Jump to content

Talk:Emerson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A not so great debate

[edit]

Should this page go directly to Ralph Waldo Emerson with a disambiguation? My point is, when people mention Emerson, they usually mean Ralph Emerson or the college, and I think Emerson the person has imperative. Bordello 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Artipol 07:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, George Bush? Say "I disagree". Gah.
Anyway, you're wrong for a lot of reasons, Bordello. I won't go into them all with you having clearly abandoned this page, though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When editing this disambiguation page, I disregarded this short debate, since it's more than a decade old. Anarchic Fox (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Andrewa 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Article was move from the original title without consensus and the mover themself eventually regretted on their decision. From this talk, I see little opposition. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add " *'''Support''' " or " *'''Oppose''' " and an optional, brief reason for your position.

Further discussion

[edit]
Start any addition discussion here.

Note on the history here; this article was listed on WP:RM 21:22, 15 December 2006; it was moved, presumably ignoring the question of whether Emerson should redirect to Ralph Waldo Emerson 04:50 16 December; the discussion was closed, and my !vote incivilly removed 23:12 16 December. I revived the consensus on 17 December.

Now as long as there is genuine consensus, and there is at least a dab header to Emerson for those who are looking for him, I don't much care which way this goes, or whether it is closed on the 20 th or the 22nd; that's for the closing admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brillant.. Thing is, this article is already set to be moved to that title. If you had checked the edit history, you'd see that "Emerson" as it stood when you editted it, had just been changed into a duplicate of this dab page. When the move goes through, there will be no need for a merge and the page history will be in the right place. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent comments

[edit]
Don't edit an RM section after the move. Such "for the record" comments are inappropriate. Also, what's all this about Ralphy? Seriously, it's biased naming like this that leads to disambiguation issues. He isn't the "primary usage". Did he originate the surname? No. Did he earn it and himself unquestionable notability above all else? No. If it were unquestionable, I wouldn't be questioning it. The bottomline is that consensus disagrees with you. Bordello realized he was wrong, Art knew it and I know it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion was never closed; and has now been closed prematurely. In principle, this should be relisted even if it had had five days, having been inadequately discussed; but as long as the dab header stays for the convenience of those who want Emerson, I see no need to take this further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a simple discussion. It was a survey and possible discussion to be used only before a verdict has come through. An admin moved the page. While they did not close the debate themself, that is the standard procedure. The RM section should reflex the result and survey status directly before it. Your addition came after the move, so it was irrelevant and could not be accepted. Ifd you have issues with the result, talk to the admin.
As for the dab note, that's not the proper format, either. You have still not shown any evidence that Ralph is the "primary usage", and I doubt you can. For this reason, there will be no note, especially note the amateur one you placed. By all means, "take this further." I will not be threatened into compliance, so you might as well just do whatever it is you intend to. And frankly, I couldn't care less; you're wrong on all counts. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I vote Support having Emerson as a dab page. When I think Emerson, I think about the VCR in my entertainment center, not R. W. Emerson. I don't like the idea of having a last name redirect to an article unless it's an easy slam dunk - which this isn't. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tidying up

[edit]

I think we now have a stable if rough consensus on the move, so I've decided not to buy into the debate and mess it up. Let's move on. I think this can work.

But I'm not happy with the double disambiguation structure that we now have for getting from a wikilink [[Emerson]] to Ralph Waldo Emerson via Emerson (surname). It seems to me that at least (and possibly only) this individual should be also listed on the primary disambiguation page. Other thoughts?

In fact personally I find the current structure most unhelpful in other ways too. The Emerson I'm most familiar with is Keith Emerson of Emerson, Lake & Palmer, but until a few moments ago I couldn't think of his given name (it comes back to me now). When I first saw this debate, my guess was that Ralph Waldo Emerson would be a clear consensus winner as the primary usage. Wrong! Perhaps at least we need birthdates on the Emerson (surname) and Emerson (given name) second-order disambiguation pages. What else? Andrewa 17:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with anything except a show of bias. This debate's shown be there's no uniform "primary use", especially not a human being. I'm sorry the dredded "double click" is such a strain on some people, but come on. Anderson's behavior and that of others who buy into this "Ralph - primary use" thing was highly inappropriate. In fact, I'd say it was borderline bullying. I'd be fine with any attempts to improve the human dab pages, but there will be no biased "for [someone/something already listed] see [redundant link]" message. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, we want disambiguation pages to work as well as possible. One thing that will help is making the more common usages easily accessible, in accordance with the principle of least astonishment.
You have also expressed your opinions quite forcefully. Are they based on any Wikipedia policies and guidelines? In any case, perhaps a quick revision of Wikipedia:consensus would be in order. Andrewa 22:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let's back up. Here's my argument, as civilly and clearly as I can muster:

Ralph W. Emerson is notable. He was seemingly on a last name basis with the masses. However, he is also one of...oh...twenty or so people with the surname "Emerson". Those people were compiled into Emerson (surname) as a way of avoiding excess listing on this page. The main dab should be for uses which are ambiguous due there being little or no other letters/words, etc. to disambiguate a name. A given name and a middle name certainly count against Ralph's "primary use" status. Then, there's the matter of bias. Who's to say we shouldn't mention Bill? How about Hope? Where would it end?

And hey, I'll give you a similar example. Heroes (TV series), Hero (disambiguation) and the "Heroes" redirect. Some have suggested "Heroes" link directly to the show. I and several others disagree. I've made some concesstions to help better organize that dab page, but I think people are missing something other than links. Disambiguation isn't about "prominence, notabilty, popular" or the like. Disambiguation is about helping people find stuff that's truly ambiguous, and, secondarily, listing people by first/last name. Many of the "winning" arguments disclaimed Ralph's "primarity" in favor of the electric company, radio, college, et cetera. That's pretty compelling to me. And think, what's more ambiguous? John Becker or Becker College? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make some valid points, and some I think are at least debatable. But I'm first interested in whether there's any point in a debate. That's why I referred to consensus.
In the absence of your citing any policy in support of your opinion, your assertion there will be no biased "for [someone/something already listed] see [redundant link]" message is IMO unhelpful. There are several issues here, but the community should decide them, not you in isolation. Agreed?
Oh, and Happy Christmas. Hang in there! Andrewa 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like say WP:MOS-DAB and WP:DAB, but there's nothing to cite directly. I guess there needs to be more discussion to flesh out those guidelines. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the guidelines could be fleshed out, but beware of instruction creep. We could even start this discussion here.
WP:DAB#Double_disambiguation doesn't seem to give any guidance at all as to whether a link to Ralph Waldo Emerson would be appropriate on the primary disambiguation page, in addition to the one at Emerson (surname). ISTM one would be helpful, and I can't see any reason not to have it. Some notable Emersons are more notable than others. Shouldn't our navigation aids reflect this reality? Andrewa 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. I just want to maintain a neutral point of view. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not negotiable. But is it really POV to highlight the more common usages of a term in a disambiguation heirarchy?
That seems a bit of a stretch to me. And, as far as I can see, nobody has questioned the view that if the name Emerson is used to refer to a person with no particular context implied, it would be most often understood to mean Ralph Waldo Emerson. Andrewa 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'll add him to the main page. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good result. See the list of links is anyone needs more convincing. Andrewa 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See what happens?

[edit]

Well, a GIPU has recently been trying to add "Emerson Ferreira da Rosa" to the main page, under the same area as Ralph, though above him. See what happens? Although, I'm pretty sure "Emerson" is his given name, not surname, and Ralph is more notable, the issue goes beyond the appropriateness of this one addition. How am I supposed to defend including one above all others? What about when some insists that some "new" Emerson be listed on the main page as a notable "primary use"? When/where will it end? I say, here. I'm putting my metaphorical foot down. No person, living dead or even fictional will be mentioned here, barring that "Emerson" is their one and only name. And even then, I bet it would still be considered a "given name" by default.

No, the days of "Emerson" primarily meaning Ralph are long over. I will not see this page become a breeding ground for edit wars and content disputes just to spare people the pain of suffering through a flew more clicks, and maybe a careful search. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emerson&oldid=1243821246"