Talk:GWB

Should GWB go to a disambiguation page, or should it go directly to George W. Bush?

I don't think that the abbreviation GWB is much used for George W. Bush, not like JFK or LBJ. I did a Google on GWB. Of the 1st 20 results, 3 were for the President, 2 were for the bridge, and the rest were for various ccompanies. Wuzzy 17:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given I was the one that moved it I think my opinion is given :) Anyway, if we are to move it back then lets do it correctly (i.e. move GWB (disambiguation) on top of GWB - something an admin will need to do). Try searching Google News for GWB - it's quite commonly used in print to refer to Bush. Thanks/wangi 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course google news would have Bush ranked higher, that's comparing apples and oranges, the George Washington Bridge is clearly notable, but it's not really newsworthy, I mean.. The bridge doesn't actually do anything, that would cause it to change from day to day, thus no reason it would make headlines--152.163.101.12 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more commonly used to refer to the bridge, in fact I can't think of a time that I've ever heard Bush referred to as GWB, where as, if I flip on the morning news, I can hear about 10 or 15 references to traffic on the GWB, presumably they're not talking about the President--205.188.117.5 17:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously if you live next to the bridge then it's going to figure more to you. However Wikipedia is worldwide - what is the most used meaning of this term everywhere? As I've said above search for "GWB" on google News, it is in very common usage. Thanks/wangi 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for GWB in Google News worldwide. Of the first 20 results, 16 were for Bush and 4 for the bridge. For JFK, all 20 news and 20 Web results on the world Google site were for Kennedy and facilities and groups named after him. Wuzzy 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the "facilities named after him" probably tend to get used more? yes? as in, more reference to JFK, the airport, or JFK, the parkway.. same thing with GWB, the bridge..--152.163.101.12 22:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, JFK actually is a disambig page, as should it be with GWB--152.163.101.12 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We shouldn't redirect GWB to the Bush article. The few people actually searching for "GWB" will be fine getting to the dab-page first where they can then click whatever article they're looking for. While all the people searching for George W. Bush (or clicking a link to it) shouldn't need to read that dab-link on top of the George W. Bush article. The dab-link is unnecessary clutter on top of a high profile article. Shanes 22:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention - Consider the origional source for the redirect, and the reason given in the edit summary, as an AOL anon, I know better than to trust someone with the same ip as myself--152.163.101.12 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and google - Isn't google usually considered the gold standard of notability? If so, this should clearly be a disambig page, Bush doesn't even show up on the first page.. --152.163.101.12 22:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

correction, he is there, but not in the sense that would be considered encyclopedic--152.163.101.12 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually reverted that redirect (which completely overwrote the disambig page) and then later moved the disambig page to GWB (disambiguation) and then created a new redirect.

Also, consider http://news.google.com/news?q=GWB

Anyway, I'll ask an admin to sort the rename out (properly, not just a cut'n'paste job). T/wangi 09:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, since google news is obviously the only way to determine notability for non-news related subjects, I suggest we redirect George Washington to George Washington University, after all, there are no current news stories relating to president Washington, nor is he mentioned in any headlines, clearly non-notable--152.163.101.12 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I was only showing you/people that it is a commonly used term when referring to Bush - I wasn't saying anything else! wangi 15:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just redirect this to Bush, then add a note on top saying that GWB redirects to Bush and either "if you were looking for the bridge, click here" or "GWB redirects here, for other uses of GWB see GWB (disambiguation)?" --Rory0 96 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We did that for a short period, but reverted it because it's unnecessary clutter on top of one of the most read pages on wikipedia. Those searching for "GWB" can stand to get to this dab page and have the George W. Bush page just one click away. We discussed this on the George W. Bush talk page some time back, and this was the consensus. Shanes 22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Manhattan', vs, 'the island of manhattan part of new york city near new jersey'

please, this is pure silliness, new york is probably the most well known city on the face of the earth, I would go as far as to suggest that there simply aren't people, who haven't heard of Manhattan, why is such a long and wordy explanation nessesary?--205.188.117.5 00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Island has its own article, so adding "Manhattan Island" to the identification of the bridge is useful.

For everyone who wants to make a point about the description being too wordy - by making it even more wordy - the three additional words provide an additional wikilink, which is useful.

For those thinking this is worth a lot of debate: please look at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and Wikipedia:Cleanup instead. John Broughton 20:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, Manhattan Island and Manhattan are redirects, not seperate articles--152.163.101.12 20:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan is still a different article from New York City. It doesn't matter though, because it's ludicrous to assume that everybody in the world knows what Manhattan is. Hell, I would not be surprised at all if people didn't know what New York City was; just because you know something and take it for granted doesn't mean everybody else in the world does. By the way, your new additions to explain New Jersey are a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Rory0 96_(block) 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find me one of these people and bring them to this talk page? no, of course not, becasue they don't exist. Besides, how exactly does adding the words "island connected to new jersey" tell people anything additional about manhattan? or the bridge? it doesn't--64.12.117.12 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather likely that a lot of people don't know what Manhattan or New York City is. Indeed I suspect a greater percentage of the world's population don't know what either is then do know one of them. Contrary to what you may like to believe, the world doesn't revolve around the US. I mean it sounds like you're an American so really it shouldn't surprise you that there are a lot of people who are either ignorant or uneducated. Even your President apparently didn't know or appreciate that Brazil, China and Russia are big countries until fairly recently. Nil Einne 13:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why NY should be described as "that place near NJ" because everyone's heard of New Jersey?--64.12.117.12 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redid flaky entry

OK, "res ipse loquitur" just means ...well, "Don't confuse this with something complicated, this thing so simple that the truth of it might as well be written on its face in magic marker" More specifically, "ISO code for the Gwa language of Nigeria", is short, and tells the very rare reader for whom it's relevant, briefly and unambiguously, how to find the details.
--JerzyA (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]