| Revision as of 11:46, 25 April 2017 editAlex 21 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors139,301 edits →See also section← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:57, 25 April 2017 edit undoDresken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,058 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::::: 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) | ::::: 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) | ||
| ::::: It should most definitely ''not'' be located at ], as neither of the articles mentioned at all that they have been known as William, especially per {{u|Dresken}}'s comment, a guideline that I was not aware of. Cheers on that! Bill ''may'' be a nickname, referring to {{u|Chubbles}}'s comment of {{tq|The disambiguation page ] notes that it is a "common nickname for ]"}}; however, you cannot instantly connect the two of them as identical in every situation possible. Unless you start a second RM, this disambiguation article remains exactly where it is. And what policies have been linked to? I see only guidelines, and they are ''general'' rules and principles, not governing laws. It seem that you accuse those who disagree with you with IDONTLIKEIT, and then talk to them about their behaviour against you. But as I've said, neither of our behaviours are for discussion here. -- ''']''''']'' 11:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | ::::: It should most definitely ''not'' be located at ], as neither of the articles mentioned at all that they have been known as William, especially per {{u|Dresken}}'s comment, a guideline that I was not aware of. Cheers on that! Bill ''may'' be a nickname, referring to {{u|Chubbles}}'s comment of {{tq|The disambiguation page ] notes that it is a "common nickname for ]"}}; however, you cannot instantly connect the two of them as identical in every situation possible. Unless you start a second RM, this disambiguation article remains exactly where it is. And what policies have been linked to? I see only guidelines, and they are ''general'' rules and principles, not governing laws. It seem that you accuse those who disagree with you with IDONTLIKEIT, and then talk to them about their behaviour against you. But as I've said, neither of our behaviours are for discussion here. -- ''']''''']'' 11:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I see the names have been albeit by a different editor. I won't revert it because I don't wish to engage with Alex in his/her favoured passtime (i.e., edit warring), but I will note that I suspect ] is at work here, since |
::::::I see the names have been albeit by a different editor. I won't revert it because I don't wish to engage with Alex in his/her favoured passtime (i.e., edit warring), but I will note that I suspect ] is at work here, since Dresken has offered an identical argument to the one given by Alex, and like him/her, Dresken has also offered a poor interpretation of ]. Bill is not an abbreviations, an initial or an acronym of William, and I think you're both guilty of editing in bad faith. Alex, your reply to my suggestion above seems to suggest you're arguing for argument's sake. I believe, though I doubt I can prove it, that you feel this strengthens your case for having Bill Potts as the primary topic. All you're doing, however, is giving Misplaced Pages a bad name, and in turn also giving Doctor Who fans a bad reputation, as your username ties you to the programme. Shame on you. ] (]) 11:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Continue to make accusations against both editors. See where it may get you. If you suspect something, report it with any evidence that you believe that you have, else quit your foul folly. You've given zero continuation to this discussion, nor do I think you plan to, and are only attempting to further your argument by throwing out random claims. Unless you have further guidelines or policy to back up your suggestions, and that actually ''support'' what you state... Good day to you. -- ''']''''']'' 11:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | :::::::Continue to make accusations against both editors. See where it may get you. If you suspect something, report it with any evidence that you believe that you have, else quit your foul folly. You've given zero continuation to this discussion, nor do I think you plan to, and are only attempting to further your argument by throwing out random claims. Unless you have further guidelines or policy to back up your suggestions, and that actually ''support'' what you state... Good day to you. -- ''']''''']'' 11:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::: I feel my interpretation of DABABBREV is sound - ] is "a shortened form of a word or phrase" - Bill is a shortening of William. I would also advise you to brush up on ], especially {{xt|Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence}}. ] (]) 11:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:57, 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)
- It should most definitely not be located at William Potts (disambiguation), as neither of the articles mentioned at all that they have been known as William, especially per Dresken's comment, a guideline that I was not aware of. Cheers on that! Bill may be a nickname, referring to Chubbles's comment of
The disambiguation page Bill notes that it is a "common nickname for William"
; however, you cannot instantly connect the two of them as identical in every situation possible. Unless you start a second RM, this disambiguation article remains exactly where it is. And what policies have been linked to? I see only guidelines, and they are general rules and principles, not governing laws. It seem that you accuse those who disagree with you with IDONTLIKEIT, and then talk to them about their behaviour against you. But as I've said, neither of our behaviours are for discussion here. -- Alex 11:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)- I see the names have been removed again albeit by a different editor. I won't revert it because I don't wish to engage with Alex in his/her favoured passtime (i.e., edit warring), but I will note that I suspect meat puppetry is at work here, since Dresken has offered an identical argument to the one given by Alex, and like him/her, Dresken has also offered a poor interpretation of WP:DABABBREV. Bill is not an abbreviations, an initial or an acronym of William, and I think you're both guilty of editing in bad faith. Alex, your reply to my suggestion above seems to suggest you're arguing for argument's sake. I believe, though I doubt I can prove it, that you feel this strengthens your case for having Bill Potts as the primary topic. All you're doing, however, is giving Misplaced Pages a bad name, and in turn also giving Doctor Who fans a bad reputation, as your username ties you to the programme. Shame on you. This is Paul (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Continue to make accusations against both editors. See where it may get you. If you suspect something, report it with any evidence that you believe that you have, else quit your foul folly. You've given zero continuation to this discussion, nor do I think you plan to, and are only attempting to further your argument by throwing out random claims. Unless you have further guidelines or policy to back up your suggestions, and that actually support what you state... Good day to you. -- Alex 11:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I feel my interpretation of DABABBREV is sound - Abbreviation is "a shortened form of a word or phrase" - Bill is a shortening of William. I would also advise you to brush up on WP:PERSONAL, especially Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Dresken (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Continue to make accusations against both editors. See where it may get you. If you suspect something, report it with any evidence that you believe that you have, else quit your foul folly. You've given zero continuation to this discussion, nor do I think you plan to, and are only attempting to further your argument by throwing out random claims. Unless you have further guidelines or policy to back up your suggestions, and that actually support what you state... Good day to you. -- Alex 11:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see the names have been removed again albeit by a different editor. I won't revert it because I don't wish to engage with Alex in his/her favoured passtime (i.e., edit warring), but I will note that I suspect meat puppetry is at work here, since Dresken has offered an identical argument to the one given by Alex, and like him/her, Dresken has also offered a poor interpretation of WP:DABABBREV. Bill is not an abbreviations, an initial or an acronym of William, and I think you're both guilty of editing in bad faith. Alex, your reply to my suggestion above seems to suggest you're arguing for argument's sake. I believe, though I doubt I can prove it, that you feel this strengthens your case for having Bill Potts as the primary topic. All you're doing, however, is giving Misplaced Pages a bad name, and in turn also giving Doctor Who fans a bad reputation, as your username ties you to the programme. Shame on you. This is Paul (talk) 11:24, 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)