He is widely known as James Stewart, and is documented as such by primary sources, with Jimmy as secondary. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate and if they don't know his name was James, perhaps Wikipedia should be telling them that it was. Just because most people you know have never heard of James Stewart does not provide a compelling reason to aim his Wikipedia article at their level of knowledge. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Reply This is just an opinion. I'm just not seeing proof beyond your contention about who and what name has primary usage. Born2cycle ( talk) 05:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Reply Again, please support that most people have never heard of James Stewart. He does have primary usage of "Jimmy Stewart" - no question about that. No way does this person (the actor) meet primary usage criteria for that name. Most people I know have never heard of "James Stewart". FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Reply No, I, for one, would not. Rossrs ( talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Reply Yes, that seems reasonable. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Reply I would support this too. Do the persons who oppose the move to Jimmy Stewart also support this alternative? I would support this. Regarding the proposal to make this page name the primary use page for James Stewart, moving the disambiguation page to James Stewart (disambiguation). The following was copied from Talk:James Stewart (actor) - up to and including the Support as primary meaning by DMacks (John User:Jwy talk) 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Reply That is, make the American actor the primary target. James Stewart → James Stewart (disambiguation) - The suggestion is to move James Stewart to James Stewart (disambiguation) and to move James Stewart (actor) to James Stewart. RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 03:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC) h Reply While it doesn't directly apply (since there is no alternative primary topic), coupled with all the other reasons I concluded that James Stewart should remain a disambiguation page. Finally, there is this guideline 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). Third, I found the google rationale persuasive since it pulls up several other James Stewarts on the very first page even if the wikipedia articles pulled up are not discounted. The George Washington argument, while persuasive, is insufficient in this case because he (Stewart) was often enough referred to as Jimmy to add a bit of doubt to the primacy of James AND he is not a famous and iconic historical figure. Clearly there are many topics associated with this term and there should be a strong reason for overriding that guideline. In general, if there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term. A second reason is the sheer number of James Stewarts out there. Add a hefty discount factor for this bias and James Stewart Jr. This is clearly a flawed approach not only because of the Jimmy Stewart redirect but also because of the many internal links, particularly from some of his films (which are classic enough to haunt holiday television!). First, though the number of editors supporting the move is large, many of these do so on the basis of the 'hit statistics'. There are several reasons why I think this is so. The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. No further edits should be made to this section. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. The following is a closed discussion of the proposal.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |