Jump to content

Talk:Phillip Adams (writer)

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

That Quadrant article

[edit]

Having actually read it, I'm sorry I reverted its removal, it is pretty much irrelevant to this article. Quite funny though. Greglocock (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 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: No consensus to move. Many commentators believe it will be easier to judge the primary topic after the news cycle moves on. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Following recent events, this man will not remain more notable than Phillip Adams (American football). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllegedlyHuman: I presume there is a page that you are also requesting to be moved into the base Phillip Adams? If so, please add it to the request (and make sure related banner notifications are added as well). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the American footballer has way more views (751,558) than the commentator (44,343)[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The spike in the football player is tied to his recent death and related mass shooting.[2] Until then, the Australian averaged 100 views/day and the football player < 10.—Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not commentator, please. I've rather learnt to know him as a radio host, but he also became known as a writer. Being the elder of the two, please note that Phillip Adams the writer will also remain more prominent in the long run than just another football player. So, I wonder whether we need a disambiguation at all. When I read about the death of a certain Phillip Adams on the main page of Wikipedia, of course I thought of this Phillip Adams; I had not heard about another one before at all. Regards, Aschmidt (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguation is needed. I think your point is why the Australian should not remain the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right. Thanks for asking, @Bagumba. I mean when you hear the name Phillip Adams most people – now and in the long run – will think of the radio host in the first place. Aschmidt (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ICYMI, Phillip Adams (American football) will not be remembered as "just another football player" and it is not likely that his pageviews will go back down to 10/day. I do, however, also disagree with the proposed disambiguator, and think Phillip Adams (journalist) might be a better fit. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – WP:RECENTISM – Let's wait 12 months and assess enduring notability for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then. Further: the disambiguator "(commentator)" is, apart from very few cases, used for sports commentators. This would be especially inappropriate here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Michael Bednarek. It would probably be best to see what page views are when events aren't so fresh. We shouldn't preemptively assume what level of attention the other Adams' actions will retain long-term. (WP:CRYSTAL). Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per RECENTISM. Requesting page moves when one of the page move subjects has just hit the news and will likely wane is not really appropriate. --Masem (t) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He wasn't just "another football player," he murdered six people - which is far more notable than any part of his football career. As another user said, it is not likely that the pageviews for his article will drop down to 10/day. Now (10 days after the shooting) the page views have largely stabilized - at around 4,000 per day - and it is likely to stay high. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:15, 18 April 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.

Requested move 2 January 2022

[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: Moved to Phillip Adams (writer)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views [3] Joeykai (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since all seven men are listed under the same main title header — Phillip Adams (disambiguation), they should have equal eligibility to primary status. If either Philip Adams or Phil Adams was, for instance, a head of state, then he would be the primary topic and this dab page would be renamed Philip Adams (disambiguation) or Phil Adams (disambiguation), but still list the same seven men.
Regarding "What links here" for Phillip Adams (journalist / broadcaster / media personality), the links also include a template that lists 48 names at the bottom of his article. However, the main argument, as pointed out by Crouch, Swale, is that nine months after the murder-suicide, the footballer still has such a lopsided primacy of views that it is not possible for the Australian to continue as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think broadcaster is a sensible term for him. He does write stuff which resembles the witterings of a senile millionaire lefty hobby-farmer, which is published in The Australian to keep the blood pressure of its audience high, but his main claim to fame is his show on the wireless which is unaccountably popular. Greglocock (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's informative to have the views of someone who detests the subject of the discussion, but really not that useful. I became aware of Adams long before he was a broadcaster and, as others have pointed out, he is famous for a lot more than that. Narrowing it to Broadcaster would be classic recentism. This article describes him as "an Australian humanist, social commentator, broadcaster, public intellectual and farmer". I don't think the last in that list matters for this challenge, but is it against the rules to use ALL of the first four, i.e. "Australian humanist, social commentator, broadcaster and public intellectual"? HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, I don't detest him, life is too short. And I may have been exaggerating. You are right, recentism is a good way of describing 'broadcaster'. The stuff he did in the film industry was pretty significant. Um, given the difficulty of encapsulating a life in one word, perhaps PA(Australian) would do? I'll leave it at that. Greglocock (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With multiple notable people named Phillip Adams, disambiguation is needed. I'd support Phillip Adams (Writer) more than journalist because he wrote advertising copy, scripts, columns, books, essays, opinion pieces. He gets a lot of mentions and links because he worked in Australian media for many years and often (deliberately) stirred up controversy. Perhaps Phillip Adams (Influencer) might be more apposite. He used to be more notable than he is now. Once bitingly witty, now merely sad old bigot, a caricature of what he used to be. --Pete (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Writer" is a good suggestion. I am intrigued now though as to why some commenters seem so desperate to say rude things about this person. That's two here now. It really isn't helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Classic Tall poppy syndrome. Bahudhara (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would likewise support the form Phillip Adams (writer) as well as any other parenthetical qualifier acceptable to consensus as long as we arrive at the goal of WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 January 2022 (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.

Post-move archives

[edit]

User:Amakuru's moving of this article included its archive pages, but even though I changed Cluebot III's configuration, the archive pages don't show up. Can somebody fix that, please? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Bednarek: thanks for spotting this, and I've identified the cause - the page now at User:ClueBot III/Indices/Talk:Phillip Adams (writer) had to be moved as well. I've done that, and the archive links now look good on this page. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phillip_Adams_(writer)&oldid=1204516960"