Talk:John Green/Archives/2022

Requested move 27 December 2021

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. Necrothesp's point regarding long-term significance is well taken, but the consensus here is that the author is primary nonetheless. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• John Green (author) → John Green
• John Green → John Green (disambiguation)

– Just from a quick page views perspective, John Green (author) is the clear primary topic among John Green's. His average of 1662 views/day is unrivaled by any other listing on the disambiguation page, with the next John Green who uses a parenthetical disambiguator, John Green (headmaster), getting 4/day. The first page of a quick Google search also only returns results on the author. He has had a sustained career of success in multiple fields and is listed as a Level 5 Vital Article. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Mannysoloway (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oh please. Most people will never have heard of this individual. Far too many John Greens for there to be a primary topic unless one is vastly better known than the others. Clearly no long-term significance here, whatever pageviews may say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you're choosing to completely ignore pageviews. But even regardless of pageviews, the number of people clicking through to various John Greens is important. Data from WikiNav also supports the author being the primary reason people type "John Green" into the search box. The first chart shows people not directly searching or coming from outside Wikipedia are frequently coming from other John Green pages and that the vast majority of people who make it to the disambiguation page move on to John Green (author). About 90% of the time people visit John Green, they click "John Green (author)".--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with what has already been said. Asrieltheoracle (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. dwadieff ✉ 07:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom, especially their comment in response to Necrothesp's oppose. The author clearly is vastly better known than the others. Lennart97 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I've always thought primary article prominence is a good idea, since it benefits our readers who are clearly searching the name for this article in particular. So long as we have a disambig link at the top of this article afterwards, that should work fine. Silverseren^C 21:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

Essayist

John's new book "The Anthropocene Reviewed" is a book of essays. As can be seen here: his book is described as a "collection of personal essays". It would be accurate therefore to call him an essayist, which should be added to his introductory sentence.

Spidermanshotuncle (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)spidermanshotuncle 27 October 2020

Given that the essays were written for a podcast and published in a book, I think it's far more accurate to call John an author and a podcaster. Those who have been called essayists (Zadie Smith, Ralph Waldo Emerson) have used essays as their primary medium for writing and expressing ideas, which can't be said for John. Many prominent writers who have published essay collections, such as James Baldwin, have been called authors, novelists, and writers more generally. brendanhylin (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References