Talk:Lucas Horton

message: Need to create a Horton Family page and then remove all of Lucas' relatives, which I agree should be removed after a family page is created.  17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relatives

message: This material should be consolidated into Days of our Lives.
While the soap opera Days of our Lives is clearly noteworthy enough to be in an encyclopedia, the characters from the story are not noteworthy enough to warrant encyclopedia entries.
In addition, the material about Lucas Roberts does not cite any references and seems to rely upon the editors' memories.-- Mumia-w-18 01:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That user has not edited here for quite some time, at least not under that user name (if she has continued to edit here at all). Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should consolidate into [[Days of our Lives]] 

message: Should Lucas' named be changed? On Friday, he refered to himself as "Lucas Horton".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm087 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NO!  His common name is Roberts and it is not official.  He actually called himself both. CelticGreen 23:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His common name is Roberts, and even he can't get it right, he changes it every other day.  Common name policy prevails on this.  Additionally, his name is not hyphenated and for sure, never will be.  References or changes that indicate a hyphenate will immediately be removed. IrishLass (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Common name, of course, still applies. He has apparently been known as Lucas Roberts for years. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucas Horton 

message: Isn't Lucas in Hong Kong shouldn't his last appearance be displayed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.5.105 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucas is Hong Kong 

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. 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: Procedural closure. The consensus already reached. George Ho (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucas Horton →  – Per the same reasons above. Per WP:COMMONNAME and the sources found, Roberts is still is WP:COMMONNAME and should not have been moved for no reason. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
*Thank you for closing that, I meant to do that after moving the page and it slipped my mind. I concur with the close. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 13:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: BDD and BD2412, this article was very recently moved, but, per the past move discussions above and what WP:Requested moves states about moves that are likely to be contested or controversial, shouldn't this article go through the WP:Requested moves process first...again? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Use WP:RM#TR, under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". --BDD (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest move of this article

message: As an active editor at Will Horton I've been very amused to see this article bouncing back and forth and back and forth between Lucas Roberts and Lucas Horton! It's funny if you're not involved! And I totally see both sides! For the first 14 years the character was Lucas Roberts, and there is *huge* amounts of story and history attached to that name. But now the official name *is* Lucas Horton, and it has been his name on the show for *nine* years now. There's such an easy solution to this - call the article Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts). Surely that would be end-of-story and make everyone happy! It makes sense to me!  Plus, I'd be very happy to see Will Horton moved to Will Horton (Will Roberts), and if we moved both together then we'd have accordance between the two, which, as they're father and son, and their names were changed together, it would make sense that they match, and it would be very cool. I do think the name Will Roberts needs greater prominence at Will's article, because it *was* the character's name - and credit name - for the bulk of his onscreen "life", and this proposal makes sense for that article too. And it totally makes sense that the Will and the Lucas article both have the same form, and this proposal can make this happen! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The current situation - where the article is called Lucas Roberts, but opens "Lucas Horton ..." and the Infobox name is also Lucas Horton - is not a defendable situation. I recommend the proposal I've put forward here as a way - and indeed the best way - out of this impasse. Let's locate the article at Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts), and open it with Lucas Horton (also known as Lucas Roberts) ...  Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Today "Days of Our Lives" "Lucas Horton" gets me 11,500 results on google, more than "Days of our Lives" "Lucas Roberts" which gets me 8640. The show calls the character "Lucas Horton", and has done for nine years! Their official web-page credits the character as "Lucas Horton". The character's son is most-commonly called "Will Horton". Previous discussions about the location of this article don't seem to have taken into account the value of having correspondence with the articles for the character's children, and this is a mistake. The character's daughter has always been called "Allie Horton"! Also, the character of Lucas was designed from the start to be a Horton - it was one of those incidents where the show has decided to add a character to a core family by having creating a new character, and then having a paternity reveal! It was a deliberate thing to add a new Horton family member. Having the article just called "Lucas Roberts" is no longer defensible. I recommend my suggestion of Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts), because of the importance of both the current name and the original name, with Lucas Horton going first because of all the reasons above. There is no consensus for Lucas Roberts - not any more!  Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts) and Will Horton (Will Roberts)

message: As someone who knows nothing about the show let alone the character, I suggest adding a section to the article that clearly explains the story about the two names.  The origin of each name, when and why the switch was made, what "he" uses now, whether he's dropped the original name entirely or it still gets used, etc.  That said, let's also remember that the whole point of WP:COMMONNAME is to put articles at titles most likely to be sought. If the character is using X today and hasn't used Y in years, then searches today are much more likely to be for X than Y, regardless of what the Google hits show. --В²C ☎ 19:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion/advice

message: Ferret's move protection recently expired. Per above, if this article is moved to "Lucas Horton" again without WP:Consensus, it will be moved back to "Lucas Roberts," and I will seek to get it move-protected again. As far as I'm concerned, it should be indefinitely move-protected because of the undiscussed moving of the article and repeated moving of it against consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Move protection expired

message: What a waste of my time it has been to put in a careful and extensive argument for moving this to Lucas Horton, when opposers insist on using non-phrase searches to determine the notability of phrases, and the closer seems to think non-phrase searches have value too! It's ridiculous! 
Here is what wp policy currently says on the matter:
From WP:SET#Notability:
:Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.
:Additionally, search engines do not disambiguate, and tend to match partial searches. (However, as described below, you can eliminate partial matches by quoting the phrase to be matched): While Madonna of the Rocks is certainly an encyclopedic and notable entry, it's not a pop culture icon. However, due to Madonna matching as a partial match, as well as other Madonna references not related to the painting, the results of a Google or Bing search result count will be disproportionate as compared to any equally notable Renaissance painting. To exclude partial matches when Googling for the phrase, quote the phrase to be matched as follows: "Madonna of the Rocks".
For goodness sake "Roberts" surname is almost eight times as common as "Horton" so of course non-phrase searches are going to produce masses of results for "Roberts"
This is a ridiculous bad decision, which has done nothing but waste people's time.</br>
</br>
Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your review request. I've realized that the consensus was indeed to support the move. While you could've been a little more gentle in this request, i don't take offense to your words as I understand you were clearly frustrated by my bad close. I've updated the closing statement above. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reviewing the move request. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I see, Yashovardhan was correct to close the RfC as no consensus. Aliveness Cascade, who is going on one interpretation of the search results, simply really wanted this article to use the name "Horton." The close should have been taken to WP:Close review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I also see that Yashovardhan Dhanania is a very new editor. Sorry, but I'd rather have an experienced editor making this close. I'll be listing this as a close review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided multiple cogent arguments for why this article is best located at Lucas Horton. For Flyer22 Reborn to say I "simply really wanted this article to use the name Horton" appears to intentionally denigrate that (and seeing as this was not my original choice of location, it is a bit out-there as an accusation, LOL!). Why not actually address the arguments *and* actually explain your position Flyer22, that non-phrase searches are a valid indicator of the notability of a phrase, *and* explain why exact-phrase searches are not. And actually provide a real argument why you think "Lucas Horton" is not WP:COMMONNAME today when exact phrase searches on "Lucas Roberts", "Lucas Horton", and "Days of Our Lives" say that it is! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You wanted the article moved to "Lucas Horton." And you wanted it badly. This talk page shows that. I don't buy your search arguments; I see no need to state more. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem not to grasp that it is evidence and reason that counts. You dismiss it so lightly! And when the nominator here puts forward good arguments, you denigrate it as "wanting it badly", and dismiss them out of hand. Your editing here is disruptive and not in the spirit of wikipedia. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm letting Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 May#Lucas Horton handle this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

text: And for the record, WP:SET#Notability is not a policy; stop treating it like one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalidity of non-phrase searches in determining the notability of names with more than one word. 

message: Google all-countries results today for:</br>
"Madonna of the Rocks":  214,000</br>
"Virgin of the Rocks":  3060,000</br>
Hence article is at Virgin of the Rocks, redirect at Madonna of the Rocks
The fact that non-phrase searches bring up more for unquoted Madonna of the Rocks is irrelevant:</br>
Madonna of the Rocks:   7360,000</br>
Virgin of the Rocks:    5920,000</br>
... because non-phrase searches report hits if Madonna and Rocks are not together in the phrase "Madonna of the Rocks", and, after all, Madonna rocks!</br>
This is the very article given as an example in WP:SET#Notability, which is given as guideline of use for search engine searches to measure notability.
Hence, with today's all-countries, all-times, all-results from google:</br>
"Lucas Roberts" "Days of Our Lives":  10,700</br>
"Lucas Horton" "Days of Our Lives":   20,200</br>
gives Lucas Horton as the predominant name. Hence the evidence from google is that Lucas Horton is the correct location for this article.
If you're in a different location to me your results will likely differ a bit (due to google mirror sites not being in-sync) and the results change with time too - but they're going to be in the same ball-park.
If you don't use quotes you are pulling up articles with the words scattered about and unconnected with each other. Don't be confused by the fact that google will bring up results where they are together first, the hits score will report all articles whether they are together or not - which is why such searches cannot be used to measure notability of article names comprising more than one word. Non-phrase searches will skew towards Roberts, because in the real world Roberts is a much more prevalent name than Horton, plus on the show there is another character - Kate Roberts - who is likely to be co-mentioned in Days of Our Lives articles with Lucas (she's his mother), plus his old surname could be mentioned. Which way they skew it does not really matter - the fact is non-phrase searches will skew, because they measure the world-wide frequency of unconnected words, and so they cannot be used to measure the notability of phrases.
It's very simple really. If you want to measure the notability of a phrase (ie. a multiple-word name) with a search engine, an exact-phrase search is essential to do so.  Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[WP:SET]] example of exact-phrase searching, and its relevance to Lucas Horton 

message: The casting section seems way over-large to me. There's been only one actor playing Lucas, but the casting section is bigger than the casting sections for characters who have had multiple actors! Lucas's casting section is almost twice as big as Will's - and seven actors have played Will! Bottom line is the article is about the character Lucas Horton and *not* about Bryan Datillo, let alone the ins and outs of his career. I don't like removing well-sourced content, nevertheless this section is inappropriately large and detailed, and more-to-the-point, not pertinent to the article. What's more - how about we give Bryan, who's a great guy - a break, and not have a big quote box right up front talking about a not-so-great moment in his career?
As it would be considered major change to cut this section down, I'm raising the matter here prior to edit.  Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting: propose major cutback of section