Talk:Federer

Why a tennis player is more important than the mathematician?
That is strange to make preference to a "tennis player". I am sure that most people want to know about the mathematician. In any case Roger Federer is not the main meaning for Federer. --Tosha (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. R. Federer is NOT a primary topic in any sense, see Disambiguation.


 * What planet are you living on? The mathematician Herbert Federer has around 10 daily page views. Roger Federer has around 4000 and it's off-season. He has far more when he plays large tournaments. On 8 July alone (when he won Wimbledon) he had 695,069. That corresponds to around 200 years for Herbert Federer. Disambiguation says: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." The other Federer's also have low usage. Please stop edit warring and use Requested moves if you want Federer (disambiguation) moved to Federer. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (after ec) 1) Please don't move the disambiguation page by copying and pasting. If you think it should be otherwise than it is, please propose a move at WP:RM.
 * 2) Roger Federer very easily qualifies as the primary topic. Consider the first criteria of usage. A) Incoming links doesn't tell us much, since Federer has been the disambiguation page for sometime now as most links to it have been corrected. Even so, all the remaining incoming links from article space are for the tennis player. B) In article traffic statistics, the tennis player has an overwhelming volume compared to all of the other topics on the disambiguation page and even compared to all of the other topics combined. For the last 90 days:
 * Roger Federer has been viewed 730204 times.
 * Herbert Federer has been viewed 906 times.
 * Michelle Federer has been viewed 7474 times.
 * Mirka Federer has been viewed 62170 times.
 * William J. Federer has been viewed 2091 times.
 * 4726 Federer has been viewed 433 times.
 * The only one even remotely close is Roger's wife. Considering just the disambiguation page and redirect is also informative.
 * Federer has been viewed 23677 times.
 * Federer (disambiguation) has been viewed 985 times.
 * This suggests that of the 23677 persons who were redirected to the tennis player, only 985 clicked to disambiguation page to try to find something different. For the final suggesting in determining primary topic, try entering "Federer" into your preferred search engine. For a general web search, a search of news sources, and of books, the tennis player is again overwhelmingly more frequent.
 * However, as I suggested, if you still think there is a possibility that discussion might determine there is consensus that the tennis player is not the primary topic, you are welcome to initiate such a discussion through WP:RM. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger Federer can not be primary topic for the Federer. Read the rules carefully. Maybe as with respect to usage today yes, but for long-term significance he is not comparable with the creator of Geometric measure theory. --Tosha (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. This is at least not clear which topic is primary so let us leave redirect to disambig.


 * I know the rules. I pointed you to them. Roger Federer has around 5 million page hits in the last year. Herbert Federer has around 4000. A factor 1000 is HUGE. We are here to help our readers find the content they are looking for. You would have to argue hard in a requested move to convince anybody that a mathematician with 10 daily page hits has more long-term significance than the tennis player generally considered the greatest ever. And even if you succeeded in this, the huge factor 1000 should easily outweigh the alleged difference. A factor 2 might have been different. And where does Herbert rank among mathematicians? Euclid and Archimedes get thousands of daily page hits more than 2000 years after they lived. That's long-term significance. Herbert died in 2010. Roger also won Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsman of the Year four consecutive times. That' for all sports. How does Herbert rank for all scientists? And all academics might be a better comparison. How many non-mathematicians have ever heard of him? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tosha There is really little question that Federer can be a primary topic for Roger Federer. If you actually think the tennis player is not the primary topic despite the abundant evidence to the contrary, you can certainly initiate a discussion to establish consensus. But a snowball in Hades would have better odds. older ≠ wiser 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that I do NOT want to make Herbert Federer to be primary topic here. I simply insist that Roger Federer can not be primary topic either. Talking about rules, there are two parts: usage and long-term significance (here number of hits is irrelevant). In terms of usage, Roger is first and in terms of long-term significance the first is Herbert. All this means that there is no primary topic here, --Tosha (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The guideline suggests  two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics. And goes on to indicate In many cases, a topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic. I think the last sentence is relevant here. Where does is consensus for this being a disambiguation page? older ≠ wiser 04:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there is no consensus for Roger = primary topic. So it has to be a disambiguation page. --Tosha (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One person's opinion against a mountain of objective evidence to the contrary is not consensus. older ≠ wiser 13:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not see a mountain; number of hits is objective evidence ONLY to show number of hits. OK, because of Herbert, we can talk rigorously about minimal surfaces. In terms of long-term significance Roger can hardly make it close. --Tosha (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Both of us trying to make wikipedia better. For you Roger is clearly primary topic, for me it is clearly Herbert. It means that we need to choose the neutral way, i.e., making this page a disambiguation.


 * The 23,677 readers using the redirect Federer to reach the tennis player in the past 90 days would beg to differ. There is no reason to inconvenience such a large number of readers. What evidence is there beyond your opinion that the mathematician is the primary topic for long-term significance of the term "Federer"? older ≠ wiser 20:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course we don't "need" to do something just because a single editor wants it. That's not how Wikipedia works. As we keep telling you, Requested moves is how to seek consensus for moving Federer (disambiguation) to Federer, but I seriously doubt you would get support. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

An extra click does not worth a fight. But I see something fundamentally wrong here. Imagine for a second that a comic book appears which is written by say Z. Shakespeare, and it gets extremely popular and this Z. gets most of the hits. I doubt that you will make Z. Shakespeare as the primary topic. On the other hand according to your arguments you should do this. So, if you understand this example, you should understand that there is a community where people think the same way about Herbert/Roger, and you should respect their feeling as yours. --Tosha (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. One stadium in my village can get inside all the mathematicians live and dead but it does not imply that sport is more important than math.


 * As mentioned, there is a factor 1000 between page hits for Herbert Federer and Roger Federer. William Shakespeare gets around 18000 daily hits. If another Shakespeare averaged 18 million then it would be by far the most popular Wikipedia article and I would support a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess you are a robot :) --Tosha (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)