Talk:Jack Adams (disambiguation)

Is there a dominant 'Jack Adams'?
User:Tavix started to move this page to Jack Adams (disambiguation) so that a 'dominant' Jack Adams (presumbly Jack Adams (ice hockey b. 1895)) could be moved here per WP:D. Personally I thought this move was not non-contreversial so had it reversed so it can be discussed and a consensus reached before any action is taken. Specifically I wonder whether Jack Adams (ice hockey b. 1895) or Jack Adams (rugby union) is more dominant. Obviously from a US point of view it would be the ice hockey person where as from a UK point of view I'd imagine it'd be the rugby player. Given the difficulty in comparing the two people given the UK/US problem my vote is to keep things as they are. Dpmuk (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hall of famer who has an award named after him in one of the top four NA sports leagues vs a fairly young rugby player? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would agree, I wasn't a fan of the move away from Jack Adams to begin with. -Djsasso (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that one of the most famous names in his sports history is easily more dominant than a 20-something kid just starting a career. Resolute 13:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - A couple of minor points:
 * Rugby is probably the second biggest sport in the UK and so the relative importance of the leagues they play(ed) in is an open question as far as I'm concerned.
 * Sport in the UK does not have "hall of famers" so it's very heard to compare on that point.
 * More importantly:
 * I'm not trying to say the rugby player is the dominant person - that's clearly not the case and I'd agree that the ice hockey player is the more 'notable'. What I'm more concerned about is whether the ice hockey player is sufficiently dominant to be the main article.  WP:D states that to be the dominant subject it should be "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia".  According to site stats from, the ice hockey article was viewed 573 times between November and February while the rugby article was viewed 190 times.  To me this is not "much more used".
 * I would also not deny that the award seems pretty notable but we should separate the notability and "dominance" of the award from that of the player himself.
 * I have no doubt that based on their careers to date the ice hockey player is obviously going to be more famous in time but surely we should be basing this at least in part on how likely the person is to be searched for. If the rugby player was no longer playing then I'd agree that the ice hockey player was clearly dominant, but while the rugby player is playing in the top rugby union league in the country many people are likely to be searching for him.
 * To me it just doesn't add up to enough for the ice hockey player to be the main article. I certainly don't think it was non-controversial which is why I asked for the move to be reversed while it was discussed - especially as I though this needed input from both UK and US based editors as any one person from one country may be (unintentionally) biased.  That said I'm obviously happy to go with consensus. Dpmuk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I did the move, I assumed it would be uncontroversial, because one of the best hockey players of all time would be more notable than a young rugby player. But I'm also looking at that from a history point of view and not one that is current today. Probably more people would want to go to the rugby player today to check on his stats, former clubs, etc. That said, I'm willing to work out a consensus and I'm sorry if that move caused any inconvenience. Tavix (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dominant Jack Adams again
Sorry, but almost 6 times as many people view the ice hockey Jack Adams than the rugby one, and certainly a lot more than the others. Is there any real reason for this to direct to a DAB page? I'd say dominance is clear. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

– After reviewing these pages and comparing the several Jack Adams' on Wikipedia I believe that in terms of both usage and long-term significance, Jack Adams (ice hockey, born 1895) is the primary topic for the term. Previous discussions have been held with no clear consensus due to a disagreement over the relative notability of Jack Adams (rugby union). I personally don't see the conflict as I can find little mention of the rugby player either on Wikipedia or the internet at large; if "What links here" is any guide, Jack Adams (ice hockey, born 1895) wins by several miles. In any case I am interested in what the community has to say on the matter and look forward to hearing your input (as an aside, there is also an underwear company that goes by this name, but for disambiguation purposes I believe the correct title for that page, if ever there is one, would best be Jack Adams Group). Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack Adams → Jack Adams (disambiguation)
 * Jack Adams (ice hockey, born 1895) → Jack Adams
 * Support per my argument from four years ago. While the rugby union player is now an established player in his sport, that doesn't change the fact that the hockey administrator is a legend in his. Depending on the time of year, the hockey Adams gets six to ten times as many views as the rugby player (though we are talking about 100 vs 600-1000 views here), and Google results for the hockey adminsitrator dwarf that of the rugby player, even when I modify to remove the award named after him. This isn't even a question in my view. Resolute 14:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Nor in mine. On the one hand, we have a player of modest accomplishments in a relatively minor team sport; on the other, one of the more significant figures in one of the world's most popular team sports.   Ravenswing   17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Canuck 89 (talk to me) 21:10, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  - sorry but in printed books this Jack Adams isn't more notable than all the others combined as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires [suggests], in particular John Adams (mutineer) the last survivor of the Mutiny on the Bounty is also known as "Jack Adams" ("Jack Adams" Pitcairn gets 229 Google Book results) and in fact that article might well be moved to [redirect from] Jack Adams (mutineer). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, there is no such "requirement". That is merely one suggestion on how to determine primary topic.  Also, before you move that mutineer's article, I would point out that copying your search, but using "John Adams" Pitcairn produces over 13,000 results. Doesn't seem that the mutineer fits into this discussion at all. Resolute 03:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Resolute, yes, amended requires to [suggests]. I did the same search myself, evidently despite Jack Adams mutineer being common in GBooks for "Jack Adams", "John Adams mutineer" is even commoner, a redirect not a move would be required. Nevertheless the benchmark is Google Books not the in-universe view of en.wp, so "Jack Adams mutineer" is still relevant. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what "benchmark" you are referring to. WP:PTOPIC lists several possible ways to determine a primary topic, none of which it favors over any of the others. It certainly doesn't exclude Wikipedia stats either, rather it lists them as just as valid as any other method.  It's fine if your benchmark is Google Books; my benchmark is incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere, but one is not superior to the other.  Rejectwater (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Change to Support - happy to listen to cogent argument as per User:Resolute, User:Rejectwater and User:Djsasso and change view. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly the only real debate is between the rugby player and ice hockey administrator. Clearly the ice hockey administrator being a legend in his sport is the more primary of the two. John Adams is more commonly known by John Adams so is mostly irrelevant to the situation. A dab note fixes the issue with that individual. Gbooks is just one way of checking for primary topics but it is by far NOT the benchmark because it only searches books and as we all know, especially with sports figures, people are covered heavily in other media as well such as newspapers and television. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Resolute, the ice hockey figure seems to be the primary topic, considering the derivative results that his eponymous award generates. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2013 (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.