Talk:Attractive Nuisance

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Fair use rationale for Image:Attractive Nuisance.jpg

Image:Attractive Nuisance.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. The hatnotes appear to be (necessary and) sufficient. Dekimasu よ! 02:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attractive nuisance is a legal concept, currently described in Wikipedia in the article Attractive nuisance doctrine. I suggest the legal concept should be the major article under the simple title Attractive Nuisance, and the current article should be renamed to Attractive Nuisance (album). I would add a disambiguation link into the legal concept page to refer to the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Foxworthy (talk • contribs)

Unsure... the name of the article on the legal term would be attractive nuisance (same thing as Attractive nuisance under our software), which already redirects to attractive nuisance doctrine. So Attractive Nuisance is unambiguously the album name, just as The Tempest is a play. Andrewa (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. The legal concept should be lower-cased as it is currently at attractive nuisance doctrine. The album name is a proper noun, so capitalized as Attractive Nuisance and bearing a hatnote to the doctrine's article. Also, an "attractive nuisance" (e.g., an unfenced pool) is not precisely the same thing as the legal doctrine regarding that nuisance. I don't see a problem here. Station1 (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Keeping the simple article names and two simple hatnotes (one of which has already been in place for a year or so and I've just added the other) is a better solution than the proposed move. Nobody will have any difficulty finding the information they want. But if we move as proposed, there will still be a need for hatnotes but they'll be more complicated, and we might even end up with an Attractive nuisance (disambiguation) page, which is overkill. I'm not all too sure whether this quite complies with the existing guidelines, but if not IAR and fix the guidelines in time. Andrewa (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Attractive Nuisance → Attractive Nuisance (album) – Attractive Nuisance should be renamed to Attractive Nuisance (album) and Attractive Nuisance should be turned in to a redirect to Attractive nuisance doctrine. The album is far less notable than the doctrine. The redirect at Attractive nuisance (note capitalization) is fine as it is. Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 policy on article titles.

Support as nom. Right now, a user who types Attractive Nuisance into the search page goes to a different page than a user who types Attractive nuisance into the search page. The hatnotes on each page linking to the other are good, but having both search terms go to the same page is desirable. Most people who search on the term are expecting the legal doctrine, and for those who don't, the hatnote sends them to the right place. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a capitalization difference is not generally regarded as enough distinction to precisely specify the topic of an article. Ambiguity should be resolved via a disambig page and parenthetical disambiguators. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per GM. GregJackP Boomer! 13:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "a user who types Attractive Nuisance into the search page goes to a different page than a user who types Attractive nuisance into the search page" is a GOOD thing because someone typing a capital N wants the album. It's fine as it is. 69.95.62.54 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Practice has been to accept capitalisation as sufficient disambiguation, so the current situation, with the hatnote on the album article, is the correct way to go. Andrewa (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Based on the page views, the doctrine is the primary topic. If enough people believe that the doctrine is not the primary topic and that there is no primary topic, a DAB page should be set up. Ryan Vesey 17:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.