Talk:Jack Harkness (disambiguation)

Disambiguation

I've updated the page to group the Doctor Who/Torchwood references together, and focused on what I see as the most notable differences between the two characters: 1) who portrays them, and 2) the fact that one is a lead character from both series and one is a minor character from Torchwood.--Trystan (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Minor Torchwood Characters

A principle of MOS:DAB is that links should not generally be piped, because the goal of a disambiguation page is to convey the destination article clearly to the reader. While the link to the second Jack Harkness is an exception as it includes an anchor point, the principle of clarity still applies. Torchwood character is much clearer than character. The qualifier "minor" is also necessary to help distinguish this character from the identically named lead character.--Trystan (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig Manual of Style

Edokter, perhaps it would help if you could explain why you think WP:MOSDAB should be disregarded here; I don't see any specific reasons that the principles outlined there don't apply here. The primary topic, Jack Harkness, is separated out because users aren't likely to have arrived at the disambig page looking for that topic. It's also important to keep links reflective of the actual article title, since the goal is to direct readers to the correct article. A link piped to look like Captain Jack Harkness is unhelpful for this purpose, because it looks like it goes to the same place as Captain Jack Harkness.--Trystan (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Trystan. Jack Harkness, the character, is clearly the primary topic. I don't see why WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic wouldn't apply. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that WP:MOSDAB is a guideline that states "if the rules don't help, ignore them". The link to the minor character is too long to display in it's entirety, so it is piped, and the description is sufficient. Also, I do not concider the main character to be the primary topic, as there are also two real-life persons sharing the same name. Primary topics usually apply to general terms, not names of real (or fictional) people. Putting Jack in the lead sentence places too much emphasis on Torchwood; that scrapes WP:NPOV and it just doesn't look professional. — Edokter • Talk • 14:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All rules on Wikipedia are flexible and can be ignored if there is a compelling reason to, but your disagreement seems to be with the guideline in general rather than its specific application here, and as such your arguments might be better placed on the WP:MOSDAB talk page with the goal of changing the Manual of Style. Disregarding it with no overriding reason to do so would mean a complete lack of consistency throughout the wiki.

Jack Harkness is the primary topic in the sense that it is located at the article name with no qualifier such as (fictional character) or (footballer). As demonstrated here, it is properly labelled as such by virtue of being considerably more notable and popular a topic than any of the alternatives. Having placed the character's article at Jack Harkness, it is then listed separately on this disambig page - not because it is more notable, but be cause users arriving at this page are almost certainly arriving from the link at the top of Jack Harkness, and are looking for other uses. Sorting articles for accessibility based on the objective criteria of notability and popularity does not violate NPOV.

I agree that the link to the Rippy character needs to be piped because of its length; it's piping it to Captain Jack Harkness that is problematic. That doesn't tell the user what article they are going to, the entire purpose of this page.

Based on the fact that the earlier version of the page complied with MOSDAB and there is no consensus to depart from that guideline, I am reverting your changes.--Trystan (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the consensus here. The primary topic is not only defined by an article's title or a missing qualifier. Having a linked lead outside the list is POV when it comes to fiction. But rather then engaging in in an edit war, I'l leave it be. I will intergrate the top items though; no need for two seperate list items when it concenrs the same subject. — Edokter • Talk • 21:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that the fictional character isn't the primary topic here. It certainly meets the criteria listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The first two, incoming links and traffic stats, are fairly conclusive:

And as for the third criterion, a Google search for "Jack Harkness" is all about the fictional character until the 55th entry, which is an obituary for the rose breeder. All this seems conclusive to me.

You're right that the primary topic is not determined by the article's title or the absence of a disambiguating qualifier. It's the other way around: the title and use of a qualifier is determined by whether a subject is the primary topic or not. The reason that the article on the fictional character is at Jack Harkness is that there's a consensus that he is, in fact, the primary topic for this name. The fact that he's fictional is immaterial — as mentioned at Talk:Jack Harkness, the fictional James Bond is the primary topic for that name, despite the existence of James Bond (football coach) and James Bond (ornithologist). It's not POV to treat a primary topic in the way that MOSDAB says primary topics should be treated.

Finally, I can see why you would think that the entries for the episode and the Matt Rippy character should be combined, but MOSDAB is pretty clear on this too: "To avoid confusing the reader, each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have only one navigable (blue) link." It's conceivable that someone could be looking for either the episode or the character, therefore each should have its own line. This is basic disambiguation page formatting; if you have a problem with it, take it up at WT:MOSDAB, not here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screw this... Removed from watchlist. — Edokter • Talk • 00:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a productive response. :/ —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was trying to help improve this page; but the two of you are hung up on the 'rules'. Now the page is in an even worse state after a "style repair" edit. Now what? I dare not revert becuase of this ordeal. Aren't the most improtant topics supposed to be at the top? — Edokter • Talk • 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the footballer was moved up because the MOS says that articles with the name and a clarifier in parentheses generally go before articles with the item as part of the name.

I accept that you were operating in good faith and trying to improve the page, Edokter. I just didn't agree with your reasoning. Guidelines can be ignored if the reason is good enough — I didn't agree with your reasoning in arguing that the fictional character wasn't the primary topic, or that putting the Rippy character and the episode on separate lines placed undue emphasis on Torchwood.

However, you're correct that MOSDAB also says, "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." Captain Jack Harkness (Torchwood episode) (which, until recently, was the location of the episode article) was viewed 4664 times in September, many more than visited the footballer; it also has approximately 90 incoming links. We can't tell how many of the visitors to List of Torchwood characters were there because of the Rippy character, but it does make sense to keep him with his eponymous episode. I think that is an argument that could be applied within the guideline for changing the order back. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]