Talk:HP/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

FAQ

This is Rumor Control; here is the consensus:
There is not sufficient notability to include anything Harry Potter-related as part of the disambiguation, for reasons painstakingly detailed in archive 1. Please refer to it prior to initiating conversation that revisits the topic.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled disambiguation page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is that there is no need to include anything Harry Potter-related here until "HP" is covered on the Harry Potter page. There are sufficient citations available in the archives of Talk:Harry Potter to add such information there if anyone would like to do so, and once there it would be fair game here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the problem with that is that no one really thinks it belongs there, either. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs there. You and Regimund did not. Hardly consensus either way. -- JHunterJ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, now now, we both know that there were a few more than that. Besides, certain consensus' had to occur in the Harry Potter articles before such a change could be considered here. They haven't materialized, and so I think the dab page isn't going to crash into utter ruin without the crufty inclusion of Harry Potter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a few more than that on both sides (checking the edit history here). Certain consensus should occur on Harry Potter first, but if certain other consensus was reached here to ignore that guideline, then it would still hold. I retract my claim of utter ruination. Hmmm, I can't seem to find where I said that though. I suspect neither page would crash into utter ruin with the inclusion of the citable HP there and Harry Potter here either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with JHunterJ about this. older ≠ wiser 14:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, I would submit that neither page has crashed due to the exclusion of the non-notable and non-utilized acronymic usage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But that submission has no bearing, since the occasional inclusion of the notable (cite-able) and utilized acronym also caused no crash. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, it doesn't need to be there. It isn't a notable occurrence; apparently, turning your own reasoning back at you was a lost effort. No one types in the term HP expecting to get Harry Potter, outside of fansites and newspaper titles seeking brevity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are somehow using the presence or absence of a crash of WP to determine the need for content inclusion, which is not my own reasoning turned back at me. Yes, it was a lost effort. Someone seeing "HP" in a newspaper article (not just the title -- see multiple cites in the Harry Potter Talk archives) might enter it and expect to get information on what the newspaper was talking about. And you sometimes call its inclusion here cruft, which it isn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(To Arcayne, after ec) So now you are an omniscient authority on how people search for things? older ≠ wiser 12:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was never convinced that there was, well, any justification for disallowing Harry Potter. I note that Harry Potter has been added at least 12 times by uninvolved people since the previous discussion. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] I think that pretty well indicates that people believe Harry Potter is a germane listing, at least by people who haven't belabored this topic. So I suggest we re-add it, since there is above opinions supporting adding it, my own, and 12 other people. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you are suggesting we add it despite notability? Look at all those diffs in another way. While you indicated every time it was added (sometimes by the same people), perhaps you failed to recognize that in each instance it was removed by others. If you think its worth it, submit it for ArbCom. I am one of more than a few folk that think it isn't notable, and I am pretty sure that a wider audience would feel the same way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom? I think we can build consensus here -- so far you're the only editor currently arguing against its inclusion, and if that remains the case, I don't think it's necessary to ArbCom it before returning the entry. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and they were all reverted by the main three people who argued against the inclusion (with two exceptions - one was reverted by an uninvoled editor because it was POV, and the other one the only revert by someone who did not voice an opinion on Harry Potter). So clearly, it is a very small number of editors who don't want the entry. And notability does not apply to disambiguation pages. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So, actually five different editors said it shouldn't be included. thank you for the clarification, but perhaps we can avoid the semantical games, please. All of the people who wanted to add HP as being a commonly used acronym for Harry Potter were - surprise - Harry Potter fans. Most of their basis was that it was used infrequently in toy packaging and in the Harry Potter fanboy forums. One user suggested that the usage of HP in a newspaper headline was enough to warrant inclusion. I ask this very basic question: do people think HP and immediately assume Harry Potter, or do they assume a great many other things first? A lot of people think not. This is not a Harry Potter acquiescence site. Life exists outside of Harry Potter, and the initials HP are not immediately associated with it.

Yes. Five different editors are fighting against at least twelve editors. I was showing that there is not wide-spread, or even significant support of keeping it off, but much more for keeping it on. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, if you feel I am wrong, you are welcome to file an ArbCom complaint about it, as I don't think I've heard convincing arguments to include it. If you believe your viewpoint is correct, go ahead and file, and I and a great many others (who are apparently happy with the way the dab is) will participate.

Btw, could you please point out where "notability doesn't apply to disambiguation pages"? I seem to have missed that in my reading of DAB and notability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dabs aren't articles. Dabs disambiguate articles, regardless of their notability; if the article is non-notable, then the article should be deleted (after which the dab entry might be deleted). In this case moot, since Harry Potter is notable, and Harry Potter is sometimes referred to as HP. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, please point out in policy or guidelines that notes that notability doesn't apply to dab pages.Dab pages rely on the disambiguated term's notability to exist. No notability for the dab term A.G.E.N.T. means that no dab will exist. And Harry Potter being shortened to HP is not of notable or even colloquial usage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) Arcayne, so you acknowledge that there is a considerable mass of people who do refer to Harry Potter using HP, and yet you (and a couple of others) seem bent on suppressing that information. Why? Simply because you have made a determination that in your estimation the connection is not notable, despite having been proven wrong with multiple citations from non-fan sources? older ≠ wiser 12:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I do acknowledge than some fanboys refer to Harry Potter in fan forums as HP, so as to not give themselves carpel tunnel syndrome while writing/responding to/whatever about the latest slashfic about Malfoy and Harry being stuck in a rainy cabin. This is not a notable enough usage for inclusion and, as you so kindly pointed out before, non-notable usages have no place in a dab page.

And keep your comments focused on the edits and not the editor, Bkonrad. It is not my determination, but that of a great many others, who also point out that the usage in a few newspaper sub-headers (to save ad space) isn't notable either. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This so-called determination "of a great many others" looks to me more like the opinions of a small but dedicated few who appear to have a negative obsession with preventing the spread of what they have decided is unmeritorious "fan-boy" cruft. older ≠ wiser 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed me earlier comment about commenting on the edits, and not the editor. Allow me to address it again. You are entitled to your opinion. Tell you what, take it to ArbCom, and we'll see who comes to the aid of HP as a dab term for Harry Potter. It's that simple. Until then, your personal take on what other people's intentions are is pretty much useless. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss that. I've no interest in taking this to ArbCom, and to be honest, I can't possibly see how they would accept the case, unless you are going make accusations about editor behavior. This is a content dispute, which Arbcom traditionally has been very reluctant to get involved except to address behavioral issues. My comments are not so much about "what other people's intentions" are as what the history of edits show -- a very small handful of editors repeatedly removing references added by quite a large number of other editors. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See, I thought you missed it, because you kept on with the personal attacks and whatnot. Maybe you need illustrations to know that I am asking you to stop? WEll, if mediation doesn't work for you, how about AN/I? Get a lot of experienced input there, I would imagine. How about posting to the notability Discussion page? The Disambiguation page? I mean, pointing to a large number of fans who post HP as being an "obvious" term for HP isn't really that much of an argument when the "small" group of editors keeping the cruft out are following wiki policies and guidelines. I suggested a larger forum for this discussion because it seems clear that you are weighing numbers of fanboys as being more important than those following policy. A larger forum would bring a wider circle of thought to the discussion. Surely, you aren't threatened by such a conversation, right?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Threatened? By what? I think you misunderstand. Take the discussion wherever you like. My basic points are that the purpose of a disambiguation page is to distinguish between things for which there is ambiguity in the title. For most disambiguation pages, the criteria is whether the article would share the same title (or are similar enough to cause confustion). Disambiguation pages consisting of abbreviations or acronyms are a bit of a special case in that the articles for many items listed would not typically be at the abbreviation. But items are listed where there is evidence that they are known or referenced by the abbreviation. If the article provides evidence that the subject is known by a particular abbreviation, there is no good reason not to include it on the disambiguation page. This is precisely the point I agreed with JHunterJ about above. The locus of this is really somewhat misplaced in that editors wanting to add Potter references here should first get the point included in the Harry Potter article. It makes little difference that in the opinion of some editors such references are fancruft that are only serving a limited audience. The criteria for inclusion is whether there is documented evidence of the term being used in general press (which I believe has been provided several time now, but rather cavalierly dismissed, since it would have entailed certain editors changing their opinions). older ≠ wiser 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would it hurt soooooo much that a link to Harry Potter was here? Why not add all things that might be used for HP, instead of restricting it. Just to show some examples, AA AB AC, I havent read through all but they at least don't look restrictive, just one Angelina Ballerina on AB must be less notable than Harry Potter for HP... And pls don't go and remove it. Chandlertalk 08:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would it hurt to not have it in? Almost everyone in the world who know who the character Harry Potter is call him and the books about him by name, and not HP. No one reasonably types in HP into a search engine and expects it to pull up Harry Potter references. Only a statistically insignificant number of people (web forum fanboys) use it with any regularity. As I said before, we aren't here to keep them happy. Ever.

As for the Angelina Ballerina dab, thanks for pointing that out. It doesn't belong either. You should go an remove that, as it isn't a notable reference wither in web searches or in the article on the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What I would like to see is how every single listing on this page has notability as being that term. Show me where it says that something must be notably associated with the term. Because I am not seeing it. The only time notable is used on the page is in reference to the topic itself, not whether or not the term is associated with it. And stop trying to get this taken to ArbCom. They won't hear it. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not here to keep fan boys happy... But there's no reason to make edits because the last edit made them happy. And it wouldn't probably hurt anyone, except the ones who come here looking for Harry Potter... Even if its just one in a million. And yes I know that it's only ppl in the harry potter fandom who probably uses "HP" as Harry Potter, but doesn't that make it notable here? "Harry Potter is sometimes abbreviated HP, mostly by Harry Potter fans" or something like that? The person reading here will learn one new thing for the day. And just thought I'd add this here (It might have been up here) [www.hp-lexicon.org HP-lexicon] I know it's a "fan-site", uses HP... and Google when searching for hp ootp gives you www.harrypotterorderofthephoenix.com this means at least google isnt restricting people from using HP as Harry Potter. Also found this, [13] they don't seem to restrict. When "googling" hp gof i got the IMDB link to the movie. I'm just saying, it would hurt "more" to not have it here. ("more" probably meaning 0.00001% more.) Chandlertalk 06:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And a re-run of the news cite I'd come up with before:

• "The cultural agenda". The Sunday Times. 2007-05-27. p. 3. HP and the Order of the Phoenix hits cinemas on July 13 {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Brandy Wilson (2007-07-07). "Pilgrimage church welcomes Potter". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. p. 6J. Pilgrimage Presbyterian ... is hosting "HP (Harry Potter) & JC (Jesus Christ), and Me" vacation Bible school {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• The Observer (England), July 22, 2007, Observer Review Arts Pages; Pg. 30.

If anyone interested in using them would like more, let me know; there are plenty. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

HP for hand phone

This most certainly is a common usage; it's printed on many business cards and adverts. The to and fro on including this is silly.

• Malaysian English vocabulary#E to K (and I didn't put it there)
• see any of these Google results

--Jack Merridew 08:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Whups. I left a note on your talk page before seeing this. Take one or several of those links and cite the inclusion of HP on cellular phone. Historically, Arcayne has also found fault with any citations presented for disputed HP entries, but it's a step that should be taken. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added two cites to Mobile phone. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

a third: http://www.thebalitimes.com/2008/01/18/of-cigarettes-and-cellphones/ --Jack Merridew 13:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its frequently unwise to point to Google results; since the advent of the Google-bombing and other linking practices, it's somewhat less reputable as a means to judge notability. That being said, the inclusion of the Bali Times article does indeed indicate a common acronymic usage for handphone. The earlier Yaelf.com reference should probably be removed, as it is a list of internet slang with very little in the way of authorship and provenance.

And thanks for the AGF, JHunter (yep, that was a bit o' sarcasm). When good, solid pretty indisputable cites are offered, like the one that Merridew presented, I have no problems with them.

Good job on the citation work, Merridew. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm fine with trimming the yaelf links. I'll see if they're gone by tomorrow. FWIW, I just stumbled upon this disambig page and noted what I thought a serious omission. I also expect that this is less common in US circles because of the ubiquitousness of HP→Hewlett-Packard. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I should have considered that people in Indonesia still call it a handphone. I used to surf Bali and had an Indonesian gf. I had forgotten she used to use it, as once she learned how outdated it was here, she stopped using the term, opting for simply calling it a 'cell'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're acting in good faith, Arcayn, but I also assume that you're anti-cruft blinders have kept you from recognizing the solid indisputable cites offered time and again for Harry Potter. And since you've been uncivil in your vigilance of this page, I felt a heads-up was warranted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and thanks for your own AGF. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you be troubled to point out where we allow cruft in Wikipedia? Just one policy or guideline that says include it, and I will take your "anti-cruft blinders" comment as constructive criticism, and not expect you to man up and apologize. With respect, you're an admin; you should be fighting harder than all of us to keep cruft out. I recognize your citations, J - I just don't give them nearly as much rhythm as you are overly willing to do. They aren't "solid" and they aren't "indisputable" (the very fact that they've been disputed here and other places makes that last one a pretty silly point for you to argue).

And my comments to Sidaway were on his page, not here. Perhaps if you weren't busy stalking my edits, you'd understand the distinction, especially since I have heard of your less trackable conversations about me from others. I would ask - politely - that you stop trying to poison the editorial well, grow or locate your AGF, and focus solely n the edits. Now, since we are agreed that Harry Potter doesn't currently belong in the dab page for reasons you have already specified, might I ask why we are still arguing about this? Surely, there are better (read: more constructive) ways to spend our time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not stalking your edits; Bkonrad's and Sidaway's talkpages happen to be on my watchlist, since I've had discussions on those pages before and didn't take them off my watchlist afterwards (maybe I should -- I've got nearly 200 user talk pages on my watchlist now...). As for whatever less trackable conversations you're on about, so everyone else is clear: I have no WP-related conversations except on Wikipedia Talk pages. Based on the above discussion, nobody currently agrees with you that Harry Potter doesn't currently belong in the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Arcayne after ec) Whether something is "cruft" is in the eye of the beholder. Could you be troubled to point out any actual policy (not a guideline or essay) that explicitly says "cruft" is forbidden on Wikipedia. What you disparagingly label as cruft may be of considerable interest to others. In the past, both roads and the articles about U.S. places created by Rambot were widely disparaged as cruft (and yes, people even used that term to describe the articles). Both categories of articles are now generally accepted (although still not without some griping in certain quarters). Using the term "cruft" to describe something that you don't like and don't want to see included in Wikipedia merely demonstrates the vacuousness of your argument. The generally accepted baseline is not whether something is "cruft", but whether there are third-party sources. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, since we are agreed that Harry Potter doesn't currently belong in the dab page for reasons you have already specified, it seems to me that you are the only person here who is arguing against it. I think consensus seems to be turning the other way. (If it was ever your way to begin with) seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There previously was a consensus that the abbreviation should be added to Harry Potter if Harry Potter was to be listed here. I added it to Harry Potter, but it was removed. I still think it should be included on Harry Potter, and have provided references for it if anyone would like to find a suitable place for it. One of the objections before was that the obvious place, the intro, was too prominent, IIRC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when do things have to be added to the target page before it is added to a disambig page? And if there was consensus for that back in October, well, consensus can change. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I never heard that reasoning used anywhere until this came up. I've seen more evidence that HP is used outside fandom to refer to Harry Potter than that it is used outside fandom to refer to hit points. And I never really felt it had to be a usage outside fandom anyway, just a widely used abbreviation that someone might look up. When this came up before, if felt like a lot of people thought Harry Potter should be listed here and were rather surprised by the arguments against. Very few, but very determined, editors seemed to feel that it didn't belong here. I feel that the point of a disambig page is to aid in navigation, and that listing Harry Potter furthers that goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skittle (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the guideline -- disambiguations disambiguate articles, and if the target article doesn't contain the dabbed term, it doesn't need to be dabbed. Yes, consensus can change, and guidlines can be ignored with consensus. The best solution (IMO) is still to add HP to Harry Potter with appropriate citation, as HP was recently added to Cellular phone with citation. But if the consensus at Harry Potter remains to keep HP off the page, then consensus here can still form to include Harry Potter. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am just slow, but where exactly does it say that? seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:D#Disambiguation pages: "Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article." -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

←I interpret that to mean if the subject is related, but not the title itself. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Harry Potter page doesn't want 'HP' on it? Then I'm fine with omitting it here. It's just pop-culture — which I'm infamous for having a low opinion of. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's been no actual consensus there either, though -- just the same handful of editors (including me) putting it up or removing it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look.

I see you're involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation (which I've not looked at either). I'd like to offer a few comments about pop culture, disambiguation and namespace. As you, I'm sure, know, wikipedia has a flat namespace. The glut of articles, abbreviations and whatnot on all manner of subjects (and pop culture is, ah, popular) leads to an increased need for disambiguation and various maintenance activities. This a burden on everyone. Maybe someone's written this up in depth already. I see it as a core argument against tolerating non-notable articles and redirects; disambig page entries, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable articles and redirects can (and should) be deleted. When articles and redirect exist, though, they should be disambiguated appropriately; so it's an argument more for WP:N than WP:D, I think? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)