Talk:WCHA (disambiguation)

Disambig page or straight redirect?

This has been resolved. Please archive it at a reasonable time.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicates that the page should be redirected to the Western Collegiate Hockey Association (commonly called the WCHA). It is Primary topic showing 500+ edits and google search comes in with 10+ pages of web content. Vs. the other topic on the Diambig page, an AM radio station in central PA which has only a handful of edits other than a conflict today. and almost no web content/sources or info on a google search.Bhockey10 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Admin (see here at the bottom) says the disambig is a better idea. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Admin or not the post you are citing mentions the following: "So I'm sorry, but I am not sure enough to have a firm opinion here and don't want to involve myself in the debate." Let's actually fill the discussion with opinions of people who want to discuss the issue and/or have more insight to it.Bhockey10 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) It also says "I don't think the page should be redirected to the hockey association however, even if it is the most common use." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC) yes, i think it's rude to use an opinion of someone who clearly stated he/she did not want to get involved.Bhockey10 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'd rather just have a redirect straight to the WCHA hockey page. Major sports leagues and college athletic conferences, the NCAA itself, etc... mainly go by their abbreviation. National Hockey League=NHL, National Football League= NFL, etc... If anyone has a link to the specific naming convention I haven't found it. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Admin clarified in link above that that was unnecessary. The Western Collegiate Hockey Association, which serves 13 colleges, is not on the same level of the NFL, NHL, or NCAA. Hell, I didn't even know about the Western Collegiate Hockey Association until today and I feel confident that most, unless they live in the area around these colleges, don't either. Remember, Wikipedia is worldwide, not just regional or nationwide. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia article traffic statistics (2010 08) WCHA Hockey has been viewed 3002 times, WCHA(AM) has been viewed 5 times. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Your stats are about two different pages. This still shows nothing that requires a straight redirect. You are still not saying why you think (other than the silly comparison to the NFL) that the Western Collegiate Hockey Association needs to be straight redirected to WCHA and why you want to overrule the opinion of an admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Oh and the radio station, now at WCHA (AM), formerly at WCHA had 332 views in August 2010, not 5. Please don't lie about stats. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Ooops, I wasn't lying, I figured the stats would transfer with the original. Still a few 100 views compared to 1000s also looking at the history the views of WCHA tended to increase during hockey season. I think that, along with the clear stats differences helps show that the hockey article is primary over the station. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) And this should override an admin, why? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Admins have no special authority over any other editor. Primacy of target is what the deciding factor is. If the hockey league gets the most views by a large margin, and there are more sources in google then it is the primary target. I would say one of the biggest NCAA conferences (which is what the WCHA is) is far better known than a local radio station. Oh and I am an admin btw...not that it has any bearing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC) The name of the radio station is WCHA. The name of the conference is Western Collegiate Hockey Association. I suppose you could consider WP:TWODABS, but we aren't dealing with the actual name of the conference, just a desired redirect. I don't think the conference has a strong enough claim to take this for a redirect. You could take it up at WP:RfD. --JaGatalk 12:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC) WP:COMMONNAME would apply. Sports leagues and conferences are very often called by their acronym instead of their proper name. That being said I have no vested interest, I just stumbled onto the discussing via seeing a question on someones talk page. Doesn't really matter to me. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Why are we digging something up from 2 weeks ago? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Beats me. I just wanted to make sure no one decided "consensus" to turn this into a redirect had occurred. --JaGatalk 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Nope, no consensus was ever decided, the conversation just died out. I completely forgot about it until I seen it on my watchlist today. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC) No consensus yet, It's hard to get consensus with two editors with opposite opinions. More users in the discussion will certainly help. My opinion is the same as Djasso's. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC) ...and I am in the same corner as JaGa. I say drop the whole thing and move along. Why this was dug up to begin with after 2 weeks is beyond me, but it is unnecessary at best. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC) It's still an ongoing discussion. By The way the latest Traffic Stats for September WCHA (AM) 263 (with over half on September 11th when this whole mess started). Wester Collegiate Hockey Association is above 4,000. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Western Collegiate Hockey Association is where it belongs, as is WCHA. This is about what you want and only what you want. You have no consensus. An admin has overruled the whole process, so it is moot. You were given the choice of a disambig page, which I created, you edit warred. You want only what you want and are not willing to compromise. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Stop making up BS, the only admin I see here is Djsasso, not that admin status maters (like he said) in a discussion. The discussion is a compromise, trying to get other opinions, that will show the right thing to do which is a direct link to the far larger, more well known, and used article. This is a no brainer Major College Athletic Conference vs. tiny local AM radio station. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC) That's cause you are seeing what you want to see and hearing what you want to hear. HJ Mitchell reverting your "changes", he is an admin. Some crappy hockey league, which probably isn't notable itself does not get bigger billing in a redirect because you want it to be. You have the choice to have a disambig page or a hatlink. You don't get the complete redirect to a non-notable hockey league. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Oh and a little reading from WP:DISAMBIG: "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move." Since it is up to us, you have two choice before you: disambig page or hatlink on each page. "Your way" is not an option. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I would suggest you take a read through WP:OWN. His way is certainly an option. An option that is taken in a number of other articles. I won't make a call on settling this discussion since I commented, but had I come across this discussion with no opinion and it was a full request for move, I would have moved it to his opinion because his is backed up by sound reasoning and logic, where is your argument has boiled down mostly to WP:ILIKEIT and other people may have possibly hinted but did not actually say they liked your side, which isn't a very strong case. I would also note that you keep calling the league a non-notable league, its a major NCAA league, the largest in the country and very notable, I would suggest you go tell people say who edit the Big Ten football conference that their league isn't notable and see their reaction, saying the league is a crappy non-notable league is rather ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC) ...and your opinion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I am not convinced. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Not really, he has backed up that its the more primary of the two topics with numbers and can show that policy supports it. I don't like it is simply stating I don't like something so that is no good. He hasn't done that, you on the other hand have. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Obviously you didn't read....WP:DISAMBIG: "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move." So, do let that set for awhile. Oh, and did you forget the admin (User:HJ Mitchell) who reverted the whole thing back to previous? Now we are in a whole state of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, cause it appears you aren't listening. Also, for an admin with no opinion, you seem to have an opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC) See it appears you aren't listening, I didn't say there were rules to determine what is primary. I said he brought facts and numbers showing why he thought it was primary. You have not made a counter argument, instead you keep assuming bad of the person who has supported the redirect and you have pretty much summed up exactly what I didn't hear that is saying. Just because HJ Mitchell reverted it doesn't mean he is right. (and he isn't necessarily wrong either). His reverting it is just part of the bold revert discuss process. I don't have an opinion on where it goes, I do have an opinion that you seem to be trying to stonewall any discussion and keep seeming to discuss the editor and not the position. Stop trying to throw around policies and discuss the situation instead. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I give a counter argument (at least I thought I did) and you seem to think I didn't. I give solid reasoning in the form of a policy and that is "trying to throw [them] around". You are just disregarding what an admin does. You obviously have taken a side here and it ain't mine. I have given you the information you wanted and you DONTLIKEIT and claim I am stonewalling things and talked about the editor when I said NOTHING about the editor who started this whole mess to beging with in my last post. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC) "See it appears you aren't listening" is because Neutralhomer is off in his own little world. For clarification- HJ Mitchell reverted/helped because I was only able to perform an undesireable copy-paste edit. Things were wose before the disambig page. WCHA (AM) linked to the Western Collegiate Hockey Association and WCHA page was the radio station which should be labeled WCHA (AM). His revert wasn't in any way part of this discussion. If I remember correctly he reverted the copy-past then deleted WCHA (AM) allowing me to make the proper move of the radio station info to WCHA (AM) allowing for the WCHA page to either link to the main article on the hockey conference or neutralhomers diambig page. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Ah, a personal attack. See, when you do that, it makes everything you say after that, no matter how strong and convincing, moot. Cause you had to resort to a personal attack. But let's go to your points anyway. You pointed WCHA (AM) to the hockey league with this edit. Not someone else, you. The radio station is already labeled WCHA (AM). The WCHA page is a disambig. It directs people to the pages that are named "WCHA". The hockey league is NOT called WCHA, just like the NFL isn't called the NFL. It is called the Western Collegiate Hockey Association, just like the NFL is called the National Football League. Also, for WCHA, there is the "Wooden Canoe Heritage Association", "World Conformation Horse Association", "Wisconsin County Highway Association", "Weaver Community Housing Association", and of course WCHA Radio. The hockey league is not the only WCHA out there. Since there are more, some not as notable as the radio station and hockey league, they would be included in the disambig page too if they had pages. It is unnecessary to redirect to a hockey league, which only uses "WCHA" as initals (as does many sports leagues) and not its real name, over a disambig page created as a compromise between two editors. It would also be unnecessary to redirect to the hockey league since there are other organizations that use the "WCHA" initals as well. If they would get a page here one day, we would have to go through this all over again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC) The NFL expample is what I've used before. For well known sports leagues the abbreviation is much more widely used. When have you heard some talke about the "National Football League" or the "National Hockey League" or whatever- it's NFL, NHL, MLB... Back to the NFL example- the National Football League is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, NFL redirects there. For other NFL things there is a Diambig page NFL (disambiguation) per WP:DABNAME if a primary topic exists. In that format WCHA would redirect to the Western Collegiate Hockey Association, and you can have the diambig page at WCHA (disambiguation). In addition we already have hatlinks atop the 2 existing pages (a reason we don't need a disambig page until any of those other WCHA's you mentioned are notable enough to be created. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC) But it isn't the primary topic. There are several other "WCHA" organizations out there. Just because it is first on Google doesn't mean it is #1. Give you an example. WTOP-FM, a radio station in Washington, DC is first on a Google search for "WTOP", but WTOP does not redirect to WTOP-FM, it is a disambig page, even though WTOP-FM is the primary topic. Hatlinks are necessary either with the disambig. That was part 1 of the compromise (which you didn't like). So, you can't say, in this one area, that it is a primary topic, when that isn't used in other aspects of Wikipedia. Also, why is it that you have to have it this way, that you can not compromise? What is so freakin' important about this hockey league that is has to have a redirect? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC) "That was part 1 of the compromise (which you didn't like)." I'm the one that put the hatlinks, they're needed no matter what! Not sure where you were going with that. In reguards to the WTOP example a google search is one part of what makes a Wikipedia article a primary topic, the other being the article traffic stats. In the WTOP example there's a number of articles in that disambig page that have views of 1000-3000 per month, then some lesser viewed pages. So there's really no primary topic per wikipedia. In cases like the WCHA, and many of the other major college athletic conferences and professional sports leagues- there is a primary topic. (5000+ per month vs 100-200). That's a case where a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the disambig page should be WCHA (disambiguation) per WP:DABNAME. I personally don't like diambig pages for two articles since we have hatlinks already connecting the two articles, but that's not the issue and it is acceptable to have one. (compromise) Bhockey10 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC) If you don't like "two item disambig pages", then you better not look up any radio or television stations, or airport codes or you will be in for a big disappointment. We have plenty of them and all without hatlinks. It is unnecessary to create a second disambig page at a second location for a redirect. Disambig is already in place at WCHA, it has the information there, it lists the hockey league first, so what is the big deal? There is more links than needed (hatlinks and disambig) to make sure people know of this hockey league. You can't have your cake and eat it too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Whoa, NH, I'd be careful in describing the WCHA as a "crappy" and "non-notable" hockey league, particularly in NCAA Division I. Remember, just because something isn't well-known to you doesn't mean it's not notable. This league has a presence in 8 states and has several large and very notable universities as members and has produced quite a few national champions in a notable sport. The radio station is licensed to a borough of less than 20,000 people and is not even in a major metro area, so its reach is very limited and notability low. I would say make "WCHA" redirect to the hockey league as it is clearly larger and more notable than the radio station. There is a "For" template at the top of the hockey league directing people to the radio station which should remain or could be changed to a "WCHA (disambiguation)" page if such a page remains (I have no problem with a 2-item disambiguation page, but also would not be opposed to nothing at all). The general rule I've seen for a redirect straight to a disambiguation page is when there is no clear "primary" use of a particular term. In this case, however, WCHA clearly seems to be primarily directed at the hockey league. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Neutral, we're getting a little off topic but the hatlinks are fine now since we only have two WCHA articles. If another would be created they should redirect to the disambig page. It's a no brainer according to the wikipedia naming conventions and other guidelines (unfortunetly you noted earlier "There are no absolute rules for determining" this kinda situation. However current guidelines/suggestions indicate that since a Clear primary topic exists through traffic stats, google searches, refs, etc... the format is to redirect to the primary topic and have WCHA (disambiguation) to direct any user between the primary topic Western Collegiate Hockey Association and WCHA (AM).Bhockey10 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, what I said was "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move." No rules, meaning, we, you and I hash it out. We are at an impasse. You want nothing but this redirect and won't discuss anything else, I am personally OK with what we have now and have been more than willing to compromise. There is nothing left to discuss until one of us moves a little and I don't see that happening. As such, no action should be taken by either of us until we reach an agreement, per the rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Neutral has claimed over the entire discussion that I haven't been willing to compromise but since he is so fixed on the WCHA being/having a disambig page, I have been willing to put aside my personal view that two articles don't need a disambig if hatlinks exists. And oh by the way, I did just come across WP:TWODABS that does state, "...As a general rule, if there is only one other topic besides the primary one, then no disambiguation page is created – it is sufficient to have a hatnote on the primary topic article pointing to the other topic." but I'm willing to compromise with Neutral and have a disambig page located at WCHA (disambiguation) with the WCHA redirected to the primary topic, Western Collegiate Hockey Association. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC) No, that has been your idea all along. WCHA will direct to Western Collegiate Hockey Association. That isn't a compromise, that is what you have been asking for from the beginning. It isn't needed and there is a disambig page already setup at WCHA so another isn't needed. Hatlinks were placed. Compromises have been made, but you have not made any but to say "I want this". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC) "I want this" would be you! I have backed my opinion with wikipedia guidelines and other examples, there's also been other editors in this discussion that support those guidelines. You have not provided any evidence or guidelines to back your opinion.Bhockey10 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC) For the fourth time...try reading it all this time: WP:DISAMBIG: "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move." See that first part, that's policy, not a guideline. Policies are bigger than guidelines. Like I said, we have nothing more to discuss since we are at an impasse. If you wish to compromise in a way that both of us will benefit, then I am more than willing to hear it, but if it is more of the "redirect the hockey league to WCHA", don't waste your or mine time. Per the above rule, we and we alone hash it out. Impasse and no compromises means we aren't hashing it out. As per the rules, neither of us should make any changes to the pages until we hash it out. Again, I am willing to hear compromises (which I have made already) and work with you on, but I will not go for a full redirect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Actually a few people now have suggested his preferred version is the way to go, which means its not only up to you two. Sometimes the nature of consensus ends up being that its against you and no compromise is made. I am not saying we are at that point since few have commented so far. But I just want to make you aware, that continuing to quote and re-quote the same thing doesn't help your position. As for what the quote says, your interpretation is only but one. It doesn't say that it has to be editors at this talk page that decide what is enough, and generally the stats etc that he has pointed to are considered by most reasonable people to be sufficient proof of a primary topic. However, based on your persistence along with his well reasoned position, I have decided that he is probably right. So now a few people in this conversation support the change. -DJSasso (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I never thought you didn't have an opinion. I have given many pieces of information that show other instances where the "primary topic" isn't used, again like WTOP. I can show where a disambig is used for two topics WINC is one. This user has refused to compromise on anything. I compromised by agreeing to the move of the page and created the disambig. The user refused to leave it at that. If you look at his edits, he has commented on only this page over the past couple days showing he has a vested interest in this hockey league. He has given no reason other than "it's popular" why it has to be redirected to WCHA and why the disambig page at "WCHA" and the hatlinks aren't sufficent. People keep overlooking the main part of the policy I have quoted 4 times..."There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers". Big part there. No rules. He can quote everything under the sun and that rule will overrule it. There is no rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers, which means, he can not say the hockey league will see more readers than the radio station and I can't say the radio station will see more readers than the hockey league. That is why there is a disambig page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Also just to add to Djsasso's well written explaination, The quote you've pointed out isn't policy. If WP's policy was between only two editors nothing remotely controversial would ever get changed. Wikipedia uses Wikipedia:Consensus to solve editorial decisions. As far as "Vested Interest" I've stated before this isn't an "I like hockey vs radio" thing, I'm invovled in both actually. Since you question my vested interest I'll bring up It's interesting to me that you have created the sister station to WCHA (AM), WHAG (AM) and fighting so hard for your way without any support. And as I've said before, If the radio station had the majority of page views as per traffic stats, page edits/history, refs, google search, etc... then I'd argue that was the primary topic and WCHA should link there and there still be a (WCHA (disambiguation) page. If there were "No Rules" then I would have skipped bringing the topic up on a talk page to gain consensus and done whatever I want. There may not be "rules" but there's guidelines and previous history for this kind of situation. I might see your side if you can show ANY guidelines that remotely support your side. I've looked for them as well but only find ones to back my thoughts. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I created WHAG (AM) for the sole reason is there is a WHAG-TV and there is not official "WHAG-AM" call sign. Both TV and AM pages are linked on the WHAG disambig page which is the standard. So, there is some more "previous history" to go along with WTOP and WINC in the making of disambig pages. I love how I show all this, but peopel say "oh you have nothing to support your side". Shows me people aren't listening and have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Compromise? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) break (Edit conflict) In looking at the WTOP example, that isn't the same as WCHA. All of the WTOPs were radio or TV stations that used the call letters at one time or another, so there is clearly not a definitive WTOP. Same for WINC; that's a two-article disambiguation page that really isn't a good example either since both stations are in the same small town so both have low notability; there's no clear "winner" (they could easily be combined into one article IMO). For WCHA, it's between two completely different things that have nothing in common besides the letters. WCHA, as I and other editors have tried to explain, is far more likely to refer to the hockey league, which is present in 8 states and has pretty high notability just being part of the NCAA's Division I. Is it the same level as Division I football or basketball? No, but the hockey league's notability far outweighs that of a small radio station in rural Pennsylvania. If this were between two stations of the same call letters, I could see your point, but it isn't. This is between two things that share a common set of letters and one has much more notability than the other; it's not even close. I don't even follow college hockey, but I've heard of the WCHA. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC) A note on WINC, we don't combine articles on seperate stations. Just something that WP:WPRS has always done since I got here. When we see a combo page, we split it, unless it is a simulcast like WXNB is. Back to WCHA, there are other "WCHA" organizations by Google search which I listed above and will list again: The hockey league, "Wooden Canoe Heritage Association", "World Conformation Horse Association", "Wisconsin County Highway Association", "Weaver Community Housing Association", and of course WCHA Radio...in that order. We could say that in the off season, the canoe association could be number one search. It is possible with how Google works. WCHA Radio is a constant, it is always there, so are these other organizations. The hockey league, on the other hand, has an off season, it will drop off in hits, since that is what the user is going by mostly, which we actually have rules for (some of them can be used here). But the user, again, refuses to accept or even think about a compromise that doesn't involve creating a direct link to the hockey league via WCHA. I have created a disambig page, he added hatlinks, there really isn't more that could be done except build a big neon sign pointing to the page saying "HOCKEY LEAGUE IS HERE". It isn't like people who type in WCHA are going to miss the hockey league's link at the very top, which the user seems to think they are. It is unnecessary, and only backed up by "it is popular". Disambig pages do the job just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think anyone is saying that WCHA only means the radio station or the hockey league. But in terms of which is the most widely known use of the term, it seems pretty clear that it's the hockey league and the general precedent on Wikipedia is for the term to point to the most common use of the term (it also works for cities: see Cleveland, which points to the city in Ohio despite the fact there are many cities called "Cleveland" in the US and world). All of the reasons you are giving for why it will "drop in hits" are merely speculation and not really relevant to the notability. While the radio station is "constant", who is it constant for? Not that many people. It's already been established it comes from a largely rural area, so it's notability is low, whereas the hockey league is known in at least the 8 states it has a presence in and likely more since hockey enjoys significant popularity and attention in most northern states. As for a compromise, I don't see BHockey not offering any compromise, I just see that his compromise isn't what you want. What he wants is no disambiguation page at all, but is willing to compromise to the point of having a "WCHA (disambiguation)" page instead of "WCHA" being the disambiguation page. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Are you seriously trying to say that because there is an off season, the radio station is primary. During the month of august which is part of the off season the league page had 4000 hits to the radio stations 400. Even during the off season it seems far more look for it than the radio station. -DJSasso (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) If the Wooden Canoe Heritage Association is notable it'd probably already have an article. If Hypothetically it did and was notable and got above somewhere in the 7,000-10,000 page views per month in peak months and 3,000-5,000 "in the off season" for canoeing, had a number of reliable sources/media coverage, large amount of page edits, etc and compared hypothetically to the Western Collegiate Hockey Association which got 100 or 400 per month... then the Canoe Heritage would be the primary article to direct WCHA to. But for now on this planet in 2010, it's the Western Collegiate Hockey Association. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Note: I think we have a Wikipedia:Consensus here. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) @Djsasso: I said "We could say that in the off season, the canoe association could be number one search." Never said anything about the radio station being primary. I was going by the Google hits at present. @JonRidinger: Yeah, he will compromise on the disambig in another location, but he still gets what he has been going on about for weeks now, a direct link to a hockey league on WCHA. That isn't a compromise, that is what he wants. I compromised by accepting the moving of the page, creating the disambig at WCHA and accepting the hatlinks. If anything, I have been more than accommodating to the user. He hasn't budged once. @Bhockey10: Good for you, got your consensus. Roll over the rules, go 'head. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I haven't really "been going on about for weeks now" with this, I left the discussion after the first day on this talk page, in hope other editors would see it and express their support for your side or mine. It only started by another user about 2 days ago. I haven't "rolled over the rules", if the way I'm supporting was against the rules I probably wouldnt have had other users expressing consensus for that way, and there probably wouldnt be neumerous guidelines I've pointed out backing that way. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC) The guidelines are not better than policies, which I have quoted ad naseum. Your last, say, 15 edits have been primarily to this talk page. You have a vested interest in this happening. You got what you started to do exactly 4 weeks ago, so go ahead and do it. Roll over policy, forget MOS, do a little dance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Um, NH, other editors have independently come to the same conclusion as BHockey citing relevant precedent, so there really isn't any disregard for the MOS or guidelines. In fact, as far as I can see it is following other similar cases, like Cleveland or even Kent. This is hardly a case of him just "not letting it go" since other editors have commented. You have just as many comments here as he does. In the end, what you ultimately wanted and what he ultimately wanted could not exist together; not all things can be compromised easily. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Jon, it wasn't that they couldn't be compromised easily, is they weren't compromised at all. The user never showed an ounce of good faith and compromised on anything that doesn't involve creating a direct link to the hockey league to WCHA. That is what the user wanted from September 11, when this started, and what the user wants now. Any compromise the user said he gave, always involved that. I was more than accommodating and until the end, showed as much good faith as I could. This user wasn't interested in working things out to a mutual conclusion, he was interested in getting his way. He did. This can be marked resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Not everything is compromised on. Discussing doesn't necessarily mean compromising. Sometimes compromise isn't the best way to go. -DJSasso (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC) That's pretty much what I was going to say too. In the end, we had two opposite views on the subject, compromises or not. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I really have nothing more to say. This can be marked resolved and closed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC) @Neutral, You've seemed to be very passionate (not a bad thing) and somewhat heated at times about this from the beginning. Don't take it personally, I've lost some discussions, DJSasso is an admin but I'm sure he's had some ideas that consensus among other editors have argued against. I believe you interpreted that one quote you've used incorrectly, mutual conclusion would have been a very quick way but if there was a mutual conclusion there probably wouldn’t have been a discussion. If two side aren't going to "budge" for whatever reasons Wikipedia thrives on consensus. And that's what I was interested in getting, if I was only interested in "my way" I wouldn't have brought it to an open discussion. No matter what the result, just be proud you contributed to Wikipedia and through the discussion we go a consensus. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)