Jump to content

Talk:Obama (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Redirect Obama to Barack Obama?

Using his full name is unnecessary for a disambig page. Use the name he is most often referred to as. Italiavivi 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Use the disambiguation. Redirecting Obama to Mr. Obama article is wrong because Mr. Obama is not a known person outside of the U.S.A. Wikipedia also says this is wrong. See here "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" The Obama city article was started a year BEFORE the Mr. Obama article. I have redirected Obama to Obama disambiguation.
When you look for Clinton, it is not redirected to Mr. Clinton or Mrs. Clinton. It is directed to Clinton (disambiguation) where you can see listings for many small towns called Clinton. Obama, Japan in Fukui is a big city.SRMach5B 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on. I will bet you that 99% of people who type in Obama are looking for Barack Obama, and not some village in Japan (32,000 is not a "big city"). There are hundreds of wiki links that link to the Barack Obama article, and only a handful (and mostly obscure ones) that link to Obama in Fukui. And while it is true that Obama, Japan existed before Barack Obama, that does not make it more important or give it precedence on Wikipedia. The reason that the towns called Clinton pop up is not because they are just as important as Bill and Hillary, but because it is not clear which of those two is more important. And to suggest that Mr. Obama is unknown outside the US is nonsense, especially in comparison to how well known Obama, Japan is outside of Japan, or outside of Fukui, for that matter --Ivan 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format. Italiavivi 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia policy favors redirection when one usage is overwhelmingly more common. Ivan has already explained above why this situation differs from the Clinton example. Redirect done, and the Template:Redirect template added to Barack Obama page so that users can easily find the disambiguation page. —Lowellian (reply) 09:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format. Italiavivi 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Also agree. Wikicharts lists the Barack Obama article among the 300 most viewed Wikipedia articles for 6 of the past 7 months. In February 2007, it was ranked number 16, getting an estimated 21,429 views per day. There is no other "Obama" article listed among the top 1000 articles tracked by Wikicharts. If we are primarily interested in making Wikipedia more accessible to its users, the sensible answer seems clear. --HailFire 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format. Italiavivi 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Barack Obama is a minor politician who is little known except in the USA. Wikipedia is an international website, not a tool of the USA. A neutral administrator has already reached a concensus that Obama would be a disambiguation page. This happened in June 2007. Wikipedia policy demands neutrality and disambiguation in case of disputes. SNPBrown 06:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"A neutral administrator has already reached a concensus [sic] that Obama would be a disambiguation page." Where is this supposed consensus? Show us a link to the discussion where this consensus was established. Certainly, no such consensus exists on this talk page. —Lowellian (reply) 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Barack Obama is not a minor politician - he is one of the front runners for the Presidency, and I suspect he's rather more well-known than any of the other Obamas listed on the dab page, and is the one who is most likely being searched for when someone types in Obama. Save your criticism of the USA - if someone types in Chirac or Yeltsin, they are likely looking for Jacques or Boris. Neither one is a tool of the USA, and both go directly to these individuals' pages with the disambiguation page listed on top for other uses of the name. I don't see where consensus was reached on this page about this change - I favor going back to the same approach as Chirac. Tvoz |talk 06:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format. Italiavivi 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeltsin and Chirac are both former heads of state. The Obama disambiguation is similar to Perot, and Nader in that respect; although, I would also not oppose a move of Chirac to a DAB page. Also, the DABs of Yeltsin are all related to him, so it is not the same issue as we have here (a sitting prime minister, a historic clan and a city, and a potential nominee for president) by any stretch of the imagination. Quite a mixed bag. Neier 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
All we need to consider here is whether one particular usage of "Obama" is overwhelmingly more used than other usages. And one particular usage is. Obama, Japan, is a small, small city, and all other people named Obama are far less well-known than Barack. —Lowellian (reply) 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, Lowellian. Let's not kid ourselves with false analogies and shoddy comparisons, either. Comparing the name "Edwards" with the name "Obama" is decidedly apples to oranges. "Obama (disambig)" is perfectly adequate and appropriate, with "Obama" piping straight to Barack Obama. Italiavivi 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Note the above user's approval of the Obama (DAB) format. Italiavivi 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
To move Obama to Obama (disambiguation) should go through the normal WP:RM procedure. The original content of Obama was the disambiguation. The wider audience would help reach a concensus as to whether or not a particular usage deserves the redirect in Wikipedia. Neier 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


I came here to find out about Prime Minister Mangue Obama. I was curious to see what kind of discussion someone would find in the disambiguation page. For the sake of comparison, look at Edwards (disambiguation). John Edwards is certainly the most famous Edwards that I see in the disambiguation but he is just a fad and a politician known in his home country, the United States. There are less famous Edwards people and many cities of Edwards listed in the disambiguation page. If Edwards leads to disambiguation, so should Obama. Someone mentioned wikipedia policy is for disambiguation if there is a dispute. The question of what to do is straightforward in this case.

By the way, Mangue Obama is the Prime Minister. That is more senior than senator. (I'm not saying Obama should be directed to Mangue Obama but he currently has a higher priority than Senator Obama) Also note that Equatorial Guinea is no longer a dictatorship but a democracy. US Secretary of State Rice recently met with that government.Midemer 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That article is an itty bitty stub. What are you trying to pull here? Oh wait, here is the entire article.

Ricardo Mangue Obama Nfubea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Ricardo Mangue Obama Nfubea (born c.1961) has been Prime Minister of Equatorial Guinea since 14 August 2006, the first ethnic Fang to serve in the post [1]. He is a lawyer by profession and a member of the Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea (PDGE). Mangue Obama was second deputy prime minister in the previous government of Miguel Abia Biteo Boricó, and also previously held the labor and education portfolios. Preceded by Miguel Abia Biteo Boricó Prime Minister of Equatorial Guinea 2006–present Succeeded by Incumbent This article about a politician of the Equatorial Guinea is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Mangue_Obama_Nfubea"

Categories: Equatoguinean politicians | Living people | Central African politician stubs | Equatorial Guinea stubs Turtlescrubber 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It would also appear that Prime Minister Nfubea is not commonly known as "Prime Minister Obama," contrary to portrayals here. As I said before, there are some disingenuous arguments taking place here. Italiavivi 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


As people seem to not understand what this is all about, I'm closing this discussion. Feel free to start another one (or not) as you see fit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Obama

Your recent move of Obama states that you did so per the discussion on the talk page. This is incorrect, as the discussion on the talk page does not indicate anywhere a consensus to redirect Obama to Barrack Obama. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Please explain your blatant ignoring of the discussion there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your portrayal is disingenuous. "Quite the opposite" is quite inaccurate (a majority support the DAB), and despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy, the majority also happens to have made their case clearly with policy rationale and pertinent examples. Also, if you are going to be involved in a naming concern, you could at least learn how to spell the subject's name: "Barack." Not "Barak" or "Barrack." Italiavivi 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
How is it disingenuous to say that there was no consensus on the talk page regarding whether Obama should be redirected to Barrack Obama? And I was questioning your action, not discussing the content of a particular article. You can't simply brush this off when you took a unilateral action which was not supported by consensus. And making comments about a typo is rude to say the least. The question here is not whether or not there should be a dab page, but whether there was enough support to have the dab page at Obama (disambiguation) instead of Obama. I'd say that a prime minister of a country is much more important than a US senator who may not even be nominated by his party to run for president. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, there has been no real discussion on this talk page; just some people saying "it belongs here" and moving it, and others saying "it belongs there" and moving it back. I still don't understand why people insist on unilaterally moving the page from Obama to Obama (disambiguation). It reeks of WP:BIAS and despite the popularity of the potential nominee in his home country, I don't see how it justifies a default disambiguation over other equally prominent people (a sitting prime minister!) and usage in at least two separate nations as a common name. The page Obama was the disambiguation to start with, and there is no reason for the move without discussing it at WP:RM. If it is such an open/shut case as some people seem to think, then all that is lost by taking the discussion there is four or five days waiting for the admin to close the official discussion. Until then, we will be embroiled in a wheel war, I guess. Neier 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The users who've advocated an Obama (DAB) weren't anymore "unilateral" than you and Nihonjoe's little move-protect dance just now. The only difference between DAB advocates and you two is that the DAB advocates can't enforce their preference via page protection. I added some bolding above to assist you in your misconceptions and misrepresentation of Talk discussion; this "unilateral" talk is obvious, transparent posturing on your part. Italiavivi 23:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move protection

As people keep moving this article back and forth, I have protecting it from being moved for seven days while we hold a discussion over where this article should be. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, your protection while involved in the dispute was completely inappropriate. Italiavivi 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Obama (disambiguation) → Obama — While Barack Obama may be well known at the moment, the fact remains that he is only a US senator who may receive his party's nomination to run for the US presidency. There are other older and more well known in the world at large uses of the word "Obama", including multiple municipalities in Japan, a prime minister, and so forth. Therefore, I'm proposing that this page be moved back to Obama where it was before all this nonsense started. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC) —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a total farce. Nihonjoe and Neier collaborated to protect their desired outcome after Neier made the moves. There's no "requested move" -- the move was done (Obama (DAB) to Obama), then you protected it. The move has been done, and it's been protected by an involved sysop editor. Italiavivi 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Call it what you will, but I'm obviously not playing favorites here as I want the article to be at Obama. If I was really on a power triop, I would have moved everything to where I thought it should go, and then protected everything. Please get off your high horse and just participate like an adult instead of slinging insults around. Whatever we decide, I'll be happy to go along with. If it is decided to redirect Obama to the politician, than I'll go along with it. It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with a decision, but I'm grown up enough to accept that I don't always get my way. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll call it a farce and an inappropriate use of your sysop access. You're involved in the dispute, but protected the outcome you openly desire. I'm not having a "proposed move" discussion over a move that's already been made and protected. Italiavivi 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you blind? I'm not protecting the version I prefer. Go back and read what I wrote a little more carefully as you're obviously not seeing what I wrote. And I'll go along with whatever gets decided here. I protected it from being moved only so it wouldn't keep being moved back and forth by various people while we hold a nice civilised discussion here. Now, if you please, please participate in a civilised manner instead of assuming bad faith on the part of everyone who disagrees with you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you just being coy? You have been a vocal advocate against the DAB format, and you've since protected the outcome you desire. You should've never touched your sysop tools on articles related to this dispute, especially protecting your preference. I am not going to sit here and have some backwards pow-wow on whether or not to make a move you've already done and locked. Italiavivi 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm all for having disambiguation pages, and I've certainly not been vocal against having DAB pages. I just find it absurd to have Some title point to Some title (disambiguation). And as I've written here several times, I did not protect the page at my preference. I didn't make the most recent move. You seem to me to be obviously too blinded by your desired preference to participate in a rationa discussion over the correct use of the Obama article. I've been very open about what I prefer, and I've also been very clear that I'll go along with whatever is decided here, even if it's not my preferred outcome. Do you want me to swear a blood oath and mail it to you? Please, assume good faith here. There's no need for your vitriol. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Use whatever rhetoric you like ("vitriol," "vandalism," "childish"), the fact of the matter is that you used your sysop access in collaboration with another editor who supports the same outcome as yourself. Neier made the moves, you made the locks. This is the most clear case of poor sysop judgment I've seen in quite some time. Italiavivi 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not collaborate with Neier. I saw that he had made the move, and so I protected both pages from being moved, then set up this discussion. If you're referring to the note Neier left on my talk page, that was placed there after I'd done all of this. There was no premeditation, planning, or secret collaboration here. You are assuming too much, and incorrectly. Please stop the assumption of bad faith and simply participate like an adult. Your mudslinging is getting us no closer to a consensus on what should be done here. Again, I will go along with whatever outcome is determined. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your move-lock cooperation with Neier is obvious. Indeed there was no "secret collaboration" -- it was flatly transparent. No disagreement here. So far as the "outcome" goes, you and Neier have already decided it. There is no "requested move," it has already been done and protected. Italiavivi 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You should check the timestamps. My message on Nihonjoe's talk page was after I wrote my opinion below, and it is addressing the fact that I don't think he went far enough. I think the content of Obama and Obama (disambiguation) should be protected during the discussion, not just a protection against page moves. I fail to see how that is a cooperation. Heck, I had only been awake for less than an hour when I first updated these pages. I don't think that's long enough to coordinate such a conspiracy. Neier 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's only obvious because you're reading too much into it. There was no premeditated collaboration here, secret or otherwise. The page isn't even where I would prefer it, so why you keep insisting that I want the page at Obama (disambiguation) is beyond me. Go look at the history and you'll see where I'd prefer it. However, that is neither here nor there. The discussion at hand is whether this page should be moved to Obama (and, on a related note) whether Obama should be a redirect to Barack Obama or just a plain old disambiguation page located at Obama. Let's try to focus on that, shall we? As I've indicated many times here now, I will go along with whichever outcome is decided. That necessitates a discussion happening so an outcome can be decided. Again, let's focus on that, shall we? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Below, Nihonjoe has stated an unwillingness to respond to my objections. Again, this entire exercise is in obvious bad faith, and I repudiate its validity for establishing any enforceable outcome at the most vocal level possible. Italiavivi 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support per reasons outlined above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. We need to be eliminating WP:BIAS, not going out of our way to create new instances of it. Even if Barack Obama were president of the US, affording him the Obama redirect by default over the prime minister of another sovereign nation seems rather arrogant. Many more well-known people (Lincoln, Thatcher) have no such default redirect. And, while others do (Chirac, Reagan, Yeltsin), those all seem to be limited to one culture or another (all Chirac (disambiguation) references are in France; all Yeltsin (disambiguation) references stem from the more well-known Boris, etc. Neier 23:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not participating in this backwards, bad-faith polling. The move was made and protected; it's been done. This little exercise after-the-fact is a complete farce. Italiavivi 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I only protected after seeing Neier move it again. I thought it was time we stopped moving the page back and forth to various locations and attempt to discuss things as it was obvious there were strong opinions on all sides of the issue. As I've written here multiple times, I'll go along with whatever is decided, but we need to come to some sort of consensus on what to do with this page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • No way am I going to participate in some backwards chat session over whether or not to make a move you've already done and locked. You should've found someone completely uninvolved and kept your hands off your sysop tools when you're in the middle of a content dispute. Italiavivi 00:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I see nothing wrong with the current title. If Obama is redirected to Barack Obama, then I would probably agree. But last time I check, Obama is redirected to this disambiguation page (Obama (disambiguation)), and I see nothing pov or biases on that. Chris! my talk 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. While assuming good faith, Italiavivi is right about the outcome here. If the redirect is from Obama to Obama (disambiguation), the outcome of the poll is moot. The page will be moved automatically to the plain title per WP:DAB by the good folks working at WP:MDP. That indicates to me that this comes down to where the Obama redirect should point, as that dictates the location of the dab. What should really be happening here is an RfD for Obama, and I'm tempted to close this early and move the discussion over there. Dekimasuよ! 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I think I agree with Dekimasu (if I can agree, without Dekimasu also being labeled a cabalite conspirator). What I've been trying to say at the beginning is that we should put this page back at Obama, which is what Nihonjoe had done a few times, since it had been there originally (pre 12/2006). The rash of redirects and moves since then has accomplished nothing. If we can rationally discuss whether Obama needs to be moved to Obama (disambiguation) in order to free up the one-name redirect to Barack, the redirect war would stop. Joe was trying to avert a revert/wheel war. Joe's pagemoves were in-line with WP:DAB (based on my reverting of the redirect links), and probably got tired of moving the article to eliminate the DAB redirect each time, so he set up the RM with the pages as-were. The current RM kinda does this, but, doing it in the other way as proposed by Dekimasu would be clearer. Neier 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Give me a break. The two using the phrase "cabal" are yourself and Nihonjoe; you can both take your veiled insults and shove them straight up your asses, for that matter. If we're going to be blatantly uncivil as you two now are, let's be upfront and open about it. Italiavivi 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Your incivility becomes you. I sincerely hope you have no official position in the Barack Obama campaign, as he seems to be sincere, caring, willing to listen to debate without name-calling and baseless accusations. As for the exact words which were used, I like how you have focussed on the single word cabal while totally ignoring the fact that you are the one who first made accusations of conspiratorial coordination. I thought Nihonjoe did a good job at trying to keep the situation under control. Despite your best efforts to the contray, I think the situation is still under control. Neier 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with Dekimasu closing this early and moving everything over to an RfD. We're certainly getting nowhere here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentI don't understand WTF is happening with this page and don't know how to vote. Why is this discussion so fucked up? Turtlescrubber 04:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Because Italiavivi can't seem to focus on the discussion at hand, instead choosing to throw accusations and lies around. While I agree that it would have likely been better to grab some other admin to do exactly what I did, I really doubt it would have made a difference as he probably would have thrown a fit no matter what happened. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Decline to participate This has been and is being handled in the wrong way. Italiavivi is right in his accusations against you and how you rigged up this discussion against consensus, policy and common sense. An admin should know better and the right move for you would be to unprotect the page and recuse yourself from this discussion. Turtlescrubber 21:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with that. Tvoz |talk 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this whole discussion is bullshit and needs to be scrapped. The admin initiator of all this bullshit should unprotect the page and recuse himself from this mess that he created. No consensus will be gained from this "survey" as I refuse to participate in what seems to be a game of bias. Consensus seems to have been reached earlier in the page and this opposing admin went against consensus, went against policy and went against common sense in rigging up this bloated and unwieldy discussion. Turtlescrubber 21:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

It should be noted that this move request is being done backwards. The original title was Obama, and a subsequent edit war erupted when some people tried to move it to Obama (disambiguation). The closing admin should keep this in mind, when evaluating concensus at the end of this discussion, since ties tend to default to the status quo. I maintain that the status quo is what it was two weeks ago before this nonsense started. Neier 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much backward as it is going from where we stand now. I think it should be at Obama, partially because having a redirect from Obama to Obama (disambiguation) just seems absurd to me, and partially because of the reasons I listed above (the fact that a prime minister shares the name, and multiple municipalities or regions in Japan—which are far older than any of the other uses—share the name). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not a "Requested move" discussion. The move was made and protected after collaboration between yourself and Neier after Neier made the moves, and now we're having a "requested move" afterwards? Is this a joke? Italiavivi 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no cabal here. There was no collaboration. Please stop assuming bad faith and just participate (or not) like an adult. Filling the discussion with baseless accusations does nothing but divert the discussion away from the actual discussion: what should be done with the Obama/Obama (disambiguation) articles? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no cabal here. -- Aw, c'mon. I've never been in a cabal before, and, was starting to like the sound of it along with the newfound riches and glories it promised. Joking aside, I don't see how you have any basis for accusals of collaboration besides the fact that the two of us both feel that the apriori status quo was suitable, before a few rogue editors started redirecting an established article to a single member of the DAB page.
Giving one another high-fives from each others' jokes really helps you two look objective. Italiavivi 00:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree with the way Nihonjoe handled this -- I think the page should have been moved back to Obama to start with, and the "Requested move" be handled the other way (RM from Obama to Obama (disambiguation)). I guess he did it this way as a compromise, and to avoid any appearance of admin abuse.
Anyway, the "Requested move" is still valid. I think that the current redirect from Obama to Obama (disambiguation) is unnecessary, and it will disappear if this discussion deems it so. Neier 00:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, there's no "cabal" -- just two editors, one with sysop access, who collaborated to protect their desired outcome. You already decided and protected the outcome in cooperation with Neier. Italiavivi 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop with the false accusations and focus on the discussion. I'm not going to bother responding to your accusations any longer as it's obvious you are not paying attention to anything I write and are determined to assume the worst. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to respond, but you won't be using this little Orwellian pow-wow exercise as evidence against this Talk page's past participants. This "requested move" discussion is simply an extended venue for yourself and Neier to express opinions you've already stated and to back up your cooperative move/locking of the articles. You say you're an objective observer -- if you were, you'dve not used your sysop tools whilst being part of the content dispute. Italiavivi 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense. But if this move is already decided, then a requested move wastes our time. Chris! my talk 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is, Chris, decided by whom? As Italiavivi pointed out with his bolded notes above, in the only discussion I've seen on this, five editors supported having Obama redirect to Barack Obama, with a pointer on Barack Obama to Obama (disambiguation). They (we) each gave reasoned arguments for that position which seem to have been ignored. For example, the point was made above that Barack Obama has been one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia in recent months, far more than any of the other Obama pages, and normal convention here is to have the most likely response to a search used as the redirect. But this point was not responded to. I don't think this is the most important issue in the world, but I don't like to see unilateral decisions made without full discussion in the face of objections. Tvoz |talk 03:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. The comment above said that it is already decided. I have not participated in this move discussion. So forgive me if I misunderstand something.
And one more thing. I don't understand why people are supporting the move as Obama is not a redirect to the candidate, but it is a redirect to the disambiguation page. If Obama redirects to Barack Obama, I would definitely disagree. Chris! my talk 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


AN/I

I've posted this on one of the Admin noticeboards, asking for some intervention here. If I read the history correctly (and that's not so easy) - it appears that since December 2006 "Obama" has redirected to Barack Obama, the most common usage of the word. That page has a pointer to the dab page, and Neier's repeated reversion despite being asked to wait until this is settled has rendered that incorrect - so I hope we'll get some resolution here quickly. Tvoz |talk 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have said above, the "wait" should default to the previous condition (before the 12/2006 move; or, even at the time of the WP:RM request being filed). I have replied on the ANI, and hope to see some rational conversation there. Neier 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The admin noticeboards are the wrong place to post this as it is indeed a content dispute (albeit a weird one). WP:DR or WP:RFC might be better places to seek help. This is my last post here for the next long while. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the logic of going back to where it was in December, when there were six months of Obama redirecting to Barack Obama since then. Yours is the change from the status quo, Neier, if one looks at the facts which I just laid out on AN/I. Ultimately maybe the status quo has to change, but not before there is full discussion and consensus is reached. You and Nihonjoe acted as if you had consensus for your change and you did not. And that's why I've asked for administrative input. RFC is fine for real content disputes, but this is process. Tvoz |talk 06:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Except, there were not six months. See below. Neier 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest you start the "full discussion", because it's clear you and others weren't happy with the above survey. Start your own then you can't complain it's "biased", etc. John Smith's 07:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Based on the above, and also based on comments at ANI, I think you should realize that just because the Barack Obama article said that Obama was redirecting back to it, it generally was not the case. You can check the history of this page and correct any mistakes below:
  • August 12, 2004: Obama was redirected to Obama, Fukui
  • March 26, 2005: Obama became a disambiguation page
  • December 1, 2006: Obama was edited to redirect to Barack Obama
  • for 47 days
  • January 17: Obama was changed to a disambig page
  • for 6 days
  • January 23: Obama was changed to a redirect to Barack
  • for 6 days
  • January 29: Obama was changed to a disambig page
  • for 5 days
  • February 3: Obama was changed to a redirect to Barack
  • for 9 days
  • February 12: Obama was change to a disambig, and changed to a redirect to Barack
  • for 2 days
  • February 14: Obama was changed to a disambig
  • for 55 days
  • April 10: Obama was changed to a redirect to Obama, Fukui; then changed to a redirect to Barack
  • for 29 days
  • May 9: Obama was changed to a disambig page
  • for 49 days
  • June 17: Obama was redirected to Obama (disambiguation), and later the same day, Obama (disambiguation) was merged back to Obama
  • for 50 days
  • August 6: Obama was moved to Obama (disambiguation) and a redirect created from Obama to Barack Obama
  • August 7: Obama was changed to a redirect to Obama (disambiguation)
  • August 10: Obama (disambiguation) was moved to Obama
    • At this point, changes erupted so fast that there is not much sense in documenting them.
Being gracious, and only going back to 12/1/2006, it is still a fact that Obama spent more time as a disambig page than as a redirect to Barack. Most recently, from May 9 until August 6, Obama was a disambig page. Since so many people have edited the article both ways, it is obviously something which should be discussed before taking any actions. Neier 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How about some diffs, Neier. I can't find where you're seeing this, for example the February 14 change. And where is the RM for that change, or were the people who wanted the dab redirect content to just sneak it in? It was the responsibility of whoever made changes to disambiguation to correct the pages that refer to it - I know that anytime the text was changed on Barack Obama, I checked the link before changing the text back. There is no history for Obama before August - what I am saying is that the status quo appeared to be that Obama redirected to Barack Obama. Had any change to Obama (disambiguation) been done properly, I believe editors at Barack would have objected to it, as our understanding was that Obama was redirecting to Barack, which it was any time I checked it. Tvoz |talk
Ah yes, with a misleading edit summary "Full name" that no one would know meant that the editor, Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who appears to edit with a POV if you look at his pages), was changing a redirect to a disambiguation, without discussion, consensus, RM, or bothering to even follow through on the affected article page. Nice work. Maybe you'll see, then, that the status quo as you see it is not at all the status quo as others see it. So we need to start all over, I think, and not rely on this somewhat bogus change. Tvoz |talk 14:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
And, perhaps more importantly, the status quo as we think we see it is not necessarily the status quo. I understand how tempers can flare in debates; but, this bit of leg-work a couple of days ago by any of us would have saved many mis-statements and ill feelings. We should continue discussing this with facts now, and not rhetoric.
Yes, Getaway's edit summary was bad. I also find it amusing that rvv was also used by people making changes in both directions. Alas, the perfection of Wikipedia. At any rate, I think that if the appropriate change had been made to Barack Obama each time then nothing much would be different – we would only have arrived at this point a few weeks or months sooner. Neier 14:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
And this one, Neier, on May 9 , with the illuminating edit summary "+1" was done by you - was that supposed to alert the community that you had changed a redirect to a dab page? And did you follow through with the page that had been the redirect to correct it? No. So any status quo you detect was a result of misleading summaries and stealth changes to the redirects, which is hardly the way things should be done. Tvoz |talk
I looked through my other contributions on May 9, and I have absolutely no idea why I even stumbled on this page to begin with. As best as I can tell, I either had Obama open in a tab for quite awhile (it can happen), or had bookmarked a bunch of tabs and caught an old revision somehow. I do not remember specifically changing a redirect to the DAB at that time. The +1 was relating to the +1more link I had added to the March 19 version. It may have been the Obama Domain article that brought me back to the DAB page... I do not know. Neier 14:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine - I don't expect anyone to have total recall about their edits. But can you then see that the "status quo" was not really that? If you changed the redirect to a dab without an accurate edit summary and without following through on it, then objections to it wouldn't appear, and the rest of us would assume that nothing had changed, and edit accordingly. These redirect changes are major ones, with implications, and they were done sub rosa. I don't see that they should be the ones that are sustained. Tvoz |talk 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course I see that. Don't you also think that we would have just gone through this discussion in February, or May, or whenever, had the edit summaries been different? And, this should not impact any real discussion about whether to redirect Obama to Barack Obama or not. The length of time that the article pointed to Fukui Prefecture, or whatever, should be nearly irrelevant in that debate. The main points that we need to concern ourselves with have never changed:
  1. A disambig page existed
  2. The disambig page was changed to a default redirect
  3. The redirect was changed to a disambig
  4. Controversy is established, so, it should (have gone) go to WP:RM
In all honesty, I care much less about the content of the page than I do about the procedure that gets us there. I will restate the same thing I wrote in my support vote above in any WP:RM. Even then, the article has a very good chance at ending up as a redirect to Barack's page. But, the main point is that procedure wasn't short-circuited along the way. Neier 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The procedure was short-circuited by you, though, and you've invoked the length of time your change was in effect as reason for it being the one that's standing. So let's at least be clear on that. I care about the process too - that;s why I brought it to AN/I. You had and still have every opportunity to bring it to RM . Tvoz |talk 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I only invoked the original status of the page as the reason for it being the one that should be standing (there is nothing on this page before the timetable above by me about length of time as one version or another). After claims like it appears that since December 2006 "Obama" has redirected to Barack Obama, and the detailed list of edit histories to Barack Obama that was posted at AN/I, I decided to take a closer look into the matter to make sure that what I remembered about Obama as a disambig was true. Procedure was short-circuited three times each way before I even touched the article in May. The first change and reversion were well within policy. After that, it should have gone to WP:RM, but Tblack2458 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (with two edits total!) redirected it again, followed by the laundry list above. There are many people (me included) who did things wrong in the history of this article. My presumption is still that the people wanting to move the page are the ones who need to make the WP:RM, not the people who want to keep the page where it had been. User:Nil Einne seems to agree with that on the AN/I page, and it seems to be a fairly well-worn principle on Wikipedia for edits in general. The originaloriginal status quo was established between March 2005 and December 2006; and while 47 and 55 days are each somewhat respectable here, it should be obvious now that we need a coherent discussion about just the merits of one DAB style versus the other, and not about the history of the pages or the length of time it said blah, or who blocked who from editing, or whatever. That's what Nihonjoe tried to start, but, it unfortunately quickly degraded into something else. Are we ready for another attempt? Neier 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a crazy (as in incredibly silly) argument that the status quo is how the article was last year. The status quo should be whatever the article has been in the last few months. Turtlescrubber 00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't say for sure what Neier is trying to say but I think you've misunderstood the point. After looking at the detailed history above, it's quite clear that there has been no status quo in the past few months because everyone has been to busy fighting rather then discussing. Therefore, we have to go further back and from there we see that the status quo is Obama as a disambig. If there has been a period of several months where Obama was a redirect then I would agree the status quo could be said to be Obama as a redirect but there was never such a time. The simple fact is, controversial moves and renames are supposed to be discussed before being implemented. The fact was, that moving Obama to Obama (disambig) and redirecting Obama to Barack Obama was clearly controversial & never discussed to the point of consensus and therefore, we should discuss this matter and try to reach consensus rather then arguing over a matter which hopefully won't matter in the end. While it may be through that those who have reversed the move have failed to properly indicate what they were doing and have not done it properly, it still remains a fact that there was no true status quo since December. Nil Einne 06:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

History doesn't matter; only what is correct according to Wikipedia policy now

There's a large amount of discussion above on the past history of the page and whether for a longer period of time it redirected to Obama or for a longer period of time it was a disambiguation page. None of that matters! If something wrong has been done for a long time, that doesn't make it right just because it has been done for a long time. If the article about "teddy bears" had been at the article name "tedy bear" (note the deliberate misspelling) for a year, that doesn't mean it's right for the article to continue to be at "tedy bear"; the misspelling should be corrected.

Similarly, in this case, it doesn't matter what the previous status of "Obama/Obama (disambiguation)" was. What matters is that it should be correct now. Barack Obama's notability has risen from a few years ago so that he is now by far the most common usage of "Obama." Wikipedia policy says that when one usage of a name is overwhelmingly more common than any other usage, the page should redirect to that usage. That's what is relevant now, and something supported by a majority of editors on this page. —Lowellian (reply) 01:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A calm, rational and correct interpretation. I agree. Turtlescrubber 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Tvoz |talk 05:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. If there is a consensus that we should change things then it doesn't matter what it was historically. (This is what would almost definitely happen with tedy bears which is likely to be a uncontroversial move and indeed the move policy specifically lists spelling errors as an example of an uncontroversial move.) If someone tries to argue that we should not change because of history then I would agree that's a silly argument and should be ignored in achieving consensus. However I don't know anyone who has tried to argue that in this case. What many people have pointed out is that in the absense of consensus, when there is a disagreement we preserve the status quo until consensus is reached. This is the way things work on wikipedia because everything else is a recipe for a disaster as we see here. Unfortunately, those who support Obama as a redirect to Barack Obama are too busy ignoring policy and trying to force a change without discussion rather then discussing the matter with those of us who feel discussion is needed before a change and therefore consensus is unlikely to be reached. If an when those who support a change will just calm down and work collectively rather then disruptively, there is a fair chance this whole issue may be resolved.Unfortunately, both sides appeared to have just gotten into a revert war rather then properly iniating a discussion until Neier's rather belated attempt above Nil Einne 06:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, supported by a majority of editors on this page appears to be using a definition of the word majority with which I am unfamiliar. I see six in favor (in order of appearance: Italiavivi, Ivan, Lowellian, HailFire, Tvoz, and Turtlescrubber), and eight against (SRMach5B, SNPBrown, Neier, Midemer, Nihonjoe, Chrishomingtang, Endroit, and John Smith's). Dekimasu and Nil Einne are both neutral for the time being.
Secondly, Wikipedia policy also states that If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". [1]. It doesn't say that it must be located at the plain title, but, that it is a clear indicator to consider. On this page, and in the edit summaries, we have people who have tried to link to Obama, Fukui and Barack Obama as a primary topic. We also have someone who claims to have typed Obama looking for the prime minister of Equatorial Guniea. I can't read those comments and think that a redirect from Obama to Barack Obama is uncontroversial. Hopefully, we can eventually debate the content of Obama, if there is ever a real WP:RM proposed (straw polls and previous discussions notwithstanding).
Finally, it looks like Nil Einne basically understands my viewpoints, and his/her comments are probably easier to read and understand than mine (which tend to ramble). Thank you for trying to help. Neier 08:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Obama_(disambiguation)/Archive_1&oldid=1066693209"