Talk:Luke Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures)

message: *No --Brown Shoes22 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, what? TalkIslander 17:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted

message: It has become obvious to me that I have made some grievous mistakes in the handling of this article, nit only through my revert of removing the WP:PROD but through proposing its candidacy for speedy deletion, or deletion at all.User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My errors

message: Do not just assert notability. This article fails WP:FICT, WP:V and WP:RS.
Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources. For fictional elements, this will typically include the real-world context and analysis of the elements, and can include influence and other aspects of its development, critical reception of the elements, and popularity of the element through readership/viewership ratings and marketing. Notability of an element may also be shown through secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work. Reputable academic studies of individual elements may also demonstrate notability.
Find some significant coverage in reliable secondary sources supporting the claim for notability or this article will be taken to AfD. 59.167.55.236 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who by, you?  I suggest that you stop picking on this article - given that  your probably making a WP:POINT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.240.33 (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a full page interview with Thomas Knight talking about the character of Luke Smith in a recent issue of Doctor Who Magazine.  I don't have access to the magazine at the moment (and won't for another week), but if somebody else wants to provide it that would help. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I admit that I know nothing of any Wikipedia guidelines on this kind of thing, and I don't care enough to learn them, but I can't realistically see why this article should be deleted at all.  Wikipedia's supposed to provide information on this kind of thing, isn't it? 88.107.39.31 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not necessarily. There are a number of criteria that must be met for an article to be included. Having said that, the main one here is WP:N, or Notability - take a look, the majority of us feel this article passes that no problem, one anon. IP begs to differ... TalkIslander 22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me above in the previous 88.x comment, I should really remember to log in while on my laptop...  Anyway, I see where the original contester is coming from now, regarding the notability.  So excuse a wiki-edit noob for learning, but I'm assuming that means that this article doesn't have any secondary sources to prove that this info actually matters:- like official episode guides, or something.  In that case, then there is indeed a lengthy interview with Tommy Knight in DWM 398, and there are also official novelisations of half of the stories from season one. Jonty-comp (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This article still relies entirely on primary sources. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
* only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
* make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process. 59.167.62.192 (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , you might as well log in whilst commenting, as it's fairly clear that it's you ;). If you have a problem with the article, deal with it. Yes, we still need to add some DWM sources, but it will be done in time. The recent (pointy) AfD was closed as a very clear keep, with the suggestions that some extra sources need to be added. Wikipedia has no deadline, so be patient. TalkIslander 10:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Is it worth noting his appearance in an episode of the programme Chute! alonside Clyde Langer (in character)? 86.131.235.139 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not personally convinced it is. TalkIslander 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that a brief mention would hurt.  It would be especially good if you could find a reference to the appearance in a reliable source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found source: . Scroll to 10:50 AM. I knew it was real befote because I'd seen it for myself. Yowuza ZX Wolfie 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chute!]] 

message: I'm beginning to draft an article on Luke Smith, a games editor and Bungie employee, and so I'm going to move this to a disambig page; will Luke Smith (Doctor Who) suffice? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As there are only (once you've finished your article) two Luke Smith's, there isn't really need for a disambig page. Surely, (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), as the more commonly used Luke Smith, this article should stay as is, with a :Template:For at the top pointing to 'Luke Smith (games designer)', or something similar... TalkIslander 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hardly say a fictional character from 2007 takes precedence over a real-life person who has made a name for himself before then. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the recent AfD shows quite clearly where the community stands as to the notability of this Luke Smith. If your Luke Smith was as notable (and, as you yourself state, made a name for himself well before this one), why has he not already got an article? Another measure of who should take the 'top spot': this Luke Smith is integral to Doctor Who, a highly highly successful BBC drama, successful both in the UK, USA and elsewhere. Your Luke Smith, I have to admit I have no idea. Could you name some games which his input has been integral to? A comparison between the popularity of them and Doctor Who would also give indications as to who should receive the 'top spot'. TalkIslander 21:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Of course, I forgot the blindingly obvious: what is someone who types 'Luke Smith' into Wikipedia most likely to be looking for? Per WP:DISAMBIG, that is the article that should take 'Luke Smith' (as, of course, there are only two in this case). TalkIslander 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An AfD does not mean that automatically it should take the top spot at anything, and just because he's not here just means we're WP:IMPERFECT as always. Smith has been credited with not only revitalizing the web site 1UP.com but video game journalism itself, and is the community director of Bungie, the creators of Halo 3 and the upcoming ODST (the Halo/Bungie fan community is actually worth quite a bit of discussion as well, whenever I get around to it.) His move from 1UP to Bungie was the subject of headlines. I mean, if we want to be arbitrary, he's the top hits for the search time (aside from this wikipedia article). (Oh, and when I said 'disambig' before I was thinking of the little "This is about... for X, see Y" thing, just wasn't sure what you called it. My mistake.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Let's first see how your article fares before moving any article. Right now, the fictional character is the primary topic. One can not claim 'top spot' on a whim; if, over time, your article becomes more popular, then we start thinking about moving articles.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound reasoning, but right now you are claiming that this character is top dog "on a whim", so to speak; I'm talking about evaluation now. You can see my draft in progress at User:David_Fuchs/draft. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so he is called Luke M. Smith. That means problem solved and all that is needed is a hatnote on top of the page.  — Edokter • Talk •  03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: but that's not his common name people would ever search for (i.e., people don't run around calling him "Luke M Smith" like they do with George W. Bush.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Why do we need time to "re-evaluate"? Just because one article got here first does not automatically mean it is the primary topic. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't automatically make it the primary topic, but it's a very good indication that it is, when you also consider the fact that the other Luke Smith made a name for himself before this one. TalkIslander 17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't mention "what got here first" as a criteria for determining the primary topic, which is smart considering judging things on Wikipedia isn't that great a benchmark. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Being the first article makes it quite clear which is the more popular/searched for/notable Luke Smith. LS2 (your* one) has been 'active' for longer than LS1 (this one). However, even though this is the case, LS2 hasn't had an article until now, whereas LS1 has had an article for 25 months. That very clearly wouldn't be the case if LS 2 was searched for more, or if LS2 was more popular. It's very simple logic, that's not difficult to understand. For that reason, this Luke Smith is not moving until you can prove that an article on your* Luke Smith gains more page views, and that will take a few months. (I keep refering to him as your Luke Smith - I'm assuming he's not yours, 'cause that would be a clear violation of WP:COI ;P). TalkIslander 19:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That has to be some of the worst rationalizations I've ever heard, but have it your way. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers David :). TalkIslander 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letting you all know... 

message: :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. 
The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Luke Smith → Luke Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures) — - So that Luke Smith can become a disambiguation page. The character from The Sarah Jane Adventures appears to be of roughly equal importance with Luke Smith (writer). --84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Well then surely the "Luke Smith (writer)" article should replace this article at "Luke Smith", while this article should become "Luke Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures)"? I don't see how a fictional character can enjoy primary status over a real person, when "Luke Smith (writer)" is better developed and better referenced over this article. I can see you are involved in WikiProject Doctor Who, but don't let that affect your judgement. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the anon. This is a stub article about a children's TV show character, versus a Good article about a living person, with the latter probably being more notable. Ophois (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly a stub... question is: which is the primary article, the writer or the TV character?  — Edokter • Talk •  15:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Doctor Who WikiProject classifies it as a stub, and the article consists only of in-universe plot information. This article should probably be deleted/merged IMO, as it's been over a year since the last proposed deletion, and it still hasn't improved at all. Anyways, is there a way to measure traffic to both articles? I think it would be best to give it to the most-visited article. Ophois (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

text: 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.
Now that the page has moved, the curtious thing to do by the requester is to fix the 100+ incoming links that now point to the wrong article.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Luke Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures). 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/20130725015424/http://www.hypable.com/2013/07/05/russell-t-davies-dishes-on-the-doctor-who-spin-off-the-sarah-jane-adventures/ to http://www.hypable.com/2013/07/05/russell-t-davies-dishes-on-the-doctor-who-spin-off-the-sarah-jane-adventures/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified