best they give interesting clues.  Wikipedia tries to be a scholarly resource.  In the context of scholarly topics, TV characters rarely feature prominantly, and when they do they have sources stemming from sociology.  The main resource page for this topic is at http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Bill_Potts  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for improving your argument with supporting references. I will still point out Systemic_bias is an essay and not a policy or guideline. I feel that the guideline WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY is all that needs to be considered here - where pageviews are encouraged to support the argument but not be the only determining factor. However I note that there is nothing that states anything about fictional vs non-fictional being a determining factor at all. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read a lot of essays, they are mostly very very helpful in understanding things, but there are a lot of them and I don't keep citation notes for them. Most opinions, even majority opinion, should be documented in essays.  I think systematic bias is well accepted as something to be aware of, and usually to be avoided.  There are of course so many systematic biases that it is endlessly debatable.  A strong one is that Wikipedia does not cater just for the experts of the level of the references, but for all readers, at least all literate readers.  I am suggesting a bias towards topics of popular fiction, which I am sure is real, but not as serious as reader education level.
 * WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY is fine. Note the very careful non-definitive language.  Long-term significance.  The character was very popular, but just for one year.  More importantly in my opinion, are there any sources outside of 2017, post departure, describing the character's impact outside the Dr Who series?
 * Fictional vs non-fictional? It would be better couched as "scholarly versus non-scholarly".  Historical fiction can be very scholarly. Ulysses and Hamlet are both well known in scholarship outside of the appreciation of the works these characters feature in.  Even they do not "win primary topic status", a competition that I disagree has any merit.  I don't read anything in the current article suggesting significance outside the TV show or its popularity.  I don't think the the character of Bill Potts has any significance at all beyond the audience of Dr Who.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Still "Oppose". Although User:Dohn_joe below found sources demonstrating real world interest in the character, and the decision to create it, thus establish "some" significance outside the TV series, it remains a very niche interest, removal of "Doctor Who" will decrease recognisability, and people wanting the lawyer, musician or football will be WP:Astonished to find themselves on a character page.  These astonished readers will need a hatnote to get out of there, and this hatnote is a much worse blot on the article header than the obviously relevant parenthetical.  The current hatnote is unneeded and should be cut.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. A topic is a topic, whether it's fiction or nonfiction, whether it's tv or the "theatah". This topic wins the pageview/usage criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by a landslide. It does so the long-term notability as well. If you're swayed by the "scholarliness" of a topic, see these: "What Doctor Who companion Bill Potts teaches viewers about foster care : the new character has the potential to shine a light on a group of children that people might not otherwise consider", The Guardian, 2017. "Doctor Who and the politics of casting", Journal of Popular Television, June 2018. "“Captain of the Innuendo Squad”: Captain Jack Harkness' Sexuality, Addressing Homosocial Bonding, and Plot Use of Queer Characters in Doctor Who", The Apollonian, Sept. 2017. So, popular and significant - a textbook primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dohn joe, I'm swaying.
 * https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/61557/ Leanne Matty (2017)
 * https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/intellect/jptv/2018/00000006/00000002/art00008 Lorna Jowett (2018)
 * http://theapollonian.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/The-Apollonian-4.3.pdf#page=105 Sarah Beth Gilbert (2017)
 * It would be awesome to get these, sourced commentary on real-world impact, into the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree! I had the same thought, and hope to work them, and a couple others, into the text. Dohn joe (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator and Dohn joe; the stats are fairly compelling. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  17:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Current page views from a period of time where the show is relatively current aren't an indicator of long-term significance. In this case, I can't see this topic being nearly as popular in 10 years, so looking to the future, I see WP:NOPRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean relatively current? There hasn't been a single episode since over a month before 1 February, when the data I gave started from, and Pearl Mackie has also left the show. Most of the Doctor Who interest is on the 13th Doctor and the upcoming eleventh series, not Bill Potts. And if you look in the above discussion provide several Doctor Who characters who left the show years ago who are still receiving relatively high page views. So IMO the topic is still the most significant, espcially considering this page is recieving almost 100x more views a day that the article about the musician.  T ed  E dwards  23:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose no primary topic meeting both criteria. Page views are only half the guideline for a reason. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. With only a tiny handful of incredibly famous exceptions (like Harry Potter!), no fictional character should ever take precedence over real people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * According to what/whom? T ed  E dwards  13:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * According to common sense and previous practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What previous practice? T ed  E dwards  14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been argued in a number of previous RM discussions and consensus in those has generally been that fictional characters very rarely take precedence over real people. This one, appearing in one series of one series, is just not notable enough to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp - I don't know that that's true. There's no separate consensus for treatment of fictional character articles that I know of. And it's massively unhelpful in a case like this, where |Bill_Potts_(musician)|Bill_Potts_(lawyer) 98% of our readers (more than 12,000 in the past month alone(!)) have indicated they want this topic over the other two barely notable topics. When the dab page gets |Bill_Potts_(lawyer)|Bill_Potts more views than the other two articles - combined - then we have evidence that the current setup is actively impeding our readership. I could perhaps be persuaded in borderline cases that more weight could be given to real-world subjects, but not here, where we are clearly making life more difficult for our readers (and editors, too). I've also shown scholarly treatment of the character from multiple sources to address the significance aspect of primarytopic. Any chance you might reconsider here? Dohn joe (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely none. The consensus certainly exists and this character is far too minor for an exception to be made. This is Wikipedia, not Whopedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Per cited links and no policy, guideline or even essay stating that fictional characters cannot be the primary topic. This version of Bill Potts is clearly the primary topic out of all of them. --  Alex TW 00:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom and other support votes. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 22:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - There doesn't seem to be any clear basis for supposing that real people are inherently more worthy of encyclopedic note than cultural and artistic creations, and judging by the pageview statistics, the reverse is demonstrably true in this case. —Flax5 16:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SmokeyJoe, Netoholic, In ictu oculi and Necrothesp.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.