Talk:Scott Sterling (fictional)

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

Title[edit]

The fun part of Scott Sterling is that he always starts off like it is a real event. Using (fictional) in the title kind of spoils the fun. We should at least play along and bury the facts of this fictional character in keeping with the theme. -- comment unsigned by User:63.197.119.253

Perhaps, but at the same time, I was curious if he was a real college athlete or not, so I was happy to get a quick answer. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 August 2016[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Unable to gauge a consensus for the move. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sterling (fictional) → Scott Sterling – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as he averages more than 500 views/day, the golfer only averages ~3/day. A hatnote for the golfer is enough. Timmyshin (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. In general, unless they're Harry Potter or something similar, fictional characters should never take precedence over real people. It's not like there's a massive article here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – there is no policy which states that a real person always should have precedence over a fictional character. That's why we have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If a fictional character has a significant amount of more views than a real person, per se, that the fictional character should be at the dab page. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is indeed no policy, but previous RMs have shown that there is a consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is a strong' consensus by the community that real subjects should always be primary over fictional characters, than your !vote accurately reflects that. However, I am Neutral on this requested move. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 22:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not always, as I said. It's obvious that the fictional Harry Potter is the primary topic, for instance. And it would also be obvious that if a real person was called Gandalf or Batman or Sam Spade then the fictional characters would still be primary. But it's rare; the fictional character would have to be really, really well-known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            Primary topics are assessed by comparing the topics at hand, not anything else. Certainly fictional Scott Sterling is not as famous as Harry Potter or Gandalf, but that's irrelevant here. He's vastly more famous than the golfer, and that's the only other contender here.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good to be clear that this character is fictional, and the golfer isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I am neutral on this move, but can you cite a policy/guideline which states that real people always have precedence over a fictional character, regardless of page views? CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 16:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The primary topic the one readers are looking for. It has nothing to do with real vs fictional. The light bringer (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, readers are looking for this four-line stub more than the other four-line stub? Come on! This makes a mockery of the concept of primary topics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the general principle that real people should not be treated as secondary topics to fictions ones except in highly unusual circumstances (e.g. the aforementioned Harry Potter).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The "rule" stated several times above about fictional/real people is complete nonsense. There is no such rule. Or if there is, it certainly isn't linked or referenced above. This Scott Sterling is far and away the primary topic over the golfer, by common usage, and also by page views. 500 per day vs 3 per day? This is really an open and shut request.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did anybody mention a rule? I can see the term "consensus", but not "rule"! If he's so incredibly famous, why does he only have a four-line stub? I should have thought reams would have been written on him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Without too much effort, I was able to find three other people meeting WP:DABMENTION named "Scott Sterling". None of them seem particularly less notable than the fictional character. bd2412 T 20:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the new additions to the dab page by BD2412. Scott La Rock alone exceeds the long-term significance of the viral character, he greatly changes the pageview stats as well. Other than being more recent, I don't see that the video character is really more notable than all the other topics combined.[1]--Cúchullain t/c 13:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Sterling_(fictional)&oldid=1203171036"