| Revision as of 09:09, 25 April 2017 editThis is Paul (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers159,635 edits →See also section: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:57, 25 April 2017 edit undoDresken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,058 edits →See also sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::::I, indeed, implicitly gestured toward OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and then dismissed it, because I am not a caricature of my own argument. Please pay me that respect. Since the names "William" and "Bill" are commonly used interchangeably, there is good reason people might use one in an attempt to find someone whose article is located at the other. (I cannot provide a reliable source about Misplaced Pages user behavior on this, since I am not doing qualitative sociological research on Wikipedians; I am making an argument from simple logic, not empirical data.) There is, thus, good reason to include a link from one to the other on disambigation pages (] is another example). Since they are different forms of each other, as ] both permits and recommends, the links are reasonable. The disambiguation page ] notes that it is a "common nickname for ]", but this is unsourced (and does not need one, because it is blatantly obvious and trivially verifiable - we agree on ''that'', surely?). ] (]) 07:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | ::::I, indeed, implicitly gestured toward OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and then dismissed it, because I am not a caricature of my own argument. Please pay me that respect. Since the names "William" and "Bill" are commonly used interchangeably, there is good reason people might use one in an attempt to find someone whose article is located at the other. (I cannot provide a reliable source about Misplaced Pages user behavior on this, since I am not doing qualitative sociological research on Wikipedians; I am making an argument from simple logic, not empirical data.) There is, thus, good reason to include a link from one to the other on disambigation pages (] is another example). Since they are different forms of each other, as ] both permits and recommends, the links are reasonable. The disambiguation page ] notes that it is a "common nickname for ]", but this is unsourced (and does not need one, because it is blatantly obvious and trivially verifiable - we agree on ''that'', surely?). ] (]) 07:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::Alex, since you were directed to the policy that relates to this more than once, given several examples, and continue to disagree and argue, what else can it be but a matter of ]? On the issue of the page, the disambiguation page should probably be at ] rather than here, with the jazz musician included in the main body (since Bill is a shortform of William) and the Doctor Who character included in a see also section. Then all we have to decide is whether Bill Potts redirects to William Potts (disambiguation) or something else. ] (]) 09:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | :::Alex, since you were directed to the policy that relates to this more than once, given several examples, and continue to disagree and argue, what else can it be but a matter of ]? On the issue of the page, the disambiguation page should probably be at ] rather than here, with the jazz musician included in the main body (since Bill is a shortform of William) and the Doctor Who character included in a see also section. Then all we have to decide is whether Bill Potts redirects to William Potts (disambiguation) or something else. ] (]) 09:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::: As per ] this is not appropriate as the articles do not mention these people were known by this abbreviation of William. Cheers, ] (]) 10:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:57, 25 April 2017
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
See also section
Per MOS:SEEALSO, I added a see also section to this page, since Bill is a shortform of William. Another user has objected for unclear reasons (other than from what appears to be a personal preference). I am opening a discussion to gauge broader consensus on this matter. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your accusations of IDONTLIKEIT are completely unfounded, as I have explicitly stated why they are not to be included. So, I reiterated for the third time: unless the two additions were commonly known as Bill rather than William, then they should not be included, regardless of whether they are under a "See also" section or not. The page is for Bill Potts, not William Potts - they are different. Can you provide sources for this, or is it simply unsourced original research?
- A simple fact that you do not seem to understand overly clearly is that given that it is your content being disputed, it stands to remove the content until there is consensus to include it. So, I recommend to you to self-revert; if not, a report may be filed for edit-warring to force your contributions onto the page as an attempt to own it. -- Alex 01:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Some examples: William Smith, William Bailey, Bill Evans (disambiguation). It is widespread current practice, though that does not tell us that it should be. But even on pages where a rigorous separation by common name is maintained - like William Jones/Bill Jones/Billy Jones/Will Jones - there are "see also" sections linking to analogous disambiguation pages. That's because...well, "Bill" is often short for "William". I really don't see why that's controversial. (Do we need a reliable source substantiating this?) Chubbles (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Where they known commonly in the public by the nickname of "Bill"? If not, there's your answer. Everything needs to be sourced on Misplaced Pages - as an editor, you should know this. Cheers. -- Alex 06:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I, indeed, implicitly gestured toward OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and then dismissed it, because I am not a caricature of my own argument. Please pay me that respect. Since the names "William" and "Bill" are commonly used interchangeably, there is good reason people might use one in an attempt to find someone whose article is located at the other. (I cannot provide a reliable source about Misplaced Pages user behavior on this, since I am not doing qualitative sociological research on Wikipedians; I am making an argument from simple logic, not empirical data.) There is, thus, good reason to include a link from one to the other on disambigation pages (William Taylor is another example). Since they are different forms of each other, as MOS:DABSEEALSO both permits and recommends, the links are reasonable. The disambiguation page Bill notes that it is a "common nickname for William", but this is unsourced (and does not need one, because it is blatantly obvious and trivially verifiable - we agree on that, surely?). Chubbles (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Alex, since you were directed to the policy that relates to this more than once, given several examples, and continue to disagree and argue, what else can it be but a matter of personal preference? On the issue of the page, the disambiguation page should probably be at William Potts (disambiguation) rather than here, with the jazz musician included in the main body (since Bill is a shortform of William) and the Doctor Who character included in a see also section. Then all we have to decide is whether Bill Potts redirects to William Potts (disambiguation) or something else. This is Paul (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- As per WP:DABABBREV this is not appropriate as the articles do not mention these people were known by this abbreviation of William. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Where they known commonly in the public by the nickname of "Bill"? If not, there's your answer. Everything needs to be sourced on Misplaced Pages - as an editor, you should know this. Cheers. -- Alex 06:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Some examples: William Smith, William Bailey, Bill Evans (disambiguation). It is widespread current practice, though that does not tell us that it should be. But even on pages where a rigorous separation by common name is maintained - like William Jones/Bill Jones/Billy Jones/Will Jones - there are "see also" sections linking to analogous disambiguation pages. That's because...well, "Bill" is often short for "William". I really don't see why that's controversial. (Do we need a reliable source substantiating this?) Chubbles (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)