Talk:HP/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hewlett-Packard

I added "Hewlett-Packard" under organizations because it wasn't there. My edit has been reverted. I see now that the Hewlett-Packard disambiguation has its own place at the top, which I did not notice; it's hardly prominent. Is there a reason why this should get such a favoured position? And even if it does merit it, why people like me (who look under the appropriate heading to find the term being searched for) are not accommodated with an entry for Hewlett-Packard under Organizations where it logically belongs? Bazza (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See the top line:

HP is a common abbreviation for Hewlett-Packard, a computer company, and featured as part of their corporate logo.

"HP" redirects to "Hewlett-Packard"; WP:MOS:DP#Piping suggests the use of redirects is preferred over their appointed targets, and only one blue link is needed per WP:MOS:DP#Individual entries. Understandable? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the main question though, which is about repeating the mention of Hewlett-Packard under the Technology section as in this edit. This is addressed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to a primary topic, where the guidance is Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top.

However, I think this guidance may be worth reconsidering, especially in regards to abbreviations and acronyms or perhaps in others cases involving the disambiguation of redirects. For example, in this case, HP redirects to Hewlett-Packard, while hp redirects to horsepower. A person who typed lower-case "hp" while looking for Hewlett-Packard can then get to this disambiguation page through the hatnote at horsepower, but where is the reader to look for Hewlett-Packard? There's the "Technology" section in large bold letters -- looks promising -- but no luck. I think there may be some benefit to repeating the the entry in the appropriate section as well as listing it at the top. Or alternatively, perhaps pages like this shouldn't be treated the same as primary topic disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you're asking for a change in the MoS. I think it's silly to repeat the same subject twice, and you hinted that yourself when you quoted that bit of the guideline. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A few points, 1) the MOS is not something that is to be robotically applied; common sense exceptions are always allowed (indeed encouraged); 2) Considering that BOTH horsepower and Hewlett-Packard can be considered the "primary topic" of HP/hp, it isn't entirely clear that the MOS guidance was intended for such cases; 3) especially since that begs the question of whether redirected targets should be treated in the same manner as other primary topic disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We could have both HP and hp as primary topics. I'd rather go for that. And what's wrong for being a stickler to guidelines? Just following protocol here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I could go for that. And I am a stickler for the rules, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good to see you Arcayne. Been meaning to ask, what happened here? Seems you attempted to archive something but it got "screwed up". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to be seen, Sesshomaru. The issue was essentially that someone (a since indef blocked user) had changed a header sometime prior to me archiving the page. Another user started altering the name in the archive - a bozo no-no - and get all stupid about it. One AN/I, one discussion page and a discussion with another user later, I discovered the indef-blocked user's actions, and chose to strike through the archive section title and the link here. The user reverting without sufficient explanation was wrong (even more so because he's an admin), but I was wrong as well for not investigating the likely cause of the reverting user's clusterfuckery. It's pretty much done now.

Aincha glad ya asked? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What did happen between you and JHunterJ? He hasn't returned since that dispute. The archive isn't really broken, is it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've recounted what happened, Sess. As for why he hasn't returned, only he can explain. I am guessing he's cooling down and taking time to smell the newly blossoming green things. It is Spring, after all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. Just all this time I thought it was broken, or at least removed. Thanks for clearing that up ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I see no answer, though. I had already been frustrated by finding myself at Hp after typing "hp" in the search box. I do not understand why it is silly to repeat the same subject in different locations if it helps people find the information they are looking for. My questions in the first place were as a result of not being able to do this, which hints that this page needs work doing on it to improve it for readers: this being of more importance than Manual of Style rules, I think. I had not noticed the top line at all until my watchlist showed that my edit had been reverted. User:Bkonrad diagnosed exactly what my issue was: where is the reader to look for Hewlett-Packard? There's the "Technology" section in large bold letters -- looks promising -- but no luck, which was when I added the now-reverted link to Helwett-Packard in the Organizations section of this page. In fact, I would argue that that link could be repeated under both Organizations and Technology. Bazza (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bazza, is this a policy-inspired decision, or one of reasoning. If the former, it needs to be spelled out more clearly in the dab guideline page. If not, is it something that should be discussed as an addition to policy there? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Back from spring break; glad to be missed, and glad the "bozo" AN/I is done. Redundant entries on dab pages aren't forbidden (I've advocated for them on Patton and Madonna for instance). I think the reason given here, because of the different targetting of HP and hp, would mean that a redundant entry (or perhaps two if the intro were expanded to cover both) would be useful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. And to expand on what I said previously (which more or less accords with JHunterJ here): the primary objective of disambiguation pages (and the underlying rationale for all the "rules" at WP:MOSDAB and WP:DAB) is to help readers find the page they were looking for as quickly as possible. When a reader indicates a possible problem with that objective for the current arrangement of the page, I think we can do better than telling the reader that the problem is not with the page, but with the reader for not understanding "the rules" of disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. As it appears to break no rule, I have re-added the duplicate entry to Hewlett-Packard. I may or may not get round to discussing this at WP:MOSDAB or WP:DAB — if anyone feels the need to jump in first, whatever their stance, then I have no objection. Bazza (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this nonsense? There was no consensus for such an edit, and I thought most were agreeing on having two primary links. Please explain. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You and Arcayne may have agreed, that is hardly consensus either. JHunterJ's comments could be interpreted either way. I think the guidelines are not terribly clear about cases such as this and certainly not enough to call the edits by Bazza nonsense. older ≠ wiser 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To User:Sesshomaru: I don't appreciate any edits I make in good faith, which I explain on the appropriate discussion page, being referred to as "nonsense" and "totally unhelpful", nor demands that I account for my edit. Remember WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. I have already said why, in this instance, the primary link at the top of the page was unhelpful. I have also said that I could find no rules which would be broken by the edit I made. Yet you reverted my edit without having the civility to explain why. If you demand consensus, then I count three people who think that the page needs improving, and two who don't. But that's irrelevant. I still maintain that the current layout which omits a link to Hewlett-Packard from "organizations" and/or "technology" is unhelpful. Bazza (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am making a break here to aid navigation:

An obvious solution

There is a simple answer to this problem and it is covered by mos:dab. The fact that there are two sets of redirects which differ only by virtue of capitalisation creates the situation where it appears that two articles are "fighting" for the status of primary meaning. IMHO this means there is no primary meaning and all hp capitalisations should be redirected here to the dab page. I will makes the changes so you can see what I mean more clearly. It solves all problems at a stroke. :) Abtract (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That solution needs to be discussed at Talk:HP and Talk:Hp before re-changing those primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Abtract (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why what? Why get consensus for a change in primary topic? Or why discuss after a bold edit has been reverted? WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there was (and is) no discussion there to establish a consensus, I saw (and see) no reason to discuss changing it on those talk pages but, being a cautious person, I did open a thread here which you totally ignored until reverting me twice. I repeat my arguement: clearly there is no primary meaning of hp because two articles claim it ... and indeed hire purchase could also claim it imho. This makes the pre-existing redirects potentially confusing whereas redirecting all capitalisations here to the dab page gives all readers immediate access to all possible HPs. It seems pretty simple to me but I don't intend to fight it again ... I just hope other sensible editors will support my view. My main meaning of "Why?" was: why not support me in this obvious improvement? Abtract (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So far no-one has actually addressed the point I made, that the problem exists only because there seem to be two (and I would contend more eg Hire purchase) primary articles. The solution is simple ... there is no primary meaning. Can anyone tell me why this is not a good idea? Abtract (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the hullabaloo today. By previous consensus the primary topic for "HP" is Hewlett-Packard and the primary meaning for "hp" is horsepower. There is no requirement that two terms that have different capitalizations must have the same primary topic. There is also no requirement for consensus to have previous Talk (WP:CONSENSUS) -- the stability of the previous version shows the consensus. "There is no primary meaning" would indeed solve the problem observed on this page, but would only be a valid solution if true. To determine if it's true, a new consensus would have to be formed. Since the WP:BOLD testing of whether this new version has consensus showed that it did not, now it falls to discussion (at or with pointers from Talk:HP and Talk:Hp) to try and change the current consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Only you have expressed disagreement ... where are the massed ranks of editors rising to defend the status quo? Come on JHJ, you know it makes sense :) Abtract (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Where there are two articles that are most commonly known as hp or HP, where is the sense in burying those senses in the middle of the the list? They should be more prominent than other links. older ≠ wiser 00:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK good point but ... (1) It seems to me that these "most commonly known as" articles are there for historical reasons (they happened to get in first) cos there is no discussion on their pages. (2) HP Foods is as widely known as Hewlett-Packard and HP is in the name. (3) Ask anyone of my generation in the UK what HP means and they will instantly say Hire purchase. (4) The status quo relies on readers being meticulous with their capitals and I bet they are not. (5) What is the disadvantage of having no primary article and all capitalisations redirecting to this dab page? Abtract (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Others have also expressed disagreement to the previous attempts to change the redirect without discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Still missing the point. I work in the IT industry, so assume (unlike other compatriots) that "hp" means Hewlett-Packard. My laptop is sitting in front of me and it has "hp" on the front. I type "hp" into Wikipedia and get Horsepower. It says, at the top, "Hp" redirects here. For other uses, see HP (disambiguation). At this point, case is irrelevant - I type "hp", I'm given the "Hp" redirect page. So I click to go there and get [1]. I know Hewlett-Packard is an organisation, and does technology, but it's under neither. It's confusing and frustrating. Wikipedia obviously can't cope with this unusual instance of case confusion: "HP", "hp" and "Hp" do and don't mean the same thing depending where you are. Being reverted out-of-hand, twice, for trying to remedy this shortfall was even more frustrating, let alone rude. Rules and regulations are all well and good, but not much use when they don't work. In any event, they don't have to be religiously adhered to. The list, as it stands now, is probably fine, although I think that putting the two primary entries in a list of their own makes them stand out more. I've done that to illustrate but am not really bothered if it gets reverted or not. Bazza (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The trivial saga continues

It continues at Talk:Harry Potter#Harry Potter abbreviated as HP, seems obvious -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is - as you note in the section title, "trivial", why bother with it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Because its inclusion on the dab page is trivial enough to avoid objection. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Or the lack thereof would be just as trivial to contest. Especially where there's no need for it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Selfref

This is the HP dab. WP:HP exists. It seems that a {{selfref}} is applicable here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's up for removal in either MfD or RfD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And it was speedy kept. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:HP. With or without the entry for Harry Potter in the list proper (and properly), Wikipedia shortcuts are commonly noted with {{selfref}} on the corresponding pages in the mainspace, such as on DAB and MOS (although such uses are very hit-and-miss right now). It should still be here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So I'll re-add it, since another user was just asking about selfrefs on dabs on my talk page and reminded me of this. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Break

As in the past, dealing with Arcayne's extravagant demands of what he or she feels is needed to recognize that Harry Potter is commonly referred to as HP has consumed too much time. Unwatching -- use my Talk page as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not unwatching after all, given the new MfD for WP:HP. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda figured as much. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you two have too much 'invested' in this page and should take a (long) break from it. Abtract (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. It's just maintenance, after all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary definitions

Has anyone noticed the definitions therein?

1. hire purchase
2. Hewlett-Packard (Corporation)
3. horse power
4. Health Points (In Role Playing Games)
5. Harry Potter (J.K. Rowling's series of books about the eponymous young wizard)

This makes my point about hire purchase rather well and gives some support to the Harry Potter idea. Abtract (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken Arcayne's next edit will be to remove that Chandlertalk 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You might wish to consider a career path in fortune telling, Chandler. I hear John Edward has kythe'd open a few doors in that arena. ;)

At some point, the realization is going to have to happen that there isn't consensus or RS for its inclusion at this time. Maybe in another year or two, things will change. Just not now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

At some point, we hope that you'll realize that their isn't consensus for its exclusion at this time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC),

Golly, maybe you wll also realize that there isn't policy or consensus for it's inclusion, either. Maybe pick a forum and stick to it, Multi-level format shopping may seem like a wise move, but most take a pretty dim view of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is evidence for consensus for its inclusion here, based on the edit history. The policies for its inclusion are WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. This is not shopping, but discussion about two pages taking place on those two pages' talk pages. Lighten your view of it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are somewhat mistaken as to consensus, but I can understand how you might have thought that. The Selfref is wiki shorthand that we use here - not notable.

This is getting old, J. I mean, how many times and in how many pages do you have to be told 'no, it isn't notable?' Three? Four? (and there was no consensus about this in D) You've been at this for months, and you have yet to find a consensus in Hary Potter (or anywhere else) for its inclusion. You've gotten in trouble for edit-waring about it, and amongst your first edits after coming off block (and apparently a lot of email action while you were o n the 24-hour "break" as well) was to add the same edit back. I get that you might just be pissed at my opposition to it, and the block, and are determined to add it no matter what, but enough is enough. HP is not a dab term for Harry Potter. There are not citations that you have presented that meet the criteria as a notable substitution for the name. Enough editors and admns feel it isn't notable at this time, so maybe let it go for now. Until you present me with that notable substitution, I know I am going to be on the side of policy and guidelines, I am going to oppose its inclusion here, and ou should know by now that I care enough about the subject to stay on top of it. Maybe the situation will be different in another six months, and you can use the time to find a tighter series of citations to support a claim better, or find a new consensus. In the four different places you've sought a way to shoehorn inclusion in, all have been dismissed, Clearly, now isn't the time. Keeping on wikt this is just disruptive and smacks of edit-warring, which I think we'd all like to avoid. Please let it go. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, Arcayne. How many times do you have to be shown (not just told) that Harry Potter is referred to as HP, and so the disambiguation guidelines seek to help the reader by noting that? I have formed a consensus here for its inclusion, and I think consensus is close on Harry Potter for acknowledging the "HP" usage. And you're wrong on another point -- my first (and only edit) on this article after my block was to change the intro para back to MOS; other editors have been there before I've needed to revert your increasingly disruptive edits around the inclusion of Harry Potter. Stay on top of it all you like, and seek to build consensus, but stop being disruptive. Enough editors and admins feel it is used at this time, so maybe let it go for now. Until you present me with any citation of it not being used, we should stick to the citations that show it is being used, regardless of how you wish everyone else to judge them. I've tried to work through various compromises (not shoehorning, but seeking solutions that would make everyone happy), and the only solution you've pursued is the one that makes just you happy -- you're the only one left to dismiss them. Please let it go. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any notable citations that substitute HP for Harry Potter? The four you have brought this far are barely citations. If you are unsure what constitutes notability, please read the eponymous article page, or consult others on the subject, like an admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than your WP:IDONTLIKEIT, what is wrong with the four citations? "Using the abbreviation all on its lonesome" doesn't appear in the guidelines, nor does "not in an editorial". What it says is "Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc." Four newspapers cited. Also, note that consensus to include Harry Potter here does not depend on citations -- citations are to be avoided on navigational non-article pages such as disambiguations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, my issue was not that 'I don't like it'; and I am terribly sorry you were under the misguided impression that such was my reasoning. Perhaps if you had actually read my posts, you might have been able to suss that out. As for the 'all by its lonesome' argument, HP by itself is not notable as a substitution for the name Harry Potter. As I explained before, notability is a criteria for dab inclusion. Its the reason we include hp for horsepower or hit (or health) points. The substitution is notable (there's that word again) enough to stand 'all by its lonesome' without the disambiguation. Harry Potter is not notably known as HP outside a fan forum.

As well, I did read up on dab pages back when this first started, and know that the citation process isn't for inclusion but instead as a measure of notable (that word again, eh?) usage. It was the reason I repeatedly asked you for something - anything - that showed the notability (that word keeps coming up, doesn't it?) of HP being used to refer to Harry Potter, you know, like the lesser known terms horsepower, or hit points, or hire purchase or even HP sauce. Every single one of those terms are notable replacements - ie, known to be substitutions for the longer term in general conversation - for the unabbreviated term. Harry Potter doesn't meet that criteria.

And thus far, you've managed to exhaust just about every single sly boots trick to get it included and you still don't have a consensus for inclusion. Tell you what: let's go to mediation or DR on this, 'coz you have not introduced a single shred of info that points to a notable use of HP as Harry Potter. Without it, I am not going to be convinced, and I am not going anywhere.I am here to follow the policies and guidelines, and enforce them as best I can. You, on the other hand, have already been blocked for edit-warring the term and 3RR. Cowboy up and let's see where mediation or DR takes us. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it up wherever you like, Arcayne. You can start with mediation, or you can quote whichever policies (reliable sources, notability, or the dab guidelines) you're talking about to get it removed, since there is currently consensus to include it here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Be happy to. I will list it with Mediation after I upload the relevant policies that support my view. I am surprised you don't already know them. The post will be a bit later. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No surprise -- I know the policies, but disagree with your conclusions. Once you tell me exactly how you're reaching your conclusions, we can work from a common standing, rather than just one of us demanding that the other keep offering up citations until some undefined criteria is met. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to that opportunity, and hope we reach a common understanding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I'm intrigued. Where, outside fandom, is hp used to refer to 'hitpoints' without spelling out at some point that it means 'hitpoints'? Do we have citations for this? After all, this isn't the game-o-pedia, we shouldn't be catering to gamers. Shouldn't we be removing this cruft? We will, of course, need more than 4 newspaper articles using it, and they should all refrain from using the full term 'hitpoints'. Skittle (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As per Arcayne's question on my talk page, this isn't a pointy comment. (I am not disrupting Wikipedia in any way, although I am making a point. But then, so does every statement.) I genuinely am intrigued that these exact questions are not asked about hitpoints, since they so clearly apply here as much as they do to Harry Potter. I'm interested that this should be considered a grenade, as I actually thought it quite relevant. If we can work out why this is viewed in such a different manner, or whether it in fact is, maybe we can work out what the issue is with Harry Potter. So please, could someone attempt an answer? Skittle (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not disruptive. I don't have any answers to the questions though, since I think both hit points and Harry Potter meet the dab guidelines for inclusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

horsepower

The abbreviation of "horsepower" is "hp" as we are all agreed. However the abbreviation of "Horsepower" (capitalised to start a sentence) must surely be "Hp" (also capitalised to start a sentence). Since mos:dab is very clear that we start each line with a capital, I fail to see the problem. I can't see the difference between this and other words; can anyone else? Is there a suggestion that "hp" would not be capitalised at the beginning of a sentence? Abtract (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, both Collins Dictionary and Wiktionary show HP (capitalised) as horsepower, so this is a bit of a non-debate imho. Abtract (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

However, Horsepower notes its abbreviation as "hp". I disagree that the abbreviation must surely be Hp at the start of a sentence, any more than mg for milligram would become Mg for Milligram, or Hz for Hertz would become hz for hertz. Is there an example of this usage? If horsepower is updated to reflect "HP" as the abbreviation, then of course we should use that. "Hp" should not appear in relation to horsepower, however. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webstar and American Heritage use only hp for horsepower. Random House recognizes h.p., hp, H.P., and HP. Nobody recognizes Hp. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, why would they? The rules of English dictate that words beginning a sentence start with a capital letter. You say above you disagree with this ... do you have any examples of a sentence not starting with a capital letter? Abtract (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"fMRI studies show that these increased responses in fusiform cortex to fearful faces are abolished by amygdala damage in the ipsilateral hemisphere...." -- "New findings from University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland, detailed", Hospital Business Week, p. 2729, April 1, 2007. See also Capitalization: "For some terms a capital as first letter is avoided by avoiding their use at the beginning of a sentence, or by writing it in lowercase even at the beginning of a sentence. E.g., pH looks unfamiliar written PH, and m and M may even have different meanings, milli and mega." (emphasis added). Here, though, the claim isn't that sentences don't start with a capital letter. The claim is that nobody uses "Hp". If you think the dab page should, please provide some justification for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I need to justify the English language do I? You have chosen two examples with mixed capitalisation and yes their specific usage would over-ride sentence capitalisation - I also accept that most people would avoid starting a sentence with hp or Hp but what you haven't demonstrated is that Hp is incorrect at the beginning of a sentence - basic English rules must apply unless an exception can be justified. I may well be wrong but you have yet to demonstrate it. Abtract (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave you what you asked for -- a citation for a sentence starting with a lowercase letter, and an explanation from Capitalization. Unsurprisingly, you have determined that those are insufficient. Rather than playing yet another round of "only one side has to find citations", please take your turn and provide an citation for any use of "Hp", at the beginning of a sentence or otherwise. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please present one Abtract. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of only one side needs to provide citations ... I think we all agree that normal English usage is to capitalise at the start of a sentence and that is the entirety of my justification. Surely you need to justify why hp (specifically) is an exception - that's all I'm asking. So far all you have said is that there are exceptions to the rule (and you quote some good ones) but that doen't help; what we need to know is whether hp is one of them. This is not a big deal but I do object to being reverted without justification. Abtract (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"For some terms a capital as first letter is avoided by avoiding their use at the beginning of a sentence, or by writing it in lowercase even at the beginning of a sentence." Now, you need to justify why there would be an exception to this exception for hp, since it is unfamiliar as Hp, or alternatively you could show that it is familiar as Hp. You shouldn't object to being reverted with explanation, since an explanation was provided. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? "some terms" is most certainly not a justification for hp ... until you give me even a hint of a (specific to hp) justification I stand by the English language. Abtract (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Abtract is clearly wrong, but surely it should say 'HP or hp', as does the horsepower page. I think the capitalized version is not uncommon. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What a useful comment "Abtract is clearly wrong" ... why? Abtract (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As everyone else has been saying, Hp is never used as an abbreviation for horsepower. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect actual usage in these situations. You haven't provided any evidence that Hp is used, or that there is any reason to depart from usage here, beyond your personal belief that we shouldn't start sentence with a lowercase letter. As User:JHunterJ has stated above, lowercase abbreviations are an exception to that rule; I can't think of any normally-lowercase abbreviation that could be capitalized at the start of a sentence. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There are no absolute rules in the English language. Stating that "words at the beginning of sentences are always capitalized" without justification as to why that rule remains true in this particular case is not a valid argument. Unit abbreviations that are not capitalized such as mg, kg, hp, etc. remain uncapitalized when they're at the beginning of a sentence (examples of this are not particularly easy to find, as no one typically uses these to represent the word on it's own; they usually comes after the number). This rule supercedes the one you are citing, and unless you can find a reason as to why hp should be an exception to this, you are wrong.--Dycedarg ж 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As you say JHJ has "stated" but not demonstrated ... and Sess has "Agreed" ... wow! My point is very very simple: the English language has all sentences starting with a capital letter with very few exceptions. Where is the justification for supposing that hp is one of those exceptions? I am not suggesting that Hp is "used" just that hp becomes Hp at the beginning of a sentence. The examples JHJ cites above (and thanks for actually addressing my concern at last) are mixed capitalisation so not the same as hp - and in any event we surely need hp itself to be addressed. Actually mg and kg would also be capitalised at the start of a sentence; who says they wouldn't be, where is the justification? That's my last word on the subject. enjoy being wrong. :) Abtract (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Who says they wouldn't be?" In case you hadn't noticed, everyone except you.--Dycedarg ж 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see that only too well but with what justification? Where is the citation that says hp is an exception to the normal rules of English that we all accept? No-one has provided that ... Abtract (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is against you Abtract. Why must you keep fighting tooth and nail? It's common sense at this point. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy that was a well thought out reponse. Abtract (talk)

As was yours. It looks like the civility warnings are falling on deaf ears with you, Abtract. Wikilawyering doesn't help your case.

Has anyone suggested simply writing it out as "Horsepower, which is abbreviated hp?" That would spare us from having to consider the ridiculous notion of "Hp". Redrocket (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Picking up on Redrocket's idea, the lead line could read: HP is Hewlett-Packard, a computer company; hp is horsepower, a unit of power. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support Paul Erik's idea in a heartbeat. Sounds good to me. Redrocket (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The MOS specifies only one link per line. So it should rather be:

HP is Hewlett-Packard ...

hp or HP is horsepower ...

those being the two primary meanings. The last line could be reversed, but should be the same as at horsepower, which currently has the lowercase first. I'd actually prefer for the second line:

Horsepower, abbreviated HP or hp ...

The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it is the HP (disambiguation) page, incorporating what would be the hp (disambiguation) page, the primary topics are HP (Hewlett-Packard) and hp (horsepower). Those links should be the subjects in the intro paragraph(s)

HP is Hewlett-Packard ...

HP or hp is horsepower ...

No need to link HP in the second line; horsepower isn't the primary topic for HP, but if it will solve the problem, the line can be worded to start with the upper-case abbreviation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Abtract (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} consensus (or at least compromise) seems to have been reached for "HP or hp is horsepower". I suggest protection is no longer required. Abtract (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done, but opting not to unprotect the page (protection expires in 4 days anyways) to see if the change generates any more discussion. --CapitalR (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

hp is a primary usage link here, even though it's a redirect. Horsepower would be a primary usage link on Horsepower (disambiguation) (if that dab becomes needed). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Another multi-billion-dollar company that uses the HP logo

Need to add to the list somewhere: Hensel Phelps Construction, a multi-billion-dollar U.S. construction company that also uses the HP logo. Cactus2 (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Cactus2

Primary topics

A great deal of effort went into finding a neat (and mos:dab compliant) way of entering the two primary topics. This consensus version has just been changed for the worse ... imho it should be reverted back. Abtract (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what's wrong with this. And what consensus do you speak of? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Look up the page just a little and you will see this very long debate (you were a part of it) at the conclusion of which the primary topic entries were agreed. Look here for implemetation by JHJ of the horsepower line. These lines have remained unchanged since that debate until your edit; please change them back. Abtract (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed looking at it myself a bit more closely I see that you supported this specific wording: "HP is Hewlett-Packard, a computer company; hp is horsepower, a unit of power" which, with a very minor change concerning the capitalisation of hp, became the "final" version ... until you changed it. Please change it back to the consensus version which you yourself supported. Abtract (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. The page Hewlett-Packard has now been moved to Hewlett-Packard Company. Sorry Abtract but that discussion is a little outdated. Redirects have changed since. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, we are agreed then it needs to be as the previous consensus amended for the change in the redirect. Abtract (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We have agreed on my change then. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously pissed off that you reverted me despite our agreement Sess; please self-revert immediately. Abtract (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! You just said you liked the idea and now (for some reason) you're against it. Explain? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I almost hate to get involved in any dispute involving these two editors (and one in particular more than the other). However, I think Sesshomaru appears to be misinterpreting both the edit history of the page as well as Abstract's comments here. For example, this edit (shown below), from JHunterJ, appears to be the most stable version of the intro.

HP is Hewlett-Packard, a computer company.

HP or hp is horsepower, a unit of power.

The only changes introduced in this edit (shown below) by Abstract are 1) a change reflecting the new title of the Hewlett Packard Company article; 2) a better description of the company (it is an IT company, not simply a computer comany); and 3) bolded the initial HP in the second line.

HP is the Hewlett-Packard Company, an information technology corporation.

HP or hp is horsepower, a unit of power.

I don't know what Sesshomaru is referring to when he claims Abstract "agreed on my change" or "liked the idea". Sesshomaru's edit (shown below) introduces a few trivial changes that are technically less accurate.

HP refers to the Hewlett-Packard Company, a computer company.

hp or HP is horsepower, a unit of power.

This somewhat trivially changes "is" to "refers to", although the company actually does business under the name "HP" [2], so recasting HP as a refers to rather than identity is unnecessary and makes it unbalanced with the second link which uses "is" rather than "refers to". Less helpfully, the edit changes the description of the company to the less accurate "computer company". Also rather trivially, the edit changes the sequence and bolding of terms. As discussed at some length previously, it considered ungrammatical by many to begin a sentence with a lower case term. hp in reference to horsepower is not a trademark or a proper noun and as such does not allow for the usual possible exceptions to beginning a sentence with a lowercase letter. older ≠ wiser 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Less hp, more horsepower?

It states quite clearly in the mos:dab that redirects should be used when the context is clearer that way. But it's not; these are initials we're talking about here. Wouldn't it be better to simply link to the horsepower article instead of linking to the redirect, which is just initials? Elm-39 - T/C 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As I figured, nobody would appear to be interested in having this changed. Elm-39, it would be rudimentary if you just left this alone. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's here if anyone wants it. You'd think it would make more sense if people were to say "No" instead of just being quiet. Elm-39 - T/C 13:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

HP for Harry Potter has been used again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HBP_Teaser.jpg - Because I remembered how this article refused to include it, I thought I'd add this to discussion... 202.154.151.8 (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

H. P. Baxxter

H. P. Baxxter should be added too, for he's quite often addressed (even by himself) as "HP". Deresser (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article will need some clarification first. Is the name supposed to be "H. P. Baxxter" or "H.P. Baxxter"? Overall, the article says he's known as "H.P. Baxxter", not "H.P." or similar. So why is the page at "H. P. Baxxter"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter a series of book + a media franchise...

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel it misleading to label Harry Potter simply as "a series of books" as it is also a very profitable media franchise. I added it in and had my edit reverted for being too long, so I figured I'd consult before reattempting a shorter version of what I had put. So I think it should read "Harry Potter, a series of books and media franchise." because that's still short, but more accurate, imo... Thoughts? Bliss 182 (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The description of the topic can be left to the article. The entry on the dab page just needs enough description (if any at all) so that readers can find the ambiguous article they were looking for. I do not think any readers will be confused by the short description, and indeed in this case we could probably remove the description altogether and not hinder navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we perhaps link Harry Potter to the Harry Potter disambiguation page, as I've actually came here looking for the Film Franchise article before myself... So I kinda agree with Bliss182... DisillusionedElement (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I also concur with Bliss 182 and DisillusionedElement... I think it would be more productive to reroute Harry Potter to it's respective disambiguation page as people typing HP could very likely be searching for the flim franchise/franchise as a whole, in fact I find the abbreviation is perhaps more often used in that context than in someone solely referencing the books... Thoughts? Objections? Breaking Bellamy (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If there's a primary topic for "Harry Potter", and "HP" refers to "Harry Potter", we should link to Harry Potter. If there are other entries on the disambiguation page that are also referred to as "HP", we should list them here explicitly. For now, I am going to move the disambiguation page to the See also section and leave the entry link pointing to the base name. HP does not refer to the disambiguation page, and entry links aren't piped. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviate primary topics

Note - heading changed to reflect the topic of discussion Ego White Tray (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I have no idea. Your policy cite does not support reverting my edits, as far as I can tell. Also, the revert was indiscriminate, I expect that quite a few of my edits were 100% non-controversial cleanup. But, I have no idea what changes prompted this revert. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you trying to put Harry Potter in the intro and in the list? Primary topic goes in the intro (that would be the page name without the (disambiguation) part, in this case HP). See the previous Talk for the compromise to also put hp in the intro. WP:MOSDAB gives exceptions for using redirects, including when the redirect matches the ambiguous title; for acronyms, the matching expanded title redirect is sometimes a better fit when the actual title doesn't match the acronym. Also, the revert was not indiscriminate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping Harry Potter from the first line. However, seeing the text "Hewlett Packard" is way more clear and helpful to the reader than seeing "HP", especially since the company itself uses lowercase in their logo. We don't need to explain that Hewlett Packard or horsepower or most of these entries are abbreviated "hp", as that is patently obvious. Also, "However, when the disambiguated term is an acronym, initialism or alphabetism, links should not use redirects to conceal the expanded version of that initialism" is on MOSDAB, yet your revert re-abbreviated H!P, among others. It appears that using the redirect "handphone" is acceptable, but in no way required, and in no way a reason to revert. In short, aside from adding Harry Potter, I feel all of my edits better conform with manual of style for disambiguation pages than your reverted version. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read the earlier sections of this talk page to see the discussion that resulted in the current version of the intro. I agree that the Hello! Project should be expanded. The rest of the redirects do not conceal the expansion and better match the ambiguous term, so I feel the your edits do not conform better. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion above, at it looks like they were all discussing how to format the letters HP, and didn't address whether to link "HP" or "Horsepower". In this case, we should use Hewlett Packard and Horsepower as our links, as I stated above, since it is rather obvious that these are abbreviated HP, and users will quickly recognize their intended target in blue text, which is way more helpful than seeing the ambiguous hp in blue text. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-read #Primary topics above and note Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic, "When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article." Better yet, get another editor to chime in here in agreement with your view. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It then goes on to say "In some cases it may be clearer to link directly to the redirect target...instead of the more akward: Mozart was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart..." Right now we have "HP is Hewlett-Packard..." - don't you see the akwardness there? Our page is almost identical to MOSDAB's bad example. The good example provided is "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791) was..." which is essentially what I'm trying to do here. And your refusing a change based on a misreading of policy and a non-existent consensus. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS (like the one at #Primary topics) does not magically disappear when you disagree. Acronyms are not surnames, so the examples are not almost identical, nor is the current version awkward. "What's HP? HP is Hewlett-Packard." "Who's Mozart? Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a composer." -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to abbreviate rather than write out the name there. That topic wasn't even discussed in the slightest. The primary topic discussions were instead about how to word the reference to the abbreviation and whether to include Harry Potter. There has been zero discussion as to whether to use abbreviations or to spell out the terms. Not to mention that consensus can change. This page is like MOSDAB's bad example because it says ambiguous name is full name. The point made in that section is that it makes way more sense to simply say full name when the connection between the ambiguous name and the full name is obvious. It's obvious why Wolfgang is Mozart and why Hewlett-Packard and horsepower are hp. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-existent consensus

Well, I wrote out the two primary topics and got reverted. The revert pointed to a 2008 discussion. As I asked above and never received an answer to, where is the consensus? The above discussion talked about whether to include Harry Potter, whether to repeat Hewlett-Packard in a technology section, and how to word the primary entries. There was never any discussion as to whether to abbreviate the primary topics or not. My earlier attempt to actually discuss this was met with "we have consensus." Response to that: One, no we don't, it hasn't really been discussed. Two, consensus can change. The discussion of this topic was either about something else or not of substance. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change. The earlier discussion included the discussion about how to list both HP and hp. No, new consensus is not proved by one editor reverting the previous consensus. Who else has agreed with you that the intro is improved by change?-- JHunterJ (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're gonna have to show me that discussion - I've looked at this talk page repeatedly and simply can't find the consensus to abbreviate it. All I've found is discussion as to word it that doesn't even address whether to abbreviate it or not. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Try searching for the text I restored in the header and you should find #horsepower. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

See, you just proved my point. The entire discussion was about the appropriateness of capitalizing the h in hp for horsepower. No discussion whatsoever as to whether to abbreviate or not until a single passing mention by you near the end. That is not consensus for this topic, it's about a completely different topic. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet the consensus is (or was) to use the redirect that matches the ambiguous title. To prove your point, please show your new consensus (among multiple editors) to change from that here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, in order to have consensus, the topic has to be actually discussed. It wasn't. We can't form a new consensus since you keep clinging to the non-existent earlier one. And Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Linking to a primary topic uses Mozart in an example nearly identical to the current state of this page to show editors what NOT to do. That's the consensus that you will not permit anyone to discuss. Finally, consensus can change, but it has to be discussed and the discussion must be permitted to happen. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. So, who agrees with your new proposal? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a fair question, since we two have been the only to comment. How many support your opinion. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly fair. The editors in the above discussions and implicitly the other editors of this page since the previous consensus opinion (not just mine) was implemented support the current consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here goes:

• "It states quite clearly in the mos:dab that redirects should be used when the context is clearer that way. But it's not; these are initials we're talking about here. Wouldn't it be better to simply link to the horsepower article instead of linking to the redirect, which is just initials?" - comment rejected since no one commented on it for two days
• "Has anyone suggested simply writing it out as "Horsepower, which is abbreviated hp?" That would spare us from having to consider the ridiculous notion of "Hp". Redrocket (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)" shortly followed by "Horsepower, abbreviated HP or hp ... The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)" - The topic was whether to capitalize the "h" referring to horsepower rather than whether to abbreviate, so discussion on this didn't really continue.

So, two editor's have voiced some opposition to the current state, never been discussed. The first time it was rejected for a trivial and invalid reason, the second time just ignored since it was off-topic. Lack of discussion is not consensus. It never is, ever. Don't pretend there is consensus for the current version simply because you refuse to discuss it. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Don't pretend there is consensus for your change simply because it's your version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not. You are. The posts above are to demonstrate that the consensus you claim doesn't exist. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  So long as we both understand there's no consensus for changing to your version, I'm OK with disagreeing that there exists consensus that I was here for before you joined the conversation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)