Talk:John Diggle

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

University of Oxford

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 28 January 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved; clear primary topic in a WP:TWODABS situation when the Arrow character is unlikely to even warrant a separate article anytime soon (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Diggle → John William Diggle – using his middle name per WP:NATDAB would free this up as a disambig for the character John Diggle (Arrow) who is likely more well known in popular culture at this point. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it would be John Diggle (bishop) but can't honestly say Google Books supports a move. List of Arrow characters is very recent and the TV series not particularly notable. In ictu oculi (talk)

Oppose per User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Egsan Bacon below. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It doesn't seem likely that the fictional character would support their own article in the first place, so we shouldn't be moving an article to "free up" the space for a disambiguation page. It would be unnecessary disambiguation. The already-existing hatnote serves the purpose well enough. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support John Diggle (bishop). The fictional character may be the most well-known John Diggle, or he may not be. In any case, the bishop is not currently an unambiguous primary topic. ONR (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Naval Rooftops (talk • contribs)
Oppose for now. If the page is to be moved, then per In ictu oculi the appropriate target would be John Diggle (bishop). However, this is a WP:2DABS situation. I don't see any evidence that the fictional character is notable enough to justify their own article, or that he comes anywhere near enough to the notability of the bishop to dislodge the bishop from primarytopic. That may change in future, in which case we can reconsider. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 6 February 2016 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Diggle. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012040612/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/John_William_Diggle to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/John_William_Diggle

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) 13:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Diggle → John Diggle (bishop) – To differentiate from Arrow's John Diggle, also because the bishop is not the primary topic. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. It's been twenty-nine months since the last RM, and in that time the character's notability appears to have increased. ONR (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This does seem like a WP:NOPRIMARY situation, but the WP:RECENTISM is a concern. In any case, John Diggle (character) should be moved to John Diggle (Arrow) per WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles. -- Netoholic @ 21:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, I disagree since Diggle has appeared even outside Arrow (eg: The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow and now even in the mainstream DC Comics), unlike Walter White who has not made any major/serious appearances outside Breaking Bad, hence his article name is Walter White (Breaking Bad). --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NCTV prime example of Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) has also appeared in other TV series and other media. --Netoholic @ 05:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While looking into a RM for the Arrow character article per my comment above, I found that the topic of this character has been created at least 3 times and each subsequently redirected to the main series articles. Based solely on that history, I have low confidence that we should use that character's article as a basis to move an established, encyclopedic topic of the bishop at this time. WP:TOOSOON. The hatnote on the primary topic is a small price to pay for avoidance of future potential problems. Let's see if this 4th iteration of the character article survives for a while. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Arrow's Diggle was previously created by amateurs without doing much, hence it was rightfully redirected every time it was recreated. However, my version was created after meticulous planning and work. So it is unlikely the article will be unjustly redirected this time. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current one is far superior. I still think its too soon to use it to impact an article that's been around since 2009. -- Netoholic @ 06:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current viewership comparision between the Diggles. Let's see how it turns out in the next week, and that should decide the outcome of this RM. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just pure WP:RECENTISM to cite page stats when the topic is presumably at its height of pop culture popularity. Can we say the same with confidence in ten years? -- Netoholic @ 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a week is way too short to analyze a major change in pageviews, but 10 years is way too long. Six months to a year seems about right to me. Station1 (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. With very few exceptions, a real person should always be considered primary over a fictional character. In this instance, the character is not well enough known to break this rule. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, per WP:TWODABS. Real people should take precedence over fictional characters as a sort of tiebreaker when the primary topic is not overwhelmingly obvious, like here. It is possible the recent jump in pageviews will turn into a long term trend, though, so this could be reconsidered in the future. Station1 (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2018 (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.