Talk:Ben Hunt

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Hunt (rugby league). 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/20110220030353/http://www.broncos.com.au/default.aspx?s=bronco-tv&vid=331999 to http://www.broncos.com.au/default.aspx?s=bronco-tv&vid=331999

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 10:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2025

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Ben Hunt (rugby league) → Ben Hunt – I would assume he is the primary topic for Ben Hunt Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 09:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 03:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Queensland, WikiProject Biography, alian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject Biography/Sports and games, and WikiProject Rugby league have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Clear primary topic. The other articles with the same name appear to have negligible page views in comparison to the RL player. [1] J Mo 101 (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• weak Oppose WHile I see the arguements as being the primary topic, I dont see Ben Hunt as having instant name recognition to be considered the clear primary topic. A quick google search only returns the Wikipedia article on the first page as the only link to the rugby player. Gnangarra 10:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Gnangarra 1. Rugby League. Not just Rugby. Multiple types of Rugby. League and Union Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  the argument being put forward isnt about which rugby, the question was is Ben Hunt the primary topic? Gnangarra 11:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  as the distinction between codes is important then he isnt the primary topic. Gnangarra 11:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Gnangarra I always distinct the codes unless referring to a multi code player. According to the current article Ben Hunt (Which could become Ben Hunt (disambiguation), there are no other rugby players (League or Union) called Ben Hunt with an article. Distinction of the codes is always important as just a reminder that Rugby League and Rugby Union (Although similar) are officially completely different sports. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  There are other Ben Hunts, outside of the rugby codesphere. This focus to the point of using bold type (as if I'm an idiot for saying Rugby) on the code shows how significant its usage is to distinguish this Ben Hunt that means he is clearly not the primary topic. Gnangarra 09:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Gnangarra I shouldn't have even raised the issue TBH. He is the clear primary topic per above. Next, I am sorry if I made you feel like an idiot. It is just that a player who only played one code being the only one in the codesphere does not excuse using simply rugby in article titles. In an article title, the disambiguation title "(rugby)" should only refer to players who played both codes. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gnangarra. There are seven men listed upon the Ben Hunt disambiguation page, with little indication that the renown of Ben Hunt (rugby league) has reached such overwhelming proportions that it dwarfs the combined notability of the remaining six men. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. No primary topic by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I don't disagree with the comments stating that there's no primary topic by significance alone, but long-term significance is only one of the two criteria for determining a primary topic. If all topics are of comparable significance, then pageviews should be decisive for determining whether there's a primary topic, and they show that the rugby player has over 20x as many average monthly pageviews as all other exact name matches combined. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support per MDT, with 95% of monthly average page views going to this Ben Huat over the last 10 years consistently, I think this subject passes both long term significance (possibly marginally though if compared directly with W. Ben Hunt) and page view tests. wikinav also shows significant majority of clicks to this subject. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom and others. Very clear primary topic here. Opposers are arguing he's not primary by long-term significance, but with no particular evidence or rationale attached. The page views and his general stature seem to indicate otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2025 (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.