Jump to content

Talk:David Robertson (conductor)

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



Untitled

[edit]

The major part of the last paragraph that discusses the review of Robertson's recent appearance in New York is not relevant to a Wikipedia entry. Moreover, it does not cite the review, although it can easily be found. The tone is too hagiographic for Wikipedia. I suggest that the latter portion of that paragraph, the passage on the New York review, be deleted. Any objections? 04:21, 20 December 2006, DJRafe.

Sections in Biography

[edit]

The biographical information was kind of jumbled together, so I made sections and sorted the appropriate info. Also expanded his early life with info from the article in [1]. There could be a Recordings section with notable recordings and we need a picture, thoughts on a fair use or non-copyrighted image? Groove1279 10:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the bulk of photos taken of him are property of the Associated Press and other such organizations- a fair-use image is needed. Although I can't find one as of yet, I'll keep looking. If anyone has a fair-use image, please upload it. Bylandl 22:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To dab with the more than 10 people listed in David Robertson (disambiguation). After the move, David Robertson (disambiguation) should be moved to David Robertson. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It really doesn't matter how many people have the same name, the question is, is one viewed/searched for, more than any other. Right now this page gets 3 times as many views as any other David Robertson, and only 20% (1/5th) are clicking on David Robertson (disambiguation), so I would conclude that this page clearly is the primary usage, and can stay as is. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If the statistics support that this David Robertson gets more views than the all the other people with the same name combined, I'm fine with staying as it is. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Many more than any other is much more important than more than all others combined. The way exponentials work you can a hundred similar names which when you add them all up they add up to more than the primary topic even though each gets like about 100 times less views. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Right now Wikipedia assumes that when you're typing in "David Robertson", you want to read about the conductor. Your stats shows that Wikipedia would be wrong more often than right — more than 50% of the time you want to read about somebody else. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      And you are saying that if they don't get the one they want they don't see the link at the top and go to Britannica instead???? Only 20% are clicking on the disambig link, as an indication that the conductor is not who they were looking for and so that they can find the right person. However there are so few hits, that many of the hits to DR disambig could have been from the conductor them self wondering how many other people named DR had articles on Wikipedia. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      However there are so few hits, that many of the hits to DR disambig could have been from the conductor them self wondering how many other people named DR had articles on Wikipedia. 20% are hardly "so few hits", and your second sentence has not basis whatsoever. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      300 in a month is only 10 a day, but true that's hardly likely to be from the same person. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. Too many other David Robertsons, and statistics will be skewed because everyone looking for any DR will come here first. Horsesforcorses (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, if that was the case they would click through the disambiguation page if this was not the David Robertson they were looking for. Since no one is clicking through the disambiguation page (only 1/5 do) then we know that this is the David Robertson that they were really looking for, and there is no reason to move the page. Recommend not moving. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous comment apply to people who are experienced Wikipedia users, but do we know the behavior of people who visit Wikipedia for the first time? Let's say they're looking for some other person named David Robertson, and find this conductor. Do they click on the disambiguation link at the top (do they even notice that?), or just leave thinking they didn't find who they're looking for? Has Wikipedia actually conduct some sort of survey on this? Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can they miss it? That's why we put them at the top instead of at the bottom, so that they are highly visible. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Robertson 1362
  • David Robertson (disambiguation) 264
  • David Robertson (footballer born 1986) 252
  • David Robertson (footballer born 1968) 305
  • David Robertson (soccer) 105
  • David Robertson (golfer) 94
  • David Robertson (UK politician) 166
  • David Robertson (naturalist) 118
  • David Robertson (broadcaster) 297
  • David Robertson (Canadian politician) 49
So this means
  • David Robertson, the conductor 1098 (1362 minus 264, the dab page views)
  • David Robertson, all others 1386 (does not count dab page)
If we compute the average page clicks of the current scheme: the conductor is 1 page click away, while all others are 3 page clicks away (the "David Robertson" page, then the dab page, then finally the person's page), the average page clicks is over 2. While if we make the main page a dab page, everybody will be 2 page clicks away, so this means it's actually better than the current scheme. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that nobody goes through that sequence. All but a very few go straight to the page they are looking for, with no clicks. Moving it would mean that 20% would have an extra click, and 80% an extra 2 clicks. Doesn't help anyone. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The majority of the "80%" are views from another Wikipedia page. For example, somebody clicks on David Robertson from the Wikipedia page Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra. If we move the page to David Robertson (conductor), we'll simply make an edit to change the link to the correct one, and those people will not have any extra clicks (and even if we do not change the link, it'd be 1 extra click, not 2). On the other hand, all of the "20%" will be helped, and have 1 fewer click, which are the ones that we're interested in:
  • People who randomly search for "David Robertson" in Wikipedia.
  • People who put the link David Robertson in their edits, without checking whether it's the correct one. And then somebody else clicks on that link.
From your April statistics, less than 50% of all views of somebody named "David Robertson" are about the conductor. So my conclusion is that less than 50% of the above scenarios should be directed to the conductor, and therefore a dab page is the most appropriate for the main page. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. i see articles on the dab page about four sportsmen who've competed at national or olympic level, and two national level politicians. none of them are american so i am sure the conductor is the most notable within that specific area. i would be more confident about the above stats being true if the conductors article was being visited so much from a disambiguation page at David Robertson. therefore prefer to see the disambiguation page moved (and redirects fixed), and traffic checked after a few months to see if things have changed. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessary. If anyone was looking for the other chaps they would be clicking on the disambig page, and they aren't. Therefor we know that they were in fact looking for the conductor. If, for example the stats showed 1362 for the conductor and over a 1000 for the dab, then we would know that we had a problem, and could move to a dab to find out which DR was actually the Primary, if any. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that many of the page views come within Wikipedia, where the internal page links are already correct, the rate of 20% of all people going to a dab page is actually a pretty substantial amount. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually all dab pages get about a third of the traffic or less, I'm trying to remember the ratio, but it isn't very much, the typical is I believe not far from 20%. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Public enemy gets 24436 views, the band 53582 views, the disambig page 8737, 16%. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The stats clearly indicate the presence of a primary topic, and the correct selection of that primary topic. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For balanced statistics, the conductor has to be one among many in a disamb for quite a while. We'll see then who is the person looked after most often, and by what percentage. Current counting is flawed, even I added to it by coming here straight from WP:RM without visiting others. -- Matthead  Discuß   08:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However you haven't added to it yet, because it hasn't been a full month - you added to the May stats, not to the April stats, which is what are quoted, although that also depends on which link you clicked on to get here. Most people click on the "discuss" link, which does not impact the stats at all. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure all people who contribute to this discussion at least click on the "David Robertson" page to see who he is before commenting. And everybody, except you, has supported the move. It's much clearer when somebody sees the main page as a dab page, and if they find who they're looking for, they can go there in one extra click. Also we can just use the "What links here" feature of the page, and we know that the links going in are not correct and we can make the appropriate dab, which is much harder when the main page is the conductor page. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you have a point there, but I certainly can't find it. Are you saying that all BLPs should be dabs "and we know that the links going in are not correct"? You have totally lost me. My point about people commenting is that their views won't show up in the stats until the next day, and won't be used until the next month. Let's check a few of the links.[1] Most of these look ok to me. I changed Great Cumbrae because a biology center created in 1885 clearly could not have been created by a conductor who was not born until 1958. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss at least two: The Call of Cthulhu (film) and Content analysis. There were also several more that should be linked to footballers that I changed a few weeks ago. Actually, I think most BLPs should be dabs unless one person is significantly more famous than all the others, and this person is certainly not one of them. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think that editors should click on the links they create no matter what the link is to see if it goes where they intended it to go. The problem is that there is no definition of "significantly", either in views or fame. I use a 2:1/1:1.2 rule, but that's my own rule, not an established guideline - if the subject gets twice as many page views as the next most, use it as a primary topic. If a subject gets less than 20% more than the next most, keep it as a primary topic. Anything in between, keep it the way it is whichever it is. Even if we subtract all of the dab views we still get a ratio of 3.6:1, more than ample to establish DR as a primary topic, and far in excess of the number needed to keep it. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was an edit history merger, implemented in order to maintain all edits about Robertson the conductor under one article name. The histmerge does not in any way limit further moves or the creation of a disambig. page and I've no opinion on the matter. If a consensus emerges that would require further deletion/restoration/edit history mergers, let me know and I'll be glad to help. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, okay. I think after some further moves, the situation is now as desired, thanks. Adding link to Talk:David Robertson pointing here.-- Matthead  Discuß   20:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Robertson (conductor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on David Robertson (conductor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The first of the External links (Robertson's biography at SLSO) is a dead link. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Robertson (conductor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Robertson_(conductor)&oldid=1210076324"