Talk:HP/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about HP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

I've been trying to disambiguate hp to horsepower, but there's just too many occurances - and every single reference to Hp (hp) is to horsepower. So I'm changing hp (lowercase p) to redirect to horsepower with a link to HP (disambiguation). Other than horsepower and Hewlett-Packard, there don't seem too many common uses on the disambiguation page anyway. If this causes massive problems, let me know.

Bz2 11:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Can anyone clearly demonstate the case for including Harry Potter here? More specifically, can it be demonstrated that "HP" is a commonly-accepted abbreviation for "Harry Potter" outside the context of (e.g.) fansites where its meaning is obvious and not in need of disambiguation anyway?

Disambig pages aren't intended as complete acronym lists, nor even indicators of popularity. They're navigation aids; and if "Harry Potter" is hardly ever referred to as "HP" in contexts where its meaning is not blindingly obvious, then it doesn't belong here.

Fourohfour 12:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly you assume HP = Harry Potter is only used on fan sites. This is not correct, any sites about book and writing in general will often use HP and many will not know what it means. The fact that people keep putting it back in should tell you that alot of people use HP for Harry Potter in general (do you think people type in HP and then add Harry Potter just for the sake of it, not they put in HP expecting Harry Potter then they had to add it themselves). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 (talk • contribs) .

No, I don't assume that only fan sites abbreviate it to HP. "e.g." means "for example"; that was one example, but there may be others.

Can you provide some good examples of "HP" being used to mean "Harry Potter" in a context where the meaning is already clear?

As for people adding it in; some people treat disambig pages as complete lists, or seem to assume that inclusion/exclusion is an indicator of importance. HP has a large fanbase, so it's unsurprising that many people may think that (e.g.) "Harry Potter is important and HP is an abbreviation for it, so it must belong".

As I said, it's whether or not it's a likely search term, not whether the thing in question is important or not. Fourohfour 12:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to argue that if these entries can be here, so can Harry Potter. I have noticed that many users have added Harry Potter, but it is being removed because it is not an "acceptable" abbreviation for some reason. It is obviously widely accepted that HP could mean Harry Potter since so many edits are occurring related to it. Some users do not accept the abbreviation because they are most likely not involved in the topic at all. Please do not delete Harry Potter, as it will result in less headaches and less unnecessary revisions and fighting over it 'can/cannot' be here. Thank you Anonymous—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.146.202.180 (talk • contribs)

Unless you can provide an outside source that shows Harry Potter to be abbreviated to HP, then we can add it in. An influx of editors adding it iin is no excuse. Reginmund 17:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the criterion for inclusion on the disambiguation list should be whether or not the linked article uses the term. Since Harry Potter uses the abbreviation "HP", there should be no problem with including it here (or it should be removed from that article). Wikipedia articles are the only "sources" for disambiguation pages. That said, it doesn't need to get the top spot, however, since the list should be in order of likelihood, and Hewlett-Packard is certainly more likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then there should be some criterion determining whether or not the link actually belongs there on the Harry Potter page. Reginmund 23:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. And Talk:Harry Potter is the place for that discussion. In the absence of other indicators, we can assume that the editors of that page are in consensus about its inclusion. -- JHunterJ 23:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by that was is there a criterion that can determine that HP is a legitimate abbreviation for Harry Potter. Where is the link to HP anyway? Reginmund 23:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the criterion is the editorial consensus at Harry Potter. Searching for "hp" on the page with turn up its use (not its link). -- JHunterJ 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"HP" is not used in the text of the article Harry Potter, although it does appear in superscript citations to the books, using a set of Wikipedia template (e.g. {{HP7}} to create the link ^[HP7]), and in the misquoted titles of two references (the actual sources both use "Harry Potter" in their titles—this does not say much for the quality of the cited "editorial consensus").

I don't see any evidence that this is used in general writing outside of Harry Potter fandom. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 00:07 Z

Again, it doesn't have to be. This is a disambiguation page, not an encyclopedia article. Its use there in the "misquoted" (or abbreviated) articles titles is what I was referring to. Sufficient for inclusion here, and helps to avoid long discussions on dab pages. :-) Certainly, though, if it had appeared in the text, or better, bolded in the intro paragraph, I would have just added it back here directly instead of just Talking about it. -- JHunterJ 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not really convinced. Editorial laziness or irresponsibility is not helping your argument (article titles must always be cited verbatim).

I did a quick test: googled for hp -"hewlett packard" -wikipedia, to see what comes up (the company HP totally dominates results). In the first 20 pages, of 200 results, Harry Potter comes up 6 times, and arguably one of those could be considered not fan-community related.

Give me something else concrete to go on, and I may agree that Harry Potter belongs on this disambiguation page. Say, an article in a major newspaper or magazine. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 01:50 Z

Any reason would be preferrable to laziness. That does wonders for the lazy Wikipedians who can't type case sensitive properly so they have to disambiguate with those nasty appendages known as brackets. We don't need an endless list of shortcuts for lazy people. Not unless the media or the printing press has deemed it acceptable. Reginmund 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviation noted and cited (from The Sunday Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) on Harry Potter, restored here. -- JHunterJ 12:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "HP" in the first reference. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 13:19 Z

I'm not sure how you missed it; it's quoted in the WP citation: "HP and the Order of the Phoenix hits cinemas on July 13" -- JHunterJ 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I somehow clicked notes 1 and 2 instead of 2 and 3. Sorry. —Michael Z. 2007-09-27 01:06 Z

Where should Harry Potter link to? The Series, the character, or possibly the disambiguation page? I personally it should be the series. I could see some reasoning on the disambig page, although I believe that may be against some Wikipedia rule.Godlvall2 06:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter (arbitrary break 1)

After having read all the discussion on the issue, it seems to me that some want Harry Potter to be included because it has a large fanbase and two newspapers tweaked their headlines to fit the page and abbreviated Harry Potter as HP. Seriously, this cannot be the real reason, right? I personally despise the usage of the Wikipedia template (e.g. {{HP7}} to create the link ^[HP7]). It is an entry that is used solely within the Harry Potter Wikiproject, and not universal at all. This specialization of an acronym is inappropriate and has - to my reckoning - precisely no encylopedic value. The only purpose that can be gleaned from its use is to abbreviate any reference to a book in the series. Again, unacceptably lazy.

While Google-bombing might account for a large presence of Harry Potter hits, we don't see anything like that here. A previous editor pointed out that there were only about six that actually related to Harry Potter. Outside of he wikiproject abbreviating scheme, it doesn't seem to really exist, except for the same sort of abbreviating in fan forums, and Wikipedia doesn't take its cues from that sort of cruft.

I would also suggest a better organization of the DAB, breaking up references by field (persons named HP, companies, etc.), and arranged alphabetically, avoiding the eventual and nonsensical jockeying for primary position in the page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed various links pending verification. If a term is use generally then it should be pretty obvious (for instance, HP, Houses of Parliament, HP sauce, and so on). Having a phrase that starts with the letters "HP" is not enough, because that would be silly, so I've removed items that seem to be like that.--Tony Sidaway 06:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, but as an admin, you know full well that making changes, getting reverted and being asked to discuss your edits doesn't translate as 'please revert, tell us you are reverting in Discussion and then revert again.' It kinda foils the whole point of a discussion page thing. We try to tell newbies not to do that. Maybe you could help to se t an example?

I think that people with the name HP being included isn't really "silly". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. My edit was informed by the discussionm, not to mention the obvious fact that "HP" doesn't mean Harry Potter to anybody other than fans. Your statement about appropriate editing is incorrect and moreover blatantly misrepresents my actions. --Tony Sidaway 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think including Harry Potter is unnecessary, and opens the floodgates for "HP" and any other two letter acronym. Let's keep it simple and say that, generally speaking, the product or company in question needs to refer to itself as "HP". For instance, RPGs place "HP" in the status window during battles, and Hewlett-Packard places an "HP" logo on all of its products. To the best of my knowledge, J.K. Rowling has never attempted to trademark anything related to "HP", nor has any text or logo on any Harry Potter book featured an "HP" mark. Unless someone can find an instance when "HP" was featured on some official Harry Potter product, there isn't a strong enough association between those two letters and Harry Potter. DOSGuy 06:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree, but our personal preferences shouldn't enter into it. I've set up the DAB to more closely resemble a few other DAB pages, which qualify the uses of HP. I am not making any calls as to their value, but am putting them in alphabetical order. We can add or remove them romthese categories. If the category goes empty, we rmove the category as well. Allow me to restate that HP being used as dab either here or anywhere within the articles supported withint he Harry Potter Wikiproject is both lazy and unencyclopedic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That is complete bollocks. You've restored all that wankery about Harry Potter. That is not verifable. --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone back through the list and removed those items that I could not verify. Please do not add more unverifiable stuff to this disambiguation page. It isn't a coat-hook for you to hang anything that happens to contain the letters H and P. --Tony Sidaway 09:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I undid your edit. I'm not sure how you tried to verify them, but using the linked page is a good first step. -- JHunterJ 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony, could I prevail upon you to act somewhat more civilly? You were asked to wait until discussion was underways before going ahead and doing what you wished. However, you disregarded that polite request not once but twice. That sort of behavior we are used to seeing with new users, and not administrators.

Please understand that we are not attempting to add cruft to the list, and we are in the process of weeding out various bits that do not reach the verification and notability criteria for inclusion. If yiou wish to expand on your search methods, so as to help us along the curve that you have managed to take at great speed, that would certainly be helpful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter (2nd arbitrary break)

Okay, it's time to tie up the loose end on Harry Potter. This would be the time for anyone interested in citing specifically where Harry Potter has been referrred to as 'HP' outside of headlines. If there aren't any notable citations, it will need to be purged as non-noteworthy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the questionable assertion that headlines aren't notable, the quotes in the citations I added to Harry Potter weren't from headlines (e.g., "The cultural agenda"), but from body text (e.g., "HP and the Order of the Phoenix hits cinemas on July 13"). It will need to be kept based on those citations. -- JHunterJ 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but two short mentions in two newspapers doesn't amount to notability. The use of HP in the newspaper was to save space, and used in conjunction with "...and the Order of the Phoenix". By itslf, it wouldn't be normally attributed to Harry Potter. I am thinking to remove it as non-noteworthy. Let's hear from some other folk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Those were merely the first two mentions I found, and they are in fact sufficient to determine that HP is sometimes used for Harry Potter (and the second was not to "save space"). This being a dab page and not an article, notability and noteworthiness do not enter into it -- see WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 01:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I said that I understood your point of view. You had placed two citations here in support of the acronymal usage of HP for Harry Potter. I countered that they were infrequently used and as a space-saving device (titles are almost always constructed thusly). I must presume that because you did not present more instances of its usage in the mainstream, there must not be aforementioned noteworthy instances. Now, as I suggested before, you have made your point. Perhaps, we can allow other editors to weigh in, and hear their viewpoints.? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how you think my responses are keeping other editors from weighing in more than your responses are, but I keep making points when I notice that you have misunderstood some of my point of view. You must not presume that because I did not present more there must not be more instances -- I have a finite pool of time, so I selected the most recent two that sufficed. -- JHunterJ 09:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A jump in the conversation from the Talk:Harry Potter page. If you insist on verification of the validity of an entry, then by my estimation, all but about 2 of the entires here have to go. The merit for inclusion on a dab is not whether or not we can cite that it is used by people you feel are representative or whatnot, it's whether or not a user would type in a term (HP) and be expected to be taken to a certain page (Harry Potter). I seriously doubt there are more people who will search HP hoping to get High Point, North Carolina or homepage. i ^said 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I have never previously encountered anyone demanding references and notable citations in order to include something in a disambig page like this. Isn't the purpose of a disambig page to aid navigation and enable people to look things up? I often use disambig pages when I've heard or seen something used that I couldn't place, and 'HP' for Harry Potter falls into this category for many people. It clearly is used to refer to Harry Potter, and there are many places (a very small number have been provided on this page) where this can be seen. It's not like people are wanting to devote the page to him, is it? It's just the one, short, line? Skittle 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "When there is risk of confusion, the page for an ambiguous term should have a way to take the reader to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term" Wikipedia:Disambiguation and "Only include related subject articles as long as the term in question is actually described on the target article." Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages. More than 2 here meet those. Particularly on abbreviation pages, it reduces (or should reduce) the claims and counter claims needed. Homepage should definitely go. High Point almost as definitely, although the article does allude to the abbreviation in the longer HPCT (High Point Community Theater). -- JHunterJ 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not about to relax verifiability standards to permit any set of random letters to be used as a coathook on which to hang a pointer to that page. Terms like "Houses of Parliament" and the like are verifiable and strongly associated with the letter combination "HP". "HP" for Harry Potter, on the other hand, is just Harry Potter's initials. Somebody coming to this page should reasonably expect to find verifiable information and not clutter. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as we can use the unrelaxed standards already in place. The quoted standards would indicate keeping Harry Potter. HP is not just the initials of Harry Potter, but also how Harry Potter is sometimes referred to. See also JFK (disambiguation) for Kennedy (but not Jack Kemp) or MCR for My Chemical Romance. As ever, verification of the inclusion of the abbreviation on the linked page can be handled by the linked page's editors, but as long as it passes consensus there it should be disambiguated here. -- JHunterJ 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, JHunter, the reason why I suggested you hold off on replying to every response is because folk have heard plenty on your opinion, and I thought it would be nice to give others some room to breathe. Clearly, you disagree, and cannot seem to restrain yourself. Yay.

I disagree with your comparison of Harry Potter and JFK, as JFK is referred to by his initials because its a lot easier to say JFK than John Fitzgerald Kennedy wheras HP is not an accepted replacement for Harry Potter. I agree completely with Tony in this instance - there are a lot of random instances of the usage of HP. Harry Potter is used - and I took the time to Google News search this - HP is not used as a verifiable method for identifying Harry Potter (outside of fansites and as an abbreviation - for now - in the Wikipedia articles for the Harry Potter Wikiproject). It is unencyclopedic and WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE to include it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's all right, Arcayn; I figured Talk pages were good for discussions, and I suppose there will always be people with more to say than others -- no restraints are necessary. But if HP = Harry Potter is NOT and UNDUE and so forth, "HP" should be removed from the Harry Potter article, and the issue will be resolved. Talk:Harry Potter for that. -- JHunterJ 02:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We may know his opinion, but as he said, this is a talk page, and they're here to discuss, not speak our minds once then leave. Back to the issue. Is the problem here that there are no outside sources that use HP as a shortening for Harry Potter? i ^said 04:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice, on a related note, that 'hit point' has been readded, after Tony Sidaway had deleted it along with the other unverifiable abbreviations as discussed on the talk page. Is this because Arcayne believes 'hp' is used to refer to hitpoints outside of game fandom, in verifiable, notable publications? I'm just a little confused. Skittle 10:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could cite Dragon or Dungeon Magazine's rampant use of the acronym, but seeing as we already have a linkable article on the topic, I figure it isn't required to provide those usages. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But those are fan usages, which you said were unacceptable for Harry Potter. I thought you said it had to be used outside of fandom, in a usage where context doesn't give you any clues, or something? Sorry, I'm really not trying to get at you, but I don't quite see how the reasoning is different. Skittle 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What's to be included?

Hibernation and Houses of Parliament do not refer to the use of the acronym HP on their articles, so I removed them. Based on the Talk so far, it sounds like Houses of Parliament might need to abbreviation added by someone familiar with its use. On the other hand, I restored Harry Potter, H. P. Baxxter, H. P. Lovecraft, Hindustan Petroleum (the logo is HP), and H!P since they do include the use of the abbreviation or initials. I also restored the interwiki links that were axed recently. Style changes: the lead paragraph uses the base name HP link even though it's a redirect. Other entries get one blue link per line (no links for code definitions, such as IATA airline designator. Please see WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 11:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While I personally agree that some of the abbreviations are a stretch (esp. things like hibernation, etc), I think it might be a tad important to actually discuss them first; someone might have insight that isn't normally available. For example, while I am not a subject of the Crown, I had lived there long enough to know that HP is very often referred to as HP in both televised and print news as a time/space-saving shortcut.

I still have not seen any significant proof of usage of HP as a shotened form of Harry Potter outside of the two articles wherein the usage was as a headline. The editor inputting that needs to find the time to input a great many more instances of usage that establish its usage as such. I think all of us could benefit from a closer examination of WP:MOSDAB, as airline designators exists on a a great many other DAB pages. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's okay -- I haven't seen any sources that say HP is not a shortened form of Harry Potter. I think the editor that feels it shouldn't be here needs to find a great many more of those citations to remove it. Sheesh. Citations are not needed on a disambiguation page. If you think more than two citations are needed for HP on Harry Potter, remove the abbreviation from Harry Potter, but I believe consensus is to keep it (although perhaps not in the intro). As it happens, though, one citation is sufficient to show that the abbreviation is used for Harry Potter, and two is just a bonus. -- JHunterJ 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the airline designator, I was pointing out that the link to IATA code is counter to guidelines (2nd blue link, not linking the dabbed entry); the link to the airline as "America West Airlines, IATA code HP" is fine (and stylistically correct). -- JHunterJ 11:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should list the different uses here and yay or nay them? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But WP:POLLS are evil. -- JHunterJ 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the British Houses of Parliament do verifiably have the abbreviation HP, but as far as I know in only one context: the appearance of the picture of the Houses of Parliament on the bottle of HP Sauce. This isn't a big deal and can be annotated with HP Sauce rather than separately, if necessary.

The hibernation-specific protein is certainly verifiable but can wait until somebody writes an article about it.

People with the initials HP should not be listed here unless (like for instance George Bernard Shaw who is commonly referred to as GBS) they are verifiably referred to by those initials. HP Baxxter and HP Lovecraft do not appear to fall into that category. --Tony Sidaway 05:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There was another quagmire about given name (and initial) holders, surname holders, and disambiguation pages. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Lists of names for the gritty details. The result of those discussion was consensus to include short lists of name holders on the dab and to separate longer lists to their own name list pages. SO they should remain here or be split into an HP (name) page if you prefer. The verifiable use of HP for Houses of Parliament should be cited on that page -- each entry should have only one blue link (see WP:MOSDAB, so it can't piggyback on the sauce's entry. -- JHunterJ 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to that; split HP sauce and Houses of Parliament into two separate items. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not about to include the names of everybody who has the letters "HP" in his name on this disambiguation page. Houses of Parliament as HP really only covers the sauce (I've not seen it elsewhere). WP:MOSDAB may very well say that you can only have one blue link, in which case MOSDAB is wrong in this instance. This is a wiki so relevant terms (House of Parliament and HP Sauce should be linked, and it is an encyclopedia so we organise our data (in this case by placing related terms together, in meaningful sentences).--Tony Sidaway 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Thought I'd add that I have heard of Parliament referred to both on radio and on news as HP whilst living and visiting there. However I see the point. People aren't going to type in HP, if they want Houses of Parliament - anymore than they would type HP to get Harry Potter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagging out

I think I've (finally, eh Arcayne?) exhausted my body of knowledge on this topic, and I'm going to de-watch it. I've asked for fresh eyes from WT:MOSDAB. If you do want to call me on the carpet for something here, please alert me on User Talk:JHunterJ. Good luck! -- JHunterJ 11:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted from JHunter's UserTalk page):

I am sorry if I made you feel that it was a versus situation between us, because I certaintly didn;t think so. We have two different opinions of the Harry Potter/HP connection notability, but I can be convinced to change my mind. It has happened many times before, and when i am wrong, just about anyone will tell you I own up to it. I am just thinking that the normal user isn't going to come to Wikipedia, type in 'HP', and expect to be dropped into the Harry Potter article, which is what the DAB is for - to to catch folk who simply type in a few letters and serve as a jump-off point for multiple uses of what's being Dab'd. Maybe potter would be better off with a quicklink or whatnot; I just don't see HP being the DAB. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Give Harry Potter a rest

I don't have the energy to read every post regarding the Harry Potter argument, but I do have a fair bit of experience cleaning up dab pages, and my initial opinion of this matter is that it has been way overworked. The purpose of a dab page is to help people (normal, non-wiki people) find the article they are looking for. That's it. We don't have to establish all sorts of verifiabiliy and notability and such to merit inclusion on this page. If there's a reasonable possibility that a user may type it in, and we have an article to match it, it's worth including in order to help them. One link on a dab page seems a small price to pay to end this craziness. I think it should be there. This page does not need winnowing in order to be useful; it is not overloaded with links. There is room for this. Those of you who feel strongly about it may want to consider taking a deep breath and turning your energy to some other pages that need more help. May I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation? SlackerMom (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; give the Harry Potter thing a rest, already. It isn't an intuitive choice for a normal user to come to Wikipedia looking for Harry Potter and expecting to find it by typing in 'HP'. Just leave it out. All of this energy by Potter fans is rather silly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it isn't intuitive. And I wonder why you say the "energy from Potter fans is rather silly" when you have debated just as vigorously to keep it out. i ^said 06:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer me this: when you come to Wikipedia, looking for Albert Einstein, or HP Lovecraft or Abraham Lincoln, do you simply type in their initials, cross your fingers and hope for the best? of course not. Its counter-intuitive to expect such bizarre behavior by an average reader. I haven't seen any citable proof that this acronym is utilized outside of the Harry Potter fan fourms and certain headlines of newspapers. I am debating to keep it out because we aren't a fan forum, and Harry Potter gets no more juice here than anyone else. If HP Lovecraft isn't notable, then its sure as hell not notable to mention an imaginary boy who isn't even referred to as HP in the books he's noted for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of making disambguation easy to use is keeping it reasonably uncluttered. The mere fact that Harry starts with the letter H and Potter starts with the letter P, leading to some fans using the letters as a shorthand for Harry Potter, is not enough to make the term HP a verifiable abbreviation for Harry Potter.

Moreover, whoever says that verifiability does not apply to some part of Wikipedia's content is simply wrong. Verifiability applies to every single part of Wikipedia's content, without exception.

It isn't just Harry Potter that has been removed from this disambiguation in the name of verifiability, the following items have also been removed:

In short, the article had become cluttered with items that were only vaguely connected with the letters HP, and it needed to be cleaned up so that the verifiable meanings of the term HP could be found easily. --Tony Sidaway 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, I am not a Harry Potter fan -- I am a disambiguation "fan", though. The point of disambiguations is not to list the things that you would expect to find, but to include the things that other readers might be looking for. Since Harry Potter is sometimes referred to as "HP", that qualifies. Tony Sidaway, since Hello! Project has a H!P redirect, it qualifies. Disagreements over those should be raised on Talk:Harry Potter (to remove the indication that it is known by those initials) or on an RfD to remove the redirect -- the disambiguation page, as a non-article, just lists the articles that indicate their HP referential possibility. Tony Sidaway, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Given names or surnames covers the consensus of including name holders. This is the established consensus for dab pages. If you feel this dab page should vary from that general consensus, a new consensus needs to be formed here before the entries are removed. -- JHunterJ 11:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I jumped in too soon. The cited HP "referential possibility" has been removed from Harry Potter, so I've commented out those entries here with a note as to the reason, which may or may not help keep it consistent. -- JHunterJ 11:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have shown no true indication that anyone other than a fan quoting within a fan forum would refer to Harry Potter as HP. Nor have you sufficiently convinced me that "other readers" would come to Wikipedia and expect to type in and get Harry Potter. Sorry, that's just a bizarre expectation under - at best, surreal circumstances.

Secondly, I disagree with your repeated assertion that Harry Potter needs to be added as per MOSDAB. I see nothing at all in MOSDAB-Given names or surnames that implies that Harry Potter uses HP as a substitute outside a small select, group of people who use while typing furiously about what color underwear Hermione is wearing or whatnot. The initials aren't even used as identifiers within the novels you are using in the disambiguation argument. If the author doesn't even see fit to do this, or the films or major news outlets (outside of crampy headlines), then I am pretty sure it isn't noteworthy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, me too now. Harry Potter is commented out (not visible on the page). The Given names and surnames was pointed up to show the previous consensus for including things like H. P. Lovecraft. Perhaps you didn't notice that the Harry Potter bit was most recently invisible? -- JHunterJ 12:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(And, FWIW, I did "show" indications that HP is used outside fan forums -- there were citations to The Sunday Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Harry Potter, but they've been removed, which is why I re-removed the Harry Potter entries here.) -- JHunterJ 12:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had, but the Harry Potter reference shouldn't be in there, invisible or not, as it isn't likely tochange in the near future. I am not really convinced of the mechanics of including names that use HP, like Lovecraft - as I mentioned before, I am not sure that people will come to WP, type in HP, expecting it to bring up Lovecraft. However, it is far more likely that people would somehow misspell Lovecraft a few times before typing in just HP, hoping that the dab would fix their little red wagon, than someone seeking out, say Harry Potter. If anything, 'Harry' and 'Potter' should be dab'd.

As for the newspaper citation - I realize it might be something of a deceased equine - but those references were fairly isolated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the dead equine, that's just ludicrous. Someone asked for references, so I looked a couple up. Yes, the couple I looked up happened to number 2, but what of it? How many are you going to insist be found before it measures up to whatever threshold you've arbitrarily determined (without a guideline to stand on)? A search of major world newspapers and major world publications on hp and harry potter returns over 1000 hits. hp occurring within 5 words of harry potter returns 152 hits. hp and rowling, 496. hp and rowling and not harry potter turns up 46 news sources that use HP and Rowling but do not spell out that the "HP" referenced is Harry Potter. Most recent of those: The Observer (England), July 22, 2007, Observer Review Arts Pages; Pg. 30. How many sources did you find that said HP could not be used for Harry Potter? -- JHunterJ 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

About as many that deem that EP could not be used for elephant. lol.

Seriously, J, the claim of being a disinterested party here seems a bit strained when you argue on the Harry Potter page for inclusion of HP as an acronym so it can be then utilizxed here. Google-bombing artificially inflates results, and is not an accurate reflection of true collocquial usage, so the hits are immaterial. The MOSDAB doesn't allow for its usage. I am not sure why we are continuing to debate this point, seeing as HP is not a dab term - a point which you conceded here not too long ago. Maybe put the woman down now, my brother. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, A, who said anything about Google searches? And who says editors who are disinterested but have information of interest to others shouldn't add it to pages that they aren't directly interested in?

Really seriously, go back and look at my previous message with the understanding that these are "hits" from paper-published major world newspapers and magazines. -- JHunterJ 23:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A) hit-bombing in net searches happens all the time; it doesn't matter what search engine you use. Google's is just the most recent and flagrant of attempts - my apologies for not being more specific, and B) I am not going to dignify the glaring holes in the 'disinterested comment' with a response. As the matter is concluded, why are you still arguing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using a "search engine" or an Internet search at all, but a search of a professional database of newspaper and magazine articles, which does not suffer from hit-bombing (unless you are suggesting that The Sunday Times et al. are doing the bombing). We continue to debate the point even past agreement as to how this dab currently stands because you admittedly continued to beat the dead equine and in the process under-valued the citations presented and then continued on to question my interest, to which I naturally took umbrage. BTW, my first ever edit to Harry Potter was [1] -- JHunterJ 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you took umbrage. Your actions prompted a closer analysis as to your likely motivation for canvassing at other article talk pages. It looked hinky, so I called you on it. If it was all some grand misunderstanding, and you didn't realize how it would be perceived as drumming up support for an HP inclusion in dab, then you have my apologies. As for hot-bombing, its a moot point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont care if its here or not but the HP isnt shortening for the Name, but for the book series to answer the "looking for Albert Einstein, or HP Lovecraft or Abraham Lincoln, do you simply type in their initials". Instead look at other works of fiction or stuff thats like this and see LOTR, HHGTTG (first line of h2g2), Con (though I must admit that I added that one, No one has removed it from there, guess some of the haters of HP = Harry Potter will remove it now, ahh well) (LWW, there's probably for all the books, havent looked)... Well there's a small list of Book's/book series that get their abbreviations. I can add that HP1-HP7 redirect to the books, if Im not mistaken and yes. I use them regularly. Chandler talk 02:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the problem in your assertion is that acronymics are generally utilized in the instances on titles that use quite a few words - LOTR refers to the Lord of the Rings, HHGTTG and h²g² both refer to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (not sure what the con reference is about, though). Harry Potter is hardly the mouthful crying out for conversion to an acronym. HP1-7 isn't used outside a fan forum, and certainly not within mainstream media and culture. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that if I say "Have you read the last HP-book?" the answerers I will get are: either "Yes" or "What?", to support that HP is probably only used by us fans. But would it really hurt if it was here? No one is going to come in here and leave wikipedia forever in disgust by seeing that HP links to Harry Potter. My point is probably, I would accept it not being here because its a fairly short title/name (I've never used HP to get harry potter), I would accept it being here because it can't hurt (haven't read any policy's or style guides for disambiguation so i might be wrong) Chandler talk 12:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. The inclusion of HP is not encyclopedic, as has been pointed out a few times. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just vote and be done with it?

Here is a scenario that bugs me, because it is so similar to the way I use Wikipedia myself. Imagine the non-native English speaker, living in a non-English speaking country, who finds himself wondering about a headline or a reference he has seen in an English newspaper (I feel that JHunter has established that these are common). Perhaps he doesn’t have access to the complete article, or doesn’t speak English very well, but wishes to investigate the possible meaning of this mysterious “HP”. Is it such a stretch to imagine that he might type it into the English Wikipedia – the source that has always served him so well to untangle common, often idiomatic, English usages and meanings? Is it such an offense to allow ONE “controversial” link on an uncluttered (believe me) dab page? To not throw such a user even the smallest bone, just to stand on principal, seems callous and arrogant, which I am sure no one here intends to be. I am sure we rather wish to allow Wikipedia to be as useful as possible to as many users as possible, which is why we fight so hard to keep it accurate and precise. If we are truly willing for this issue to be decided by consensus (are we?), why not throw this one out for a vote? I keep reading that consensus has been reached, but I’ve not seen evidence of that. In fact, counting the contributors to the discussion on this talk page seems to indicate around 7 who lean towards inclusion, and around 6 who lean against (albeit a vocal six). That’s not really consensus, is it? Arcayne has taken the position that the link shouldn’t appear until consensus allows, when others have felt that it should remain until consensus forbids. This has become an edit war when it doesn’t need to be. Let’s take a vote already, and let an ACTUAL consensus be reached, then be done with it. Everyone can turn their talents and energies to other, more needful issues. (As an aside, my children have a considerable amount of Harry Potter merchandise, and much of it does bear a logo which uses “HP” quite prominently…for whatever that’s worth.) My vote is to include one (only one) link to Harry Potter from this page. I think it’s worth it for the help it may be to someone who is not necessarily a “fan”. If everyone who is watching this page will weigh in with a vote in the next few days, we should be able to settle the matter. SlackerMom 14:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Include per reason given. I would have origiinally said omit, however JHunterJ provided an English language source that has used the abbreviation. Note: Please do not substitute the results of this discussion to add "HP" at the top of Harry Potter. Thank You. Reginmund 14:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

While we don't exactly vote on Wikipedia, the reasons given here for including the link are exactly why I thought it should be here too. Just one line saying that HP can refer to Harry Potter; I've work out a lot of references that people make through looking them up on disambig pages and see what makes sense, and don't see why we should be denying this to people in this case. I also find Arcayne's comment "I see nothing at all in MOSDAB-Given names or surnames that implies that Harry Potter uses HP as a substitute outside a small select, group of people who use while typing furiously about what color underwear Hermione is wearing or whatnot." rather puzzling... Skittle 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Include per it can't hurt, can it?. Chandler talk 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes, but I am going to qualify my call for a vote after having read Wikipedia's guidelines on consensus. Apparently voting and taking polls is discouraged as hindering actual consensus-building, and I concur with that conclusion. Rather than voting per se, please just check in with your current take on the matter. I fear that many have stopped contributing or supporting this discussion because it has made so little progress towards a conclusion, and seems to have been "won" by attrition. I do not believe that consensus has yet been reached. SlackerMom 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that, at this point, we do not have a consensus and have in fact a stalemate. Please understand that I thoroughly understand your point of view, whereas I feel that my position is being characterized as too inflexible. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a fansite. The improbable scenario about the non-speaker aside, most people don't see Harry Potter and think 'HP'. The instances where the correlation appears in newspapers is almost always in headlines or other places where space is at a premium, and usually referred to by the proper name initially, and then referred to occasionally by the acronym. The non-speaker in the scnario might scan the rest of the article for the source of "the mysterious HP" and quite likely see the actual name. I am willing to bet a shiny new cookie that not once does the HP abbreviation occur without Harry Potter either preceding or following its use.

As well, I would guess that the 'HP' you are noting on your children's merchandise likely has the Harry Potter actual name on it, probably alongside what movie it is from as well. However, looking about on ebay, most of the merchandise seemed to have the full name on it (1, 2 3). Of course, there is a lot of merchandise out there (looks like someone learned the merchandising lessons of George Lucas very well), so my impromptu search might not really be indicative of the market.

As well, it doesn't appear to be in general usage outside of specific forums dedicated to discussion of Harry Potter, and Wikipedia 'isn't for sale' - it doesn't give special consideration to any one group (though it does penalize certain groups), and that would include Harry Potter fans.

WP:MOSDAB shouldn't be used to defend its inclusion, as there is nothing in the Style Manual that defends that choice. My earlier comment reflected an overview of HP use, and it happened to take me to a Harry Potter forum wherein some creepy convo was going on regarding female wizarding undergarments. In a word, 'icky'. Perhaps that brief (pardon the pun) experience has coloured my perception of the fan base, who argue stridently over minutae, and so abbreviate Harry Potter to 'hp'. And relationships to 'ship' (as in HR ship), and other such crufty baggage.

Lastly - and perhaps most importantly - it isn't encyclopedic. The scenario described by SlackerMom is unlikely in the extreme to happen. No one comes to Wikipedia, types in the letters H and P and expect to get Harry Potter, or even to be taken to a dab page that has it as a common usage. It isn't common, it isn't in accordance to the policies and guidelines in Wikipedia, and I am not the only one saying this. There are truly experienced editors weighing in and clearly saying that this doesn't belong. Votes are spiffy, but they don't amount to a hill of beans if the item being voted on isn't in accordance with what HP says can be in.

Perhaps our energies and talents should indeed be directed to more needful issues; to me, this seems to be a fairly simple matter. It doesn't fall under the guidelines for inclusion, so it shouldn't be included. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take my cookie, please. The cite I gave you above, The Observer (England), July 22, 2007, Observer Review Arts Pages; Pg. 30., uses HP to discuss Harry Potter without "Harry Potter" appearing anywhere in the article. There are 45 others (that don't include "Harry Potter" anywhere in the article; more if you just restrict it to "not within 5 words" or something). Like I said, but you may not have recognized it because you incorrectly claimed it was susceptible to Google bombing. -- JHunterJ 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can see sort of where you're coming from, this isn't about people looking at Harry Potter and think HP, or about typing the the letters 'HP' and getting to Harry Potter, it's about people who don't know that they're looking for a page on Harry Potter (because if they did, they'd type 'Harry Potter') typing 'HP' in hopes that a relevant page will come up giving them an idea of what was meant. I often use disambig pages in this way, typing in something that someone has said, or I glimpsed somewhere, or I half-remember, and search the page for a usage that makes sense. While policy is important (although I do not think verifiability is usually considered much for disambig pages, unless they're very cumbersome), when it comes to guidelines there is usually more flexibility in Wikipedia, since the actual purpose and spirit should be considered as well as the letter. Skittle 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't decide things by vote on Wikipedia. Moreover, one cannot just vote away a policy such as wikipedia:verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I rescind my call for a vote. And I'm not trying to do away with the verifiability policy. I haven't seen any policy requiring sources on dab pages, and in fact, a great many poorly sourced articles are routinely linked to from dab pages. Are you suggesting that all these links are suspect? Isn't verifiability an issue to be dealt with at the article level? Arcayne, I feel that you have explained your position very clearly, and I do feel that I understand it. I simply disagree. You have characterized my scenario as "improbable" and "unlikely in the extreme" and yet almost as soon as I typed it in, three editors responded with sympathetic agreement, so I feel I am not alone in my opinion that it is at least a reasonably possible scenario. I understand that consensus means that sometimes we have to agree to disagree, but what is really at stake here? What is the risk of including a link which may be helpful? I am not a "fan" of the type that you have mentioned, and I agree with you that fan usage alone is nearly meaningless here. I also concede that uses of HP in the press will likely have "Harry Potter" somewhere nearby in context. But, honestly, most uses of hp as referring to Hewlett-Packard will also have "Hewlett-Packard" nearby somewhere as well. I don't think that's a criteria to use. Where can we go with this? SlackerMom 00:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know why this is such a huge deal. It's one link, and there's at least a few sources, (which satisfies verifiability). So really, it benefits the encyclopedia, and doesn't harm it, or tarnish it's image or whatever. So just keep it on the page. i ^said 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(Please use the proper indenting protocol, i). If you don;t consider it a huge deal, let's just keep it off and move on. I guess I am not understanding why - if it isn't such a big deal to you - you keep advocating further discussion? The sources you note indicate an abbreviation based on space-available concerns only, and not noteworthy.

In answer to your question, SlackerMom, I think that - if we cannot agree that it doesn't belong, that we escalate the matter further. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Propoper indenting protocol? There is no policy that mandates how I must indent. It suggests that I indent to show threading. And it did, since I was not replying to the thread directly above me. I was making a new comment, and wished to show that I was only responding to the original post, but keeping it chronologically accurate, hence the bullet. But I mean that it's not a big deal to remove it. It's not a huge enough deal to get policy lawyering over one link that actually has a source, when there are others on the page that don't. i ^said 22:48, October 18, 2007 (UTC)

When you wish to make a new statement, you outdent or start a new section. You don't unilaterally (and arbitrarily) decide to use another form of indentation. No one else does it, and because of this, your comments stick out lke the proverbial sore thumb. If you felt you were the only one replying to the original post, simply say so. Gosh, its like Wikipedia 101. See WP:INDENT and [threading your post], Utilizing the hierarchical structure already in place makes responses easier to follow. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I outdented, I just chose to use a bullet as well to indicate a comment that wasn't in direct relation to anything but the original post. But in order to prevent another huge, vehement argument, I'll make it "proper indenting protocol" Your edit summary wasn't particularly helpful either. i ^said 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"The sources you note indicate an abbreviation based on space-available concerns only, and not noteworthy." A national newspaper using it without clarification? Why does it matter if it was used on space-available concerns only, what on earth has that got to do with anything? Skittle 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that it's very weak evidence. We really don't have any reason to regard the term "HP" as widely associated with Harry Potter, and we'd need some pretty strong evidence for this as it's such a far-fetched claim. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We have evidence (even if you might characterize it as weak) for its use. Here's another one (which I'll also give to the Harry Potter talk page): "When I read to my son at bedtime, a young wizard's world awakens", Robin Johnston, The Charlotte Observer, p. 1E, July 15, 2007. "Harry" and "HP" are used, but the word "Potter" does not appear in the text (although she does reference "Potterhead"). What we really don't have is any reason to regard the term "HP" as not widely associated with Harry Potter, and we'd need some pretty strong evidence for this as it's becoming more and more far-fetched. -- JHunterJ 11:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read this the first time, when you were forum-shopping and cross-posting in Harry Potter. You do realize that wiki-canvassing is somewhat frowned upon here in WP. I am sure that if the good folks over in the Harry Potter article wish to joing us, they will, In the meantime, please try to keep the discsussion here.

Oh, to carry my response fromt he other page here, you neglected to mention the half dozen times prior to your cited usage wherein the author in question writes about Potter, using his full name with nary an acronym to be found. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If asked to come up with further references for Harry Potter, I will certainly share them with the editors at Harry Potter. It has nothing to do with canvassing. Answered more fully under your cross-posted accusation. -- JHunterJ 00:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll do you one better: simply prove to me that it is not in any way an attempt to generate a valid reason for having a Harry potter dab term here. Prove it to me, and I will apologize for losing faith in your editing goals. Harry potter doesn't belong here, and a few people have pointed it out rather succinctly. You are entirely welcome to ask an admin to look at the situation and evaluate it, but I am fairly guessing that I am right here, and your actions constitute wiki-canvassing. Prove me wrong. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to have "HP" in Harry Potter, and once there, to have "Harry Potter" here. Now, simply prove to me that that is in any way wrong (not wrong to have on the articles, but wrong for any editor to have as a goal in their discussions). Or simply prove to me that having a few editors succinctly agree on a point means that no other editors can disagree with those few editors. Since you're accusing me of wrong-doing (canvassing), you're welcome to go get another admin to look at my actions and evaluate them. You are way off base. -- JHunterJ 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter does belong here. Have you never seen this logo [2]? Here are a couule of examples of use in merchandise [3][4] to help you beleive it should be here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ArryStreet (talk • contribs) 05:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Before Harry Potter belongs here, HP needs to belong on Harry Potter. There are several citations on Talk:Harry Potter that can be used by someone familiar with the article to add it in an appropriate place on that article, after which it can be added here. Long ago, I added it to the intro para, but that was nixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirects in the intro

For guidelines on redirects and the intro paragraph, please read WP:MOSDAB, specifically WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic and WP:MOSDAB#Piping. "Some title (disambiguation)" pages should open with a link to "Some title" (even if that is a redirect. Also note that WP:R#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken points out that redirects in general are legitimate links. -- JHunterJ 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. Maybe put into layman terms what you are referring to, J. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What part didn't you understand, A? WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic: This is HP (disambiguation). There is a primary topic for HP. The disambiguation page should open with that entry separate from the dabbed entries, since people looking for the primary topic are unlikely to get to the dab. The link to the primary topic should be a link to the base name, even if that's a redirect. It indicates that that really is the primary topic -- it's linked through the base name. WP:MOSDAB#Piping: Links to redirects that are named with the dab phrase are preferred to piping those links. WP:R#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken: Do not change links to redirects that aren't broken, on Wikipedia in general, not specific to dab pages. (And where's my cookie?) -- JHunterJ 10:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Houses of Parliament

Houses of Parliament is in the same boat as Harry Potter -- the to-be-linked article doesn't mention that the subject is known as HP. Now, I've provided citations for Harry Potter = HP on the Harry Potter page and talk page, but it has been removed from the article by other editors; as long as the article doesn't mention HP, I'm in agreement that the dab doesn't need to list it. But that also holds for Houses of Parliament. If you feel that Houses of Parliament belongs here, especially those of you who disagree with Harry Potter's inclusion, please add the information (with more than 2 citations, since Arcayne feels that 2 citations are too few) that it is known as HP to that article first. (Actually, I don't care about the citations; Arcayne's claim that 2 is too few is incorrect.) -- JHunterJ 10:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on Houses of Parliament--in my experience the only use of HP to represent the Houses of Parliament is in HP Sauce.

However I would also suggest that your argument above is getting close to the much-deprecated "other shit exists" line of argument. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't given "other stuff exists" (or analogous) as a reason for any of the suggested inclusions, so I don't know how you reached that conclusion. However, I find your arguments are too close to "I don't like it". -- JHunterJ 11:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"people known by initials"

are known by the initials "HP", we're told here.

A book by Lovecraft is marked "HP Lovecraft" (or minor typographic variations thereof). "Lovecraft" is there, conspicuously. (Contrast that with a book by "H.D.".) Adding a link to Lovecraft or "Baxxter" doesn't disambiguate anything and it's hard to imagine how it could help anyone. -- Hoary 11:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Those names don't belong on this particular page. --Tony Sidaway 12:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Name holders in general do not "belong" on disambiguation pages, for the reasons you mention. However, consensus has been that, for short lists, name holders could be lists in a lower "People with" section on the dab page if the length wasn't long enough to warrant a name list article of its own. See, as ever, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Given names or surnames and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. If you feel that they do not belong here, the could be moved to HP (name)-type page and that linked from here. -- JHunterJ 11:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia supposed to reflect the online world or the real world?

I'm new to the Wikipedia, so I honestly don't know

In the online world, Googling "hp" in a search with each of the other terms gives

about 14,200 for hp "Hindustan Petroleum"
about 42,900 for hp "Handley Page"
about 73,100 for hp ("Hit point" OR "health point")
about 76,800 for hp "Hello! Project"
about 164,000 for hp "Hemel Hempstead"
about 325,000 for hp "Himachal Pradesh"
about 1,050,000 for hp ilford
about 1,710,000 for hp sauce
about 2,070,000 for hp horsepower
about 2,460,000 for hp "harry potter"
about 33,500,000 for hp "hewlett packard"

In the real world, one would think that

"hit point" would be incredibly arcane and used by a very small number of people
"horsepower" (cars, motorbikes, fan and air conditioner motors, power tools, boats, etc.) would be more relevant to more people worldwide than a computer and printer manufacturer
"Harry Potter" would be very important because of the popularity of the books and movies

(BTW, I'm not at all a Harry Potter fan.)

So, is the Wikipedia supposed to reflect the online world or the real world?

Cactus2 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to reflect both. We recognize the bias inherent in our editor population, though. Are you asking about the ordering of the entries that are there (like Hewlett Packard and Hindustan Petroleum) or about the inclusion/exclusion of particular entries (let's use a different example, say hasenpfeffer)? -- JHunterJ 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would mostly agree, except that to stress that its supposed to reflect the real world a bit more. This is evidenced by the recent de-powering of WP:SPOILER and the crackdown on non-free images. On the internet, spoiler warning are considered common courtesy, and non-free images are quite literally everywhere (I mean, at one point, it seemed like every other image was a Pam Anderson or Paris Hilton nude).

As well, the internet doesn't really rely on hard-core sources in the way that WP does. rumors abound; the internet is indeed as one famous net pioneer once said, "mostly crap".

Conversely, we have the freedom of the Wild West that the internet essentially is. Google bombing and spamdexing are used to hyper-inflate search results. Another way to look at search results is to compare them to informal surveys conducted by marketing firms. Even searches that aren;t conducted on Google aren;t free from result manipulation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to reflect the real world. Which kinda rules out google results. :) --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the page is supposed to help people to find the Wikipedia page they're looking for. So, 'hp' meaning 'hit point' is a reasonable thing to include, since there is a substantial number of people who use the abbreviation without ever having stopped to think what it might stand for. (My personal opinion only, based on my game experience.) On the other hand, I'd bet plenty that there's no one out there who uses HP as an abbreviation for Harry Potter, without knowing that 'Harry Potter' *is* the full name. Marieblasdell 05:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the standard on disambiguation pages Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). It says clearly: "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term."

OK, then "Hewlett-Packard" goes at the top and "Harry Potter" is unnecessary.Cactus2 09:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not prevent newbie-caused disambiguation hassles in the first place?

Sorry to wander in and reignite a battle that I now see has been going on since March 2006. (And then I also reignited the issue about positioning "Hewlett Packard" on the page, going on at least since this August.)

To keep newbies like me from messing up your carefully tuned disambiguation pages and causing you guys to waste all this time, isn't there some way to lock them so that only the admins can change them?

Or can you have a standard note at the start or end of all disambiguation pages that says something like "Because of the key role that disambiguation pages play in helping people find things in the Wikipedia, please click the "Discussion" tab and propose your change there rather than directly editing the page."Cactus2 09:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the latter would prove more helpful than the first. Protection is usually used to prevent vandalism or really bad edit-warring which, for the greatest part, doesn't constitute the changes that have been occurring in these pages. There are two or three reasoned points of view occurring and hashing them out is really what constitutes the best part of Wikipedia's success (I know it doesn't seem like that while you are knee-deep in discussion where tempers are flaring a bit, but trust me that the burning sensation means it is working - lol). So protection doesn't really apply to this situation. However, I find the idea of setting a no-wiki that asks to discuss additions or changes first to be intriguing. Unfortunately, a lot of folk who are all gussied up to make changes aren't going to pay attention to that, or are so very full of themselves that they don't feel the suggestion applies to their oh-so-obvious choice (again, that hasn't really happened here). Of the two suggestions, I think that your second is the better of the two. You might want to suggest it as an addition to WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB and get their feedback. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You pointed me to "WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB" Why are there two articles covering essentially the same material?Cactus2 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're not the same really. Closely related, yes, but one covers what disambiguation is on Wikipedia and the other describes style guidelines for a disambiguation page. The process of disambiguating titles involves more that the simple formatting of a diambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If the admins want newbies to follow the rules, there need to be simple rules... and they need to be easy to find. Rather than many screens of discussion, why didn't someone just post the rule that I found? "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." That is perfectly clear.Cactus2 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Uses of HP as Harry Potter

You want proof? Look at this: [5] It is the italian cover of the seventh novel and it plainly says on the spine HP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArryStreet (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC) And as I said earlier, there is this logo [6] which is used alot in merchandise [7][8]Arry 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)