Talk:David Newell

Documentary

In the event that the documentary amounts to anything, here's a link. Rklawton 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Small Film Roles

The summary states that he was in several small film roles, but no citation is given and his IMDB page contradicts this. Does someone have a citation? 99.120.122.11 (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on David Newell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017204000/http://www.fci.org/newsletter/readnews.asp?ID=37&newsletterid=10 to http://www.fci.org/newsletter/readnews.asp?ID=37&newsletterID=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on David Newell. 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/20111118212946/http://fci.org/new-site/staff-11-10.html to http://www.fci.org/new-site/staff-11-10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229032516/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/31/mcfeely.chat.cnna/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/31/mcfeely.chat.cnna/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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) 07:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. bd2412 T 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Newell → David Newell (actor, born 1938)
• David Newell (disambiguation) → David Newell

– Performer known under the name of a relatively minor supporting character he had been portraying on a long-running children's series, rather than for his own name. Does not seem to meet the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The other actor of the same name is more notable. —  AjaxSmack  03:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pageviews indicate this actor is sought by readers by a factor of 45:1 over the other two articles.[1] Only 0.5% of readers reaching this page bother to click on the hatnote for the dab page. Station1 (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Every disambiguation page contains an entry which is visited more frequently than other entries on that dab page. If such most-frequently-visited entry were invariably raised to the level of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then just about every dab page would have a primary topic. Most dab pages, however, do not feature a primary topic because of a higher standard that attaches to a selection on this elevated level.
  Unlike such by-default primary topics as David Zimmer, which is the sole Wikipedia article that bears this name at the David Zimmer (disambiguation) page, the David Newell (disambiguation) page lists three other such-named subjects of Wikipedia articles, all of whom also lay claim to recognition. Even if the children's show character receives more views than the three other David Newells, there is no indication that his total number of views is indicative of sufficient interest on the part of users to justify his continued retention as the primary topic. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  It's a difference of opinion, but I think when one person gets at least 93% of the views, and the other three people get about 1% each, it does indicate sufficient interest on the part of users to justify primary topic status. Station1 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, a few additional opinions regarding this specific case would be helpful but, as a general example, if an individual who is already positioned as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC receives, for instance, 6 views during a year while the other three individuals on that page receive none, the individual with 6 views can be said to have received 100% of all the views and thus has legitimacy to be the primary topic of that dab page. The number of total views, however, would suggest that the entire dab page does not have sufficient interest to users for it to select any primary topic. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely that very small numbers make pageview analysis meaningless. There is a continuum where, as the total number of pageviews increases, the proportion of views needed to indicate primary use decreases. In this particular case, average daily usage of David Newell is around 166, while the others average 1 or 2. I think that combination of absolute and proportional usage is more than sufficient. Station1 (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(As a counterexample to this RM, see Talk:Walnut Hills Cemetery, where a cemetery in Massachusetts gets 2-3 times the views of one in Cincinnati, but, averaging 3 views per day vs 1 per day, a primary topic is not obvious.) Station1 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Station1. Those page view figures are quite astounding. The judge and the other actor are only averaging two page views each per day? I think this is a very clear indication that the Mr McFeely actor is the primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.