Talk:Tom Lockyer

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• JMP Wales v Denmark U21 MM148.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 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 section.

---

• Tom Lockyer (footballer) → Tom Lockyer
• Tom Lockyer → ?

– clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views [1] Joeykai (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 03:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Tom Lockyer titles a page with content and so it must also be dispositioned. If this request is granted, then Tom Lockyer may be moved to Tom Lockyer (disambiguation) and tagged with {{One other topic}} in accordance with WP:ONEOTHER, or it may be deleted to make way for the first proposed page move. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom, or worse case the DAB should be at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. LTFC 95 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - page views are not indicative of a topic being primary, and I'm not convinced this is. Fine as it is. GiantSnowman 09:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support 567 average views per day, compared to 1 for Tom Lockyer (cricketer), per the link in the nomination. This would suggest to me that the subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Tom Lockyer". Mattythewhite (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the reason GiantSnowman stated. Nialarfatem (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom - clear primary topic. Lennart97 (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Overwhelmingly clear primary topic in page views and general usage. While page views alone certainly aren't the only factor we use, when the discrepancy showing a primary topic is this massive, and the subject also dominates in other usage, and with just one other page of that name, there needs to be a stronger rebuttal than just "no it isn't."--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: Relisted as consensus regarding the destination of Tom Lockyer still needs to be established. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• My take -- with only one other topic besides the primary, the dab page can be deleted and handled with a hatnote.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:59, 3 July 2021 (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.

Captaincy

Mattythewhite, I'm more than a little confused at your rationale for having now twice reverted this change, once by me and once by an IP. Captaincy seems fairly relevant to include, similar to the articles on other Prem footballers like the ones in the edit summary. Hell, having captained a Prem team at one point is even mentioned in the leads for players who don't currently captain the club - look at Tommy Elphick, Jack Grealish, John Terry, or even outside of the league Sean Dyche. I get that content doesn't need to be perfectly parallel, but I disagree completely with it being deemed not relevant. I'm not gonna revert you again because I don't wanna revert twice and engage in an edit war, but I'd like to ask you to have another look at this. Cheers.
(On a side note, the "whom he captains" wording is used in a lot of articles - if this is incorrect as you say, I'll remove it from them.) — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ser!: I'm not saying that captaining a team is isn't relevant for inclusion in the lead *at all*, but that it isn't needed in the opening sentence. The examples you cite with Elphick, Grealish etc look fine to me. I feel, however, that the opening sentence should concentrate on establishing why the subject is notable, which in these instances is through them being professional footballers. MOS:LEADCLUTTER encourages us to "not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead". In any case, using 'whom' or 'who he captains' would not be correct, as this language relates to people; 'which he captains' would be better. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted re the "which" phrasing. I do still think it's relevant enough given being captain is no mean feat, and it is what he is referred to as in the headlines of most articles about him - at a quick Google news search, 8/10 of them have captain in the first sentence, so I don't think it's wrong to say it's partially what he's notable for. Nonetheless, in the absence of consensus, maybe an expansion of the lede mentioning his captaincy would suit as a happy medium? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ser!: I'd say it's certainly notable for inclusion further into the lead, especially given that Lockyer was captain when Luton were promoted to the Premier League for the first time in the club's history. The problem, though, is that there currently isn't any meat on the bones of the lead, which could do with a good paragraph or two to summarise his career so far. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on that. I'll have a go at expanding the lead now. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)