Talk:Ella Morris

Requested move 20 January 2025

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. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

---

• Ella Morris (footballer) → Ella Morris
• Ella Morris → Ella Morris (disambiguation)

– Per historical and past year of page views, Ella Morris (footballer) has become the primary topic for Ella Morris, despite the article only existing for less than a year. For reference Ella Morris (novel) was previously at Ella Morris before disambiguation, so the following calculations for the novel are inclusive of the primary topic at the time. Affected pages have been notified of discussion here and here.

• 10Y page views (63% for footballer): 5,328 v 3179 .
• Last year page views (96% for footballer): 5,057 vs. 227 .
• Summary: the novel has historically had less than 1 view per day, while the footballer has averaged 16 views per day. .

CNC (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. @162 etc.: you objected to this move without giving any rationale. Please explain why it should not go ahead. In the mean time, the page view stats seem quite conclusive that readers are seeking the footballer over the novel. And I don't see a strong long-term significance claim on either side to override that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  For context, this has peaked in time wasting that was completely avoidable. Only a re-listing in a week could top this now. Worst case of wiki-bureaucracy I've experienced so far, can't think of worse at present. CNC (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Come now, CommunityNotesContributor, this is an uncalled-for assumption of bad faith on your part. While I support your proposed move and I would also like to see 162's rationale for opposing this - I certainly don't agree with their theory that all primary-topic moves are controversial without any other consideration, if that's what this boils down to - that's not a reason to accuse them of wasting our time. And if you think this is the worst episode of bureaucracy on the project, there must be a lot of areas you haven't been involved with yet  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please WP:AAGF, I never accused 162 of anything. I was specifically referring to the entire situation that has caused an unnecessary and avoidable waste of time as referenced. To clarify in avoidance of doubt or misunderstanding; no-one is to individually blame, it's a combination of unrelated scenarios that has caused this, and I recognise the completely coincidental manner in which this has occurred. Instead I blame bad luck/timing which is the primary cause of such a waste of time. Again, I never said I thought "this is the worst episode of bureaucracy on the project", so please don't insinuate otherwise as I explicitly said this is the worst bureaucracy "I've experienced". Specifically because there are a lot of areas I intentionally avoid in order to try and use my time more effectively. I would appreciate you retract your accusation of bad faith now. CNC (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Additionally, as a foundation for your accusation should you wish to double down, you'd need to explain how someone wasting time is inherently intentional as part of bad-faith behaviour - as opposed to unintentional - given the latter would clearly be in good-faith. It's worth noting that I consider myself to be partly to blame for how I handled this entire situation, and by default have become partly responsibly for such a waste of time, which was certainly not not in bad-faith. CNC (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I have not opposed or supported the proposed move. At first glance, it does appear that a primary topic per pageviews is justified. However, we should also consider long-term significance. I'm not an expert on 21st-century British literature, so I don't have an opinion on that. However, it's only fair to give @Newmyths: or other interested editors the chance to make that argument. A discussion is not a waste of time. 162 etc. (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  You moved the WP:RMTR to contested, thus objecting to the proposal per documentation at RMTR:

  "If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why,..." (original emphasis)

  Are you now retracting your objection, assuming you didn't realise you were objecting? A discussion for the sake of discussion when there is no objection thus far to the move is definitively a complete waste of time by default. CNC (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Per my previous comments: I do not oppose or support the proposed move. I do object to the article being moved uncontroversially. I don't believe that a discussion is a waste of time. 162 etc. (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Relevant discussion at

  → Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Objecting to a technical request

  CNC (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral, but agree with 162 etc. that selection of a primary topic benefits from a discussion. If, years or decades from today, the novel achieves iconic status while the footballer recedes into time, this discussion will stand as a historical record of how Wikieditors viewed the matter in its era. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 21:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - not a PRIMARYTOPIC, the extra page views are just an example of RECENTism/being in the news. GiantSnowman 21:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Despite being a recent article, over the past year an overwhelming number of users are looking for the footballer, and the book doesn't seem hugely significant. But don't move the disambiguation page, it's not required: move Ella Morris (footballer) over the redundant disambiguation page, put a hatnote there to the other article, and delete incoming redirect Ella Morris (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support while there is a degree of recentism going on here with a 10 year old book versus a current athlete, the page views are quite stark at 23:1 over the past year. Basically once the page was created by CNC it has been popular ever since. Due to the recent (premature) page move for the novel, there isn't really any reliable data from WikiNav. The only spike in the DAB page is the day this RM was created so that could account for that minor spike. All that being said, while we don't want to crystal too much here (but rational reasoning isn't prohibited), there is no reason for the novel to improve its meager pageviews and popularity, especially given the author hasn't been alive for over 6 years (eg not likely to have some sort of event to spur interest if it hasn't happened yet), and the footballer is only more likely to sustain or increase in their popularity for the foreseeable future. TiggerJay (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2025 (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.