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: page moved. ( non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 02:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Roger Hallam → Roger Hallam (activist) – No indication that this is the primary topic over Roger Hallam (Australian politician), a fairly senior state government minister. Page views are not an acceptable rationale, and WP:RECENTISM to boot. Frickeg ( talk) 21:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. —  Newslinger  talk 22:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  Steel1943 ( talk) 18:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The request sounds reasonable as far as it goes; but, however unfairly, the article on the other Hallam makes him rather seem like a serially promoted blank. How would the course of Australian history have been even slightly different if Hallam hadn't existed? The article on him doesn't seem to say. This probably sounds a bit snarky: I regret this (I don't mean any disrespect to Hallam), but really, he was (for example) "appointed the Nationals' spokesman on community services", which would have made press fodder out of whatever he chose to say, so what did he choose to say? -- Hoary ( talk) 22:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC) reply

"Spokesman on community services" means "shadow minister for community services". Just because the article is a stub, like many state ministers, doesn't mean the article title should reflect that. Frickeg ( talk) 07:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I note that User:BorisAndDoris moved the Australian in early March with the rationale "pageviews show most searchers are looking for Roger Hallam (activist)". Frickeg, when you refer to pageviews, I assume you mean (recent?) pageviews for the activists and not the politician. I would agree with that (recent pageviews not relevant for the activist but relevant for the politician). Post that pagemove, the Australian has had a daily average of three pageviews. We could keep an eye on things for a few weeks and see how the activist is doing. If it's significantly higher than what the Australian gets, then the current configuration is appropriate. Schwede 66 01:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I disagree with this. It is perfectly natural that a present-day activist would get more pageviews than a state politician from twenty years ago. Pageviews are an inherently recentist way to judge primary topic. Frickeg ( talk) 07:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

But " (1) A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. / (2) A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." (numbering added) The former says that the primary topic is the activist. The latter says -- well, we don't know about the latter. If the politician has enduring notability and the article about him has enduring educational value, then editors are free to make the article show this. Whether the activist has enduring notability and whether the article about him has enduring educational value is something that we simply can't know until time has elapsed. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

As for pageviews, I haven't actually referred to that yet because (as I explained above) I am opposed to using them in general to determine the primary topic (they are inherently misleading), but if we are taking them into consideration, the activist has barely any pageviews either, and not only that is frankly barely notable at all ( Roger Hallam (activist) is currently a redirect to Extinction Rebellion since @ Onel5969: made it so in March, and this article has existed in its current form for less than 24 hours). I presume @ BorisAndDoris: is claiming that because of the short-lived spike in late May, that proves that people were looking for the activist - a debatable claim, and even if true one that was over within a week. Frickeg ( talk) 08:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

BorisAndDoris changed this page in March after observing that Roger Hallam pageviews increased during periods of XR activity particularly last November. I then tried to have both the activist and politician page for a few weeks to compare pageviews but a bot redirected this page to XR directly (for some reason the history of this page has disappeared) and an attempt to start this article on the activist page was knocked back when I had little time to edit. It does appear even clearer now that interest in the activist increased during the XR rebellion in April and his trial for activities from two years ago in May. Being UK based I assumed the importance of the activist over the politician but can see that from an Australian perspective the politician may be a more important subject. Therefore it seems more balanced to make this a disambiguation page BorisAndDoris ( talk) 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Clarification: I think this is already clear, but to be explicit: I am proposing that Roger Hallam become a disambiguation page as I do not think there is a primary topic here. Frickeg ( talk) 07:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

But " If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)" -- Hoary ( talk) 08:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, Frickeg argues that there is no primary topic. Hence ONEOTHER would not apply. Schwede 66 08:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Right. Now, if you want the activist, typing in his name gets you there; if you want the politician, typing in his name and then clicking a hatnote gets you there. With a disambiguation page, if you want either the activist or the politician, you have to type in his name and then choose and click. Which readers of Wikipedia would benefit from this proposed change, and how? -- Hoary ( talk) 08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I see disambig pages as a benefit; makes it a lot easier to be sure you're getting who you want instead of a surprise. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose for now. There are two definitions for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: one is for a term with respect to usage and the other is with respect to long-term significance. What Frickeg is talking about is the latter. The question that I raised previously is about the former; we should wait a while and see where usage (as measured by page views) lands. If readers of the Wikipedia are currently much more interested in the activist, then the title for this page is correct, and it serves the needs of those who use Wikipedia. It may well be that the Australian politician has the same long-term significance as the activist but that's something that we can reflect when interest in the activist declines over time. What matters for now is usage. And we aren't quite there yet to determine what the level of usage is. Hence my procedural oppose. Let's have this discussion in a couple of weeks, or sometime later (in case the activist makes the news again and that causes an unusual spike in interest). Schwede 66 19:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support. I don't think it's been clearly demonstrated that this recently created article meets either of the main primary topic criteria. Disambiguate for now and we can always re-evaluate the situation later. PC78 ( talk) 11:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support with base being a disambig page. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Given that this RM is still open after a few weeks, I thought I'd have another look at pageviews during July so far. I don't follow the British news so don't know what the spike in views over the last four days is all about, but note that prior to that, views for the activists sat at a pretty constant 100 views per day or so. Compared to 3 for the Australian. Any more questions? Schwede 66 20:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support: Primacy should be measured in years or decades, not days. This article didn't exist a month ago, and this person hasn't done anything that indicates that anyone will be studying him very deeply in a decade or two. He was a dramatically unsuccessful candidate for a political office (924 of 2,241,681 works out to 0.04% if my math is correct), and he spray-painted something at a college campus while he was a student there, and he cofounded a notable organization with various other people (the article about the organization says it was founded by "by Roger Hallam, Gail Bradbrook, Simon Bramwell, and other activists from the campaign group Rising Up!"). That doesn't indicate exceptional enduring notability. — BarrelProof ( talk) 05:01, 21 July 2019 (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.