Talk:Obama (disambiguation)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Barack Obama: The Novel

The article on Barack Obama: The Novel was linked on the disambiguation page, but was deleted because it supposedly was not the purpose of that page. But, where else would that link go? Certainly not here - correct? Also, the same person deleted the entire article, under a "Snowball" exception. What's going on? Lewisfan (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You may put a link on Barack Obama. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Add a link to OBAMA (Art Museum) on this page

The Offcicial Bad Art Museum Of Art (OBAMA) is set to open in Seattle, WA on Saturday, November 15 2008. Please add an entry to this art museum on the disambiguation page, and a placeholder for a future Wikipedia article. Here is a link to the museum's website: http://officialbadartmuseumofart.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Once there are several reliable sources for the article feeel free to create it. Once it's created, we can link to it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

President Elect

The section referring to Michelle Obama as the senator's wife now needs to read "President Elect" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.5.53 (talk • contribs)

Not really. We can wait until January 20 and then change it to "wife of President Barack Obama". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Resequence sections, please

I can't edit the article because it's semi-protected. Could someone please resequence or combine the sections so that "people" and "surnames" don't have another section in between them? (I also think this part should come first, since the most famous Obama is a person, but that's less important.) --208.76.104.133 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in an edit war but my edit is well sourced and related.

In the sources it is very clearly written that the word obama means cool in slang, which makes sense to include it in the disambig page since it is rather notable(simple search on google can return more reliable sources) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 08:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Try putting it on Wiktionary as it's just a definition. Disambiguation pages do not include dictionary definitions of slang, nor do they include references (as noted in the edit summary when your edit was removed again). I've placed a link to the Wikitonary page at the top of the disambig page, and your edit would fit in nicely over there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is refed from various sources, it is fairly notable and should be included in wikipedia, not only in wiktionary. If it should not be in the disambig page, there are enough sources to create an article for it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 08:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You can try creating an article here, but it will likely be deleted as a dictionary definition. Wiktionary is the best place for this, as it is unlikely people will be writing papers, articles, or books about this particular usage. SImple mention of it being used that way is not enough to qualify the entry for a separate article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is all over the newspaper right now, and obviously you are not correct in the assumption of unlikely. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, create the article on the slang word, and we'll let the community decide whether it qualifies for an article (I suggest a title such as Obama (slang)). If it does, then we can link to it from the page, but otherwise it belongs on Wiktionary, not here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am creating one in my user subspace. And this article again showed there are people who do not care to discuss once the article is in the state s/he wants. Your revert simply made the editor who reverted my edit(who did not even seem to even bother to read the sources) to not engage in discussion. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article; it's a disambiguation page. I think you are operating under a mistaken understanding of how disambiguation pages work. Whether you had sources or not was irrelevant as you do not use sources on a disambiguation page. Additionally, you do not place dictionary definitions in the list of possible uses. As for whether or not you wanted to discuss things, even after you posted stating you didn't want to engage in an edit war, you continued your edit war without trying to engage the other editor, so please don't try to play the martyr here as it's not going to work. You've been around long enough to know how the system works here, and you seem to be trying to garner sympathy where none is warranted. If you want to try to create the article on the slang term, feel free, but unless the references are really good, it will likely be deleted as simply a dictionary definition. I again strongly encourage you to go over to Wiktionary and include the definition there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with and endorse the admin Nihonjoe's comments. You can read WP:Disambiguation and WP:NOTDIC for confirmation, and for further details. See all Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles on neologisms for even more specific info. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Me being an admin has nothing to do with it, so please do not use that as part of your argument. I agree with the rest of what you wrote, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Sorry. I meant only to imply that you were very likely to be well-read on our guidelines, and well-experienced in past precedent, and hence he should pay heed to your advice/opinion. I should have stated that more explicitly. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles on neologisms, please understand that I am using all secondary reliable sources here, also, although it looks like a dictionary term, it is notable because of its relationship with the president. That is why it is not a purely distionary term, it is well sourced to be related to the president and what I am seeing here is that people take a look at something, and make a presumption before even trying to understand it. There are at least 2 sources claiming its relation with the president([1], [2], where both are actual press publications instead of blogs or forums that are solely online sources) and a few more sources stating indepedent things on the same issue, one even using the term to praise the UCLA Slang itself([3]), and one concerning the original word cool even after the word obama is included ([4] stating it is still included) I must apoplogise for not knowing disambig pages do not use sources before hand, since a similar discussion appeared in the Chinese wikipedia, I incorrectly made the presumption that the guidelines are the same here. However, I must insist that it is not a simple dictionary definition. Also, my first revert is assuming that since my first edit here did not include the word obama, thus making it misleading that it is unrelated if someone did not read the sources. Nihonjoe, you are being too aggressive. Look at the history, I did not simply reverted the edit, I have change the edit accordingly to what DAJF said on the edit comment. He said it did not mention obama, thus I have added in obama in it, he said it is not related, so I have included the relationship in it and started to feel that the edit comment is not enough to communicate anymore, thus starting the discussion here. It is then reverted by you, and claiming I am on 3RR. I must say that I am not seeing much WP:AGF here. I am only trying to make the edit useful on wikipedia, and it is the first time I am adding an entry in a disamb page in the English wikipedia. And no, I am not gathering sympathy here, I am stating I feel very offended by your attitude, and I must remind you that wikipedia is a very large project, people might not be familiar with every WP guidelines even if they are here for a long time. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 02:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated several times now, you are welcome to create an article for it and see if the community agrees with you on its notability. I also strongly suggest you go to Wiktionary and add the definition there as that's what that site is for. I'm sorry if you feel offended by my comments, but I have not been rude at all, and have offered alternate suggestions as to what to do here (none of which you have accepted). If you choose to be offended by these suggestions and explanations of the guidelines on Wikipedia, there is not much I can do as no offense was intended or implied. All of the suggestions were given so that you could know the proper location for this entry. What you do from here is up to you. You have the information you need, and can proceed how you wish. Do not add the term back to this page, though, unless it has an article here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

so please don't try to play the martyr here as it's not going to work. You've been around long enough to know how the system works here, and you seem to be trying to garner sympathy where none is warranted. sounds really rude to me. It looks nothing like you are trying to understand how people who do things different than you work at all. I have stated that I am working in my user subspace for the article, and that is in fact what you have suggested. I am replying here to try to let you understand how I work and why I think it can contribute to wikipedia, in which you seem to ignore. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

From my outside perspective, Nihonjoe was responding to your statement: "And this article again showed there are people who do not care to discuss once the article is in the state s/he wants." which itself could be considered "rude" or "antagonistic", given that he was engaged in a discussion with you at the time... It was his fourth reply to you, and people tend to get more emphatic when they feel like they are repeating themselves.

(You were probably making an oblique reference to DAJF, but he had pointed you towards one of the relevant guidelines in the second revert, which is probably all I would have done.)

As for the article itself, your sandbox/draft User:Mythsearcher/Obama (slang) is currently a dictionary entry: it is providing the definition and etymology of the neologistic repurposing of the name "Obama".

Because it does not have an extensive history of usage, there is really nothing else to add to it. If you were to move that page to articlespace, the best you could hope for is something like this: Greenhorn (slang). Or it might just get plain deleted. (Unlike a slang term that has a long history of usage, such as Fruit (slang), which can be written about extensively.)

Hence, Nihonjoe was trying to save you from wasting your time, by advising you to add the information at the Wiktionary project.

Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you for restating in another way what I was trying to do. Hopefully this will end this discussion as there is no point in it continuing just to rehash the same thing over again. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ricardo Mangue Obama Nfubea

Needs changing to 'Former Prime Minister of Equatorial Guinea' or something. Just do it. 211.30.215.176 (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Sorafune +1 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Obama (surname) was created today, but I don't believe it makes sense because there are only about ten items on the new page and the list here really isn't very large. Having another page for disambiguated articles would only cause confusion in this case, so I believe we should merge and redirect Obama (surname) to here. Sorafune +1 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose a surname page is an article, not a disambiguation page (see MOS:DAB). They are only listed on dabs when there are only a couple of them or when nobody has got around to creating an article for it. Obama (surname) does not just list names either - it gives information on the origins of the name. Boleyn2 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, there's no actual article on that page. It's a list. Second of all, according to the surname article, many dictionaries define "surname" as a synonym of "family name". So why do we have "Obama clan" and "Obama Girl" on the list? Sorafune +1 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is an article - all surname pages are articles. However, it's one that needs work (which I've now put in). From the beginning, however, it had information on the origins of the name among the Luo and the Japanese.Obama Girl was simply an error when I was copying and pasting and has been deleted since. I don't have any object to Obama clan, taking clan to mean family group. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:MOSDAB. Specifically, it states that "For short lists of such persons, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx and/or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list." This list is very short and therefore a separate article is not necessary. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment the article isn't just a list. It's a matter of interpretation whether the amount of entries on the surname page is a very small number of names or not, but half of Obama (surname) would have to be deleted to be returned here (to meet MOS:DAB) and the info is useful and well-referenced. There seems to be nothing to be gained by deleting it and merging the list back here. Boleyn2 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • No one said anything about deleting it. There's just no reason to have this very small list separate from the rest of the Obama disambiguation content. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)