Talk:James Hanna (American football)

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

Primary topic?[edit]

I question whether this person is really the primary topic over James Hanna (trader). As a sixth-round draft choice, there is a considerable chance that he will never play a down in the NFL. The recent move seems more indicative of Wikipedia's bias towards recent events than anything else - I doubt our readers are clamoring for information about the tight end from Oklahoma any more than the European fur trader, and the football player will be barely remembered in 20 years, let alone 200. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think a move to James Hanna (American football) is in order? I get what you're saying about potential versus long term achievement, but doesn't the NFL draft impart some notability? Tiderolls 00:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does, but in my opinion an 18th-century explorer is more significant to an encyclopedia than someone who was just drafted a few hours ago. I don't think the football player should be deleted of course, but I think using it as the primary topic displays a lack of perspective. We should flip-flop the articles I think, but it's not something I would lose much sleep over. I had never heard of either of them until about an hour ago. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think such an action would be considered uncontroversial, but that's just one opinion. Tiderolls 01:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical too. James Hanna the trader is not exactly well known, but neither is James Hanna the...what is he? Football player, right. Pfly (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree with Bongwarrior. If Hanna doesn't make the team, he probably does not justify an article. A simple solution might be to have James Hanna as a dab page and have James Hanna (American football player) and James Hanna (trader) listed there. Stormbay (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's one possibility, but I don't think dab pages are usually created for only two people. I believe the usual MOS-approved solution is to put the most likely article at the root location, and point a hatnote at the other article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the football player maintains his notability he will forever get at least as many pageviews as the explorer. Almost all NFL athletes get at least 5 times as many daily pageviews as the trader, who gets about 10 pageviews per day. Has anyone noticed the page views. Admittedly they are spiking right now, but far more people are going to be looking for the football player.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. See http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/James%20Hanna%20%28explorer%29 and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/James%20Hanna. Before the draft the explorer was getting 10 hits a day. I have moved all the links that point to the explorer and even with the temporary interest in figuring out who he is he is only getting a handful of pageview. The Football player will probably settle down in the 25-50 hits per day range. Why would you make a 10 hits per day article primary versus something that will get many more hits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is undoubtedly true while the player is still active, but unless he becomes a starter for several seasons or otherwise distinguishes himself, any spike in reader interest will likely be short lived. I surveyed some of the sixth-rounders from the 1992 and 2002 NFL Drafts, and the majority of those players average less than ten views per day (sometimes considerably less), except for a few who were able to distinguish themselves career-wise in some manner. It's possible he will become an All-Pro and be the subject of continued interest, but it's more possible that he will never play a game and be quickly forgotten. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at drafts from 10 or 20 years ago would help us project his page view in 10 or 20 years. However, this page move should be based on page view for the next year. I think we should look at 6th rounders from last year to determine what to expect. Since Hanna was drafted 186th, I pulled the guys from the 180s from last years draft. Keep in mind these are offseason pageviews. Surely, from September to January their views are much higher than February to May.

180 Tyrod Taylor 11959
181 Richard Gordon (American football) 873
182 Ronald Johnson (American football) 4586
183 Jordan Todman 5054
184 David Carter (defensive lineman) 1139
185 Greg Jones (linebacker, born 1988) 18419
186 D. J. Smith (American football) 2014
187 Allen Bradford (American football) 3596
188 Chris Rucker 1598
189 Mike Mohamed 2318
We expect the explorer to get less than 1000 hits in any 90 days. In the offseason, half of these guys get 4 times as many pageviews as the explorer. Who knows how many they get during the season. For the next few years, it is best for the reader to have the football player on the main page. In 5 years, we can move things around, if he is no longer highly read.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Looking two years back will give us a two year forecast:
180 Deji Karim 2040
181 Dan LeFevour 9072
182 Nate Byham 1968
183 Eric Olsen (American football) 2216
184 Adrian Tracy 3005
185 Anthony McCoy 2030
186 Clifton Geathers 2336
187 Shelley Smith (American football) 836
188 Jonathan Dwyer 2934
189 Eugene Sims 1039
Even looking two years out we expect him to get more than double the explorers pageviews during the offseason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If one were to ignore hits/day and go with notability long term, the primary would go to the trader/explorer. A dab page is fine with 2 people if u want to go that route. (be bold principle) The likelihood of either being high traffic sites is slim. If the football player doesn't make the team, he will be forgotten quickly. Stormbay (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we chose primary based on what the readers will be looking for. Based on recent history we would say there is a 80-90% chance he will get a lot more pageviews. That means he should be primary for the next few years based on what the reader is looking for. Who cares what is more "notable". We can re-evaluate in a few years if he is a bust. With only two names one is suppose to be undabbed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the probability of more pageviews for a few years at most is a very compelling argument with regards to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The primary topic shouldn't be a moving target. Reader interest in the football player will probably be slightly higher in the short-term, but there isn't much question that the explorer holds more long-term significance. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there policy somewhere for guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a 2 article dab place in somewhat different circumstances. It was accepted with no comment by an editor who is also an admin. Just a thought...time to resolve this and move on. Happy editing! Stormbay (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a bit more research. Look at the 2007 NFL Draft, which should give us a picture 5 years out:

180 Justin Rogers 903
181 Reagan Maui'a 1287
182 Adam Hayward 2019
183 Kasey Studdard 1712
184 John Wendling 1349
185 Trey Lewis 937
186 Thomas Clayton (American football) 1755
187 Matt Toeaina 2211
188 Joel Filani 645
189 Adam Koets 2052

We still expect the football guy to be significantly more notable than a 10 hit per day article 5 years out based on historical results. In addition, the 10 year comparison may understate expectations because lots of linkages for players that far back are incomplete. E.G. not every team has a "YYYY Team draft choices navbox". Also, I believe 2 article dab pages are against policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Hanna. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Hanna_(American_football)&oldid=1206192517"