| Revision as of 04:07, 13 August 2007 editTurtlescrubber (talk | contribs)2,351 edits →Survey: r← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:55, 7 December 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,834,395 editsm -redundant class params (2); cleanupTag: AWB |
| (308 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
== Redirect Obama to Barack Obama? == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Barack Obama}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2015 == |
|
Using his full name is unnecessary for a disambig page. Use the name he is most often referred to as. ] 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit fully protected|Obama (disambiguation)|answered=yes}} |
|
:Use the disambiguation. Redirecting Obama to Mr. Obama article is wrong because Mr. Obama is not a known person outside of the U.S.A. Misplaced Pages also says this is wrong. See here "Disambiguation in Misplaced Pages is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" The Obama city article was started a year BEFORE the Mr. Obama article. I have redirected Obama to Obama disambiguation. |
|
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Obama was President in since 2009 |
|
:When you look for Clinton, it is not redirected to Mr. Clinton or Mrs. Clinton. It is directed to Clinton (disambiguation) where you can see listings for many small towns called Clinton. Obama, Japan in Fukui is a big city.] 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 15:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
::Oh, come on. I will bet you that 99% of people who type in Obama are looking for Barack Obama, and not some village in Japan (32,000 is not a "big city"). There are hundreds of wiki links that link to the Barack Obama article, and only a handful (and mostly obscure ones) that link to Obama in Fukui. And while it is true that Obama, Japan existed before Barack Obama, that does not make it more important or give it precedence on Misplaced Pages. The reason that the towns called Clinton pop up is not because they are just as important as Bill and Hillary, but because it is not clear which of those two is more important. And to suggest that Mr. Obama is unknown outside the US is nonsense, especially in comparison to how well known Obama, Japan is outside of Japan, or outside of Fukui, for that matter --] 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:This page doesn't list the year as it's not necessary for this page. Edit request declined. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 16:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
:::'''Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format.''' ] 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Agreed. Misplaced Pages policy favors redirection when one usage is overwhelmingly more common. ] has already explained above why this situation differs from the ] example. Redirect done, and the ] template added to ] page so that users can easily find the disambiguation page. —] (]) 09:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format.''' ] 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Also agree. Wikicharts lists the ] article among the 300 most viewed Misplaced Pages articles for 6 of the past 7 months. In February 2007, it was , getting an estimated 21,429 views per day. There is no other "Obama" article listed among the top 1000 articles tracked by Wikicharts. If we are primarily interested in making Misplaced Pages more accessible to its users, the sensible answer seems clear. --] 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::'''Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format.''' ] 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Barack Obama is a minor politician who is little known except in the USA. Misplaced Pages is an international website, not a tool of the USA. A neutral administrator has already reached a concensus that Obama would be a disambiguation page. This happened in June 2007. Misplaced Pages policy demands neutrality and disambiguation in case of disputes. ] 06:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::"A neutral administrator has already reached a concensus that Obama would be a disambiguation page." Where is this supposed consensus? Show us a link to the discussion where this consensus was established. Certainly, no such consensus exists on this talk page. —] (]) 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Barack Obama is not a minor politician - he is one of the front runners for the Presidency, and I suspect he's rather more well-known than any of the other Obamas listed on the dab page, and is the one who is most likely being searched for when someone types in Obama. Save your criticism of the USA - if someone types in ] or ], they are likely looking for Jacques or Boris. Neither one is a tool of the USA, and both go directly to these individuals' pages with the disambiguation page listed on top for other uses of the name. I don't see where consensus was reached on this page about this change - I favor going back to the same approach as Chirac. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 06:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format.''' ] 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yeltsin and Chirac are both former heads of state. The Obama disambiguation is similar to ], and ] in that respect; although, I would also not oppose a move of ] to a DAB page. Also, the DABs of Yeltsin are all related to him, so it is not the same issue as we have here (a sitting prime minister, a historic clan and a city, and a potential nominee for president) by any stretch of the imagination. Quite a mixed bag. ] 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::All we need to consider here is whether one particular usage of "Obama" is overwhelmingly more used than other usages. And one particular usage is. Obama, Japan, is a small, small city, and all other people named Obama are far less well-known than Barack. —] (]) 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Couldn't agree more, Lowellian. Let's not kid ourselves with false analogies and shoddy comparisons, either. Comparing the name "Edwards" with the name "Obama" is decidedly apples to oranges. "Obama (disambig)" is perfectly adequate and appropriate, with "Obama" piping straight to ]. ] 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::'''Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format.''' ] 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::To move ] to ] should go through the normal ] procedure. The original content of ] was the disambiguation. The wider audience would help reach a concensus as to whether or not a particular usage deserves the redirect in Misplaced Pages. ] 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I came here to find out about Prime Minister Mangue Obama. I was curious to see what kind of discussion someone would find in the disambiguation page. For the sake of comparison, look at Edwards (disambiguation). John Edwards is certainly the most famous Edwards that I see in the disambiguation but he is just a fad and a politician known in his home country, the United States. There are less famous Edwards people and many cities of Edwards listed in the disambiguation page. If Edwards leads to disambiguation, so should Obama. Someone mentioned wikipedia policy is for disambiguation if there is a dispute. The question of what to do is straightforward in this case. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''By the way, Mangue Obama is the Prime Minister. That is more senior than senator. (I'm not saying Obama should be directed to Mangue Obama but he currently has a higher priority than Senator Obama)''' Also note that Equatorial Guinea is no longer a dictatorship but a democracy. US Secretary of State Rice recently met with that government.] 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Obama == |
|
|
|
|
|
Your of ] states that you did so per the discussion on the talk page. This is incorrect, as the discussion on the talk page does not indicate anywhere a consensus to redirect ] to ]. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Please explain your blatant ignoring of the discussion there. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your portrayal is disingenuous. "Quite the opposite" is quite inaccurate (a majority support the DAB), and despite the fact that ], the majority also happens to have made their case clearly with policy rationale and pertinent examples. Also, if you are going to be involved in a naming concern, you could at least learn how to spell the subject's name: "Barack." Not "Barak" or "Barrack." ] 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::How is it disingenuous to say that there was no consensus on the talk page regarding whether ] should be redirected to ]? And I was questioning your action, not discussing the content of a particular article. You can't simply brush this off when you took a unilateral action which was not supported by consensus. And making comments about a typo is rude to say the least. The question here is not whether or not there should be a dab page, but whether there was enough support to have the dab page at ] instead of ]. I'd say that a prime minister of a country is much more important than a US senator who may not even be nominated by his party to run for president. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::First of all, there has been no real discussion on this talk page; just some people saying "it belongs here" and moving it, and others saying "it belongs there" and moving it back. I '''still''' don't understand why people insist on unilaterally moving the page from ] to ]. It reeks of ] and despite the popularity of the ''potential nominee'' in his home country, I don't see how it justifies a default disambiguation over other equally prominent people (a sitting prime minister!) and usage in at least two separate nations as a common name. The page ] was the disambiguation to start with, and there is no reason for the move without discussing it at ]. If it is such an open/shut case as some people seem to think, then all that is lost by taking the discussion there is four or five days waiting for the admin to close the official discussion. Until then, we will be embroiled in a wheel war, I guess. ] 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The users who've advocated an Obama (DAB) weren't anymore "unilateral" than you and Nihonjoe's little move-protect dance just now. The only difference between DAB advocates and you two is that the DAB advocates can't enforce their preference via page protection. I added some bolding above to assist you in your misconceptions and misrepresentation of Talk discussion; this "unilateral" talk is obvious, transparent posturing on your part. ] 23:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Page move protection == |
|
|
|
|
|
As people keep moving this article back and forth, I have protecting it from being moved for seven days while we hold a discussion over where this article should be. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Nihonjoe, your protection while involved in the dispute was completely inappropriate. ] 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Discussion of already-made move== |
|
|
] → ] — While ] may be well known at the moment, the fact remains that he is only a US senator who ''may'' receive his party's nomination to run for the US presidency. There are other older and more well known in the world at large uses of the word "Obama", including multiple municipalities in Japan, a prime minister, and so forth. Therefore, I'm proposing that this page be moved back to ] where it was before all this nonsense started. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC) —···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is a total farce. Nihonjoe and Neier . There's no "requested move" -- the move was done (Obama (DAB) to Obama), then you protected it. The move has been done, and it's been protected by an involved sysop editor. ] 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Call it what you will, but I'm obviously not playing favorites here as I want the article to be at ]. If I was really on a power triop, I would have moved everything to where I thought it should go, and ''then'' protected everything. Please get off your high horse and just participate like an adult instead of slinging insults around. Whatever we decide, I'll be happy to go along with. If it is decided to redirect ] to the politician, than I'll go along with it. It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with a decision, but I'm grown up enough to accept that I don't always get my way. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'll call it a farce and an inappropriate use of your sysop access. You're involved in the dispute, but protected the outcome you openly desire. I'm not having a "proposed move" discussion over a move that's already been made and protected. ] 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Are you blind? I'm not protecting the version I prefer. Go back and read what I wrote a little more carefully as you're obviously not seeing what I wrote. And I'll go along with whatever gets decided here. I protected it from being moved only so it wouldn't keep being moved back and forth by various people while we hold a nice civilised discussion here. Now, if you please, please participate in a civilised manner instead of assuming bad faith on the part of everyone who disagrees with you. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Are you just being coy? You have been a vocal advocate against the DAB format, and you've since protected the outcome you desire. You should've never touched your sysop tools on articles related to this dispute, especially protecting your preference. I ''am not'' going to sit here and have some backwards pow-wow on whether or not to make a move you've already done and locked. ] 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::What are you talking about? I'm all for having disambiguation pages, and I've certainly not been vocal against having DAB pages. I just find it absurd to have ] point to ]. And as I've written here several times, '''I did not protect the page at my preference'''. I didn't make the most recent move. You seem to me to be obviously too blinded by your desired preference to participate in a rationa discussion over the correct use of the ] article. I've been very open about what I prefer, and I've also been very clear that I'll go along with whatever is decided here, even if it's not my preferred outcome. Do you want me to swear a blood oath and mail it to you? Please, ]. There's no need for your vitriol. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Use whatever rhetoric you like ("vitriol," "vandalism," "childish"), the fact of the matter is that you used your sysop access . Neier made the moves, you made the locks. This is the most clear case of poor sysop judgment I've seen in quite some time. ] 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I did not collaborate with Neier. I saw that he had made the move, and so I protected both pages from being moved, then set up this discussion. If you're referring to the note Neier left on my talk page, that was placed there after I'd done all of this. There was no premeditation, planning, or secret collaboration here. You are assuming too much, and incorrectly. Please stop the assumption of bad faith and simply participate like an adult. Your mudslinging is getting us no closer to a consensus on what should be done here. Again, I will go along with whatever outcome is determined. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Your move-lock cooperation with Neier is obvious. Indeed there was no "secret collaboration" -- it was flatly transparent. No disagreement here. So far as the "outcome" goes, you and Neier have already decided it. There is no "requested move," it has already been done and protected. ] 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You should check the timestamps. My message on Nihonjoe's talk page was after I wrote my opinion below, and it is addressing the fact that I don't think he went far enough. I think the content of ] and ] should be protected during the discussion, not just a protection against page moves. I fail to see how that is a cooperation. Heck, I had only been awake for less than an hour when I first updated these pages. I don't think that's long enough to coordinate such a conspiracy. ] 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's only obvious because you're reading too much into it. There was no premeditated collaboration here, secret or otherwise. The page isn't even where I would prefer it, so why you keep insisting that I want the page at ] is beyond me. Go look at the history and you'll see where I'd prefer it. However, that is neither here nor there. The discussion at hand is whether this page should be moved to ] (and, on a related note) whether ] should be a redirect to ] or just a plain old disambiguation page located at ]. Let's try to focus on that, shall we? As I've indicated many times here now, I will go along with whichever outcome is decided. That necessitates a discussion happening so an outcome can be decided. Again, let's focus on that, shall we? ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Below, Nihonjoe has stated an unwillingness to respond to my objections. Again, this entire exercise is in obvious bad faith, and '''I repudiate its validity for establishing any enforceable outcome at the most vocal level possible'''. ] 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since ], please explain your reasons, taking into account ].'' |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' per reasons outlined above. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. We need to be eliminating ], not going out of our way to create new instances of it. Even if Barack Obama were president of the US, affording him the ] redirect by default over the prime minister of another sovereign nation seems rather arrogant. Many more well-known people (], ]) have no such default redirect. And, while others do (], ], ]), those all seem to be limited to one culture or another (all ] references are in France; all ] references stem from the more well-known Boris, etc. ] 23:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not participating in this backwards, bad-faith polling.''' The move was made and protected; it's been done. This little exercise after-the-fact is a complete farce. ] 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**I only protected after seeing Neier move it again. I thought it was time we stopped moving the page back and forth to various locations and attempt to discuss things as it was obvious there were strong opinions on all sides of the issue. As I've written here multiple times, '''I'll go along with whatever is decided''', but we need to come to some sort of consensus on what to do with this page. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
***'''No way am I going to participate in some backwards chat session over whether or not to make a move you've already done and locked.''' You should've found someone completely uninvolved and kept your hands off your sysop tools when you're in the middle of a content dispute. ] 00:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', I see nothing wrong with the current title. If ] is redirected to Barack Obama, then I would probably agree. But last time I check, Obama is redirected to this disambiguation page (]), and I see nothing pov or biases on that. ] <sub>]</sub> 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. While assuming good faith, Italiavivi is right about the outcome here. If the redirect is from ] to ], the outcome of the poll is moot. The page will be moved automatically to the plain title per ] by the good folks working at ]. That indicates to me that this comes down to where the ] redirect should point, as that dictates the location of the dab. What should really be happening here is an RfD for ], and I'm tempted to close this early and move the discussion over there. ]<font color="darkgreen"><small>]</small></font> 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''' I think I agree with Dekimasu (if I can agree, without Dekimasu also being labeled a cabalite conspirator). What I've been trying to say at the beginning is that we should put this page back at ], which is what Nihonjoe had done a few times, since it had been there originally (pre 12/2006). The rash of redirects and moves since then has accomplished nothing. If we can rationally discuss whether Obama needs to be moved to ] in order to free up the one-name redirect to Barack, the redirect war would stop. Joe was trying to avert a revert/wheel war. Joe's pagemoves were in-line with ] (based on my reverting of the redirect links), and probably got tired of moving the article to eliminate the DAB redirect each time, so he set up the RM with the pages as-were. The current RM kinda does this, but, doing it in the other way as proposed by Dekimasu would be clearer. ] 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
***Give me a break. The two using the phrase "cabal" are yourself and Nihonjoe; you can both take your veiled insults and shove them straight up your asses, for that matter. If we're going to be blatantly uncivil as you two now are, let's be upfront and open about it. ] 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''I don't understand WTF is happening with this page and don't know how to vote. Why is this discussion so fucked up? ] 04:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
:''Any additional comments:'' |
|
|
It should be noted that this move request is being done backwards. The original title '''was''' ], and a subsequent edit war erupted when some people tried to move it to ]. The closing admin should keep this in mind, when evaluating concensus at the end of this discussion, since ties tend to default to the status quo. I maintain that the status quo is what it was two weeks ago before this nonsense started. ] 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's not so much backward as it is going from where we stand now. I think it should be at ], partially because having a redirect from ] to ] just seems absurd to me, and partially because of the reasons I listed above (the fact that a prime minister shares the name, and multiple municipalities or regions in Japan—which are far older than any of the other uses—share the name). ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''This is not a "Requested move" discussion.''' The move was made and protected , and now we're having a "requested move" ''afterwards''? Is this a joke? ] 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::There is no cabal here. There was no collaboration. Please stop assuming bad faith and just participate (or not) like an adult. Filling the discussion with baseless accusations does nothing but divert the discussion away from the actual discussion: what should be done with the ]/] articles? ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::''There is no cabal here.'' -- Aw, c'mon. I've never been in a cabal before, and, was starting to like the sound of it along with the newfound riches and glories it promised. Joking aside, I don't see how you have any basis for accusals of collaboration besides the fact that the two of us both feel that the apriori status quo was suitable, before a few rogue editors started redirecting an established article to a single member of the DAB page. |
|
|
::::::Giving one another high-fives from each others' jokes ''really'' helps you two look objective. ] 00:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I still disagree with the way Nihonjoe handled this -- I think the page should have been moved back to Obama to start with, and the "Requested move" be handled the other way (RM from ''Obama'' to ''Obama (disambiguation)''). I guess he did it this way as a compromise, and to avoid any appearance of admin abuse. |
|
|
:::::Anyway, the "Requested move" is still valid. I think that the current redirect from ] to ] is unnecessary, and it will disappear if this discussion deems it so. ] 00:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You're right, there's no "cabal" -- just two editors, one with sysop access, who collaborated to protect their desired outcome. You already decided and protected the outcome in cooperation with Neier. ] 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Please stop with the false accusations and focus on the discussion. I'm not going to bother responding to your accusations any longer as it's obvious you are not paying attention to anything I write and are determined to assume the worst. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You don't have to respond, but you won't be using this little Orwellian pow-wow exercise as evidence against this Talk page's past participants. This "requested move" discussion is simply an extended venue for yourself and Neier to express opinions you've already stated and to back up your cooperative move/locking of the articles. You say you're an objective observer -- if you were, '''you'dve not used your sysop tools whilst being part of the content dispute'''. ] 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
No offense. But if this move is already decided, then a requested move wastes our time. ] <sub>]</sub> 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:The question is, Chris, decided by whom? As Italiavivi pointed out with his bolded notes above, in the only discussion I've seen on this, five editors supported having Obama redirect to Barack Obama, with a pointer on Barack Obama to Obama (disambiguation). They (we) each gave reasoned arguments for that position which seem to have been ignored. For example, the point was made above that ] has been one of the most viewed pages on Misplaced Pages in recent months, far more than any of the other Obama pages, and normal convention here is to have the most likely response to a search used as the redirect. But this point was not responded to. I don't think this is the most important issue in the world, but I don't like to see unilateral decisions made without full discussion in the face of objections. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 03:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
